@curiousdannii Thank you for voting and commenting.
@El'endiaStarman or any other mod: I would like to request that the entire conversation in comments between me and @Joshua on the above-linked answer be deleted. It is a debate about the substance of the answer, which isn't what comments are for. It has been taken to chat, and there is no good reason to leave it on the question. The question provides an answer from the perspective requested by the question.
@curiousdannii They could say that it's about an individual, but not about Jesus Christ. But the Jewish commentaries I read made persuasive arguments that it doesn't match their understanding of the Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible.
@curiousdannii I'm not dismissive of them. I would simply like to see some scholarship that doesn't approach the subject with the purpose of showing that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah. The Talmud is big. There is lots of stuff in it. And from what I understand, a lot of it does not agree with other parts. A more balanced scholarly piece would not look only for quotes that support a particular position.
@curiousdannii I'm not a Talmud scholar. I have no way of knowing whether a Jews for Jesus article provides a balanced view of the Talmud as a whole, or whether it selectively quotes only those passages that support a Messianic Jewish perspective.
@El'endiaStarman Though my vanity would enjoy having the OP's comment and my response undeleted, it basically amounts to a "thanks" comment--which is what upvotes are for. So I'm for leaving the entire body of comments deleted.
@El'endiaStarman I'd prefer the first comment be undeleted. An indepth discussion on answers is not inappropriate, but one saying that a case was overstated and could be fleshed out better is constructive I think
@El'endiaStarman It's still debating the substance of the question. I'm really rather tired of having to deal with Protestants, Catholics, etc., commenting on my answers and saying, basically, "No, you're wrong." And that's what that comment is doing. Please leave it deleted.
@El'endiaStarman I am pointing out a possibly factually incorrect statement that is the first key to your first point of your answer. I'm not sure where Lee's definition of comments is coming from. At the time I posted it I had no way of knowing you were aware or not.
The appropriateness of singular comments that point out a(t least one) flaw in an answer is iffy in some cases, and I think this is one of those cases. I'm okay with leaving it for now, but ideally, it will be deleted, sooner or later, as non-constructive or too chatty.
@Joshua Are you talking to me or him? It's Lee's answer, so you seem to refer to him in the second and third person... :P
@Joshua I'm sorry, but @curiousdannii is one of my chief ideological opponents here on this site. He disagrees with my positions on almost everything. So unfortunately, he's not the most objective observer on what comments are and aren't "constructive" in relation to my posts.
@Joshua If @El'endiaStarman thinks your initial comment is constructive, I'll accept that decision of his.
Primarily, comments are intended to be transient and non-permanent. They were designed to ask questioners for clarification and the like, and to point out false information in answers or ask for clarification. It has to be objectively false, in the sense of correcting someone who said something like "George Washington issued the Emancipation Proclamation". A mere difference in opinion isn't necessarily enough.
That's why I'm iffy on that initial comment. Extended discussions are definitely supposed to be in chat, not comments.
Okay, looking at the answer and comment again, I'm leaning towards leaving the comment as-is. The answer says "Jewish commentaries say the 'Suffering Servant' is Israel", implying that all of them do, and the comment says "Not all Jews!" That does seem like a factual inaccuracy, and could easily be fixed by prepending "some" in a few places.
@Joshua In response to your comments and the other conversation here, I have modified the first section of the answer to make the tone less definite about the "original meaning" of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. If my edit brings the answer to something you can at least not object to as "factually incorrect," then I would invite you to delete your comment, and I'll delete my response.
@El'endiaStarman It says:
> Jewish commentaries regularly identify Israel collectively as "the suffering servant."
@LeeWoofenden I still don't like this: "this should be done with an awareness that this is a reinterpretation of prophecies that most likely were originally about the Jewish nation." But I suppose it's better and that could be seen as a transition into the next section. Thanks.
@JackDouglas He is brilliant,Me and my brother are great fans of him.I mostley read classics,Russian great authors,Tolstoy,Turgenev and so on.Love classical art and wish I did live for about 2oo years ago.So to hear a man like that with great understanding,of that kinda world,why we are concervative, Is a blessing!He would be a great prime minister
@JackDouglas Right now I dont have much work.Work from time to time.I use to work in construction and for a carpenter company.I was thinking about studying theology,but I think I wont,because I dont think I will learn the really important stuff,that a christian should know to live a life in the spirit.
I was talking with the university,but then I did change my mind
But since i did change my mind about studying Theology I think i will go back to working full time.
@Eagel what verse is that? I'm thinking of James 4:2 but that wasn't Jesus speaking
@Eagel I'd differentiate between charismatic behaviour that is the overflow of joy in the heart intersecting with the natural cultural expression of the believer, and charismatic behaviour that is affected to get status in the eyes of fellow men or to 'fit in'. Having the eyes to see which is which is a valuable gift of discernment.
@JackDouglas When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. (true I guess I did thi of Jesus because of the verse: "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. .. Anyway are we talking about Asking or demand?
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. (but the preacher also did use this verse.. I think it was in that way the we should undertsand the demand part,but here it says until now
i respect that preacher so I would like to understand it
but no preacher is perfect
Interesting enough if you ask something you do not know the answer but if you demand or claim it,something else.New Living Translation You can pray for anything, and if you have faith, you will receive it."(that could explain this verse
> Many translations have “entereth violently into it” (ASV) or “is forcing his way into it” (NASB, NIV). This is not true of everyone. It is better to read the verb here as passive rather than middle, and in a softened sense of “be urged.” See Gen 33:11; Judg 13:15-16; 19:7; 2 Sam 3:25, 27 in the LXX. This fits the context well because it agrees with Jesus’ attempt to persuade his opponents to respond morally. For further discussion and details, see D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT), 2:1352-53.
That's actually from Luke 16:16
Matthew 11:12 has:
> …For a somewhat different interpretation of this passage, see the note on the phrase “urged to enter in” in Luke 16:16.
@Eagel there is violence in v18-19 which corresponds to the time period in v12. I wouldn't worry too much about what "…and the violent take it by force" might mean aside from the context — it is very likely to mean something in accordance with the context here I think.
The application is probably more like "don't denigrate either John the Baptist or Jesus" rather than something about how we ought to pray.
@LeeWoofenden The question is more on Are we to ask God for stuff or claim it:james 4:2 and matt 21:22:You can pray for anything, and if you have faith, you will receive it. And is there a connection to :From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. (11:12
@JackDouglas Not sure,but the verse is interesting because How do we pray and have enough faith or what kinda faith that is so solid we can ask for anything and we will get it.So the mindset behind it all is interesting
@Eagel The note on the NIV translation of Matthew 11:12 offers as an alternative to "the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence" "the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing"--i.e. since John the kingdom of heaven has taken on great force and power in moving forward.
@Eagel If we understand it that way (and I'm inclined to think that's what it means), Jesus is saying, basically, that until John, the Kingdom of heaven was not making much progress, but since John began preaching, the kingdom of heaven has been making great strides forward. IOW, John's preaching began a great movement forward in the advancement of the kingdom of heaven.
And the next words, traditionally translated, "and the violent take it by force" (KJV) could have that meaning, or it could mean "and forceful people eagerly seize upon it"--i.e., people with the force of character to be able to resist and break away from the existing religious authorities are eagerly seizing upon the kingdom of heaven as it forcefully advances.
Or those words could have a dual meaning: both that violent people are attempting to seize the kingdom in order to violate and destroy it and people of moral force are seizing upon it to adopt it and press it farther forward through their own efforts.
See the various definitions of the Greek word translated "seize" or "take by force" here: ἁρπάζω.
@Eagel Though Jesus does, of course, speak much of the meek and mild, and how they will accept the kingdom, he also speaks of people of forceful character who, despite much resistance and rejection, simply will not give up until they achieve what they are seeking.
For example, "The Parable of the Persistent Widow" in Luke 18:1-8.
I just read.Just want to say something That is The Stat Lutheran Church in a country in scandinavia. have agreed to cover the cross in the church during funerals because The ateist will feel ok then to come to the funeral(Funny thing about stuff like this,often this comes from people in gouverment who have there political agenda not from the people in general) Crazy what is going on right now
@Eagel So although Jesus does teach patience and waiting for the kingdom, and accepting it in a more passive way, he also preaches the benefits of pressing eagerly and forcefully toward it, seizing it and claiming it for ourselves. And even if we may be doing that for somewhat self-involved reasons, our very force and persistence in seeking it and claiming it can push us through to actually achieving and experiencing it.
@LeeWoofenden "It's about initially seeking God largely as a self-driven quest for self-preservation" might be true,that we think to much about that.But I also look for miracles because its such an essential part of the kingdom and gospel.So a church without that cant be complet.But maybe self-presevation is blocking that,I dunno
@Eagel I believe that Jesus and his disciples used miracles because people of that time were largely external and sense-oriented in their character. They therefore needed external signs to be attracted to the message. But the true message is not one of physical healing, but of spiritual healing. And I see the reform of sinners into saints as the greatest miracle of Christianity--far greater than the external signs and wonders described in the Gospels.
I believe that the external signs and wonders recorded in the Gospels are meant to point us to those greater, spiritual signs and wonders that will accompany us if we take Jesus Christ into our mind and heart, and allow him to transform us from the inside out.
This, I think, is the force of Jesus' statement:
> Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. (John 14:12)
@LeeWoofenden Think the devil came to steal and murder and lost everything on the cross to Jesus.The essential of all true fight is rooted in the spiritual world.So the rulers of the heavenly places have no powers over Jesus,and now God did send us The same way as Jesus to bring light to the world and shows us,That Jesus has freedom from everything that connected us to death in every way.But we live in a world that trys to say there is no spiritual world,they do not see it,if they did ..
everyone would run to Jesus! The savior of the world
New Living Translation The world's sin is that it refuses to believe in me. john 16:9
@JackDouglas FJERNE KORS Biskop Eva Brunne vil fjerne kristne symboler fra «Sjömanskyrkan i Stockholm» og i stedet lage bønnerom for muslimer. – Et katastrofalt forslag, svarer prest. I Norge har Human-Etisk forbund vært en pådriver for å fjerne kors fra kirkebygg i tilknytting begravelser. Intensjonen har vært å gjøre lokalene mer «religionsnøytrale». (translated means: Bishop Eva Brunne want to remove christian symbols and make a prayerrom for muslim
@Eagel I see Jesus' death on the cross, not as subsitutionary in the usual Catholic and Protestant sense of the word, but rather as standing for us between us and the Devil, and defeating the power of the Devil, which we could never do. The crucifixion was Jesus' final battle, and final victory, over the Devil, death, and hell, by which he saved us from the Devil's power.
@Eagel The cross has never been as strongly used in my church as in most traditional Christian churches. The cross was certainly important, but in traditional Christian theology the crucifixion of Jesus has essentially become salvation, when we believe that it was the entire life, work, and teaching of Jesus, culminating in the crucifixion, that brought about our salvation, not merely Jesus' death on the cross by itself, as traditional Christian theology generally holds.
Some of our churches use crosses, others do not. And some do, but de-emphasize it.
The Swedenborgian church of which I was a pastor back in Massachusetts did not use a cross for many decades after its founding in the mid-1800s. But at one point the church decided to put a small cross over the altar.
When we hosted interfaith weddings, such as Jewish/Christian weddings, we had no objection to the couple covering the cross with a bouquet of flowers or some other decoration so that the Jewish attendees could enjoy the wedding without having to continually have Christian symbolism looking at them from the chancel.
@LeeWoofenden The point is,they need to respect as well when they come to the church,that this is a church,and if we remove the cross we say in many ways the cross is not that important.We do not help them by covering the cross.If they want to come to church there welcome.But a church is a church.Marriage is the Stat Lutheran church is no more man and woman its man and man and so on,,and a priset can live with another man yes even marry him and now they can even be blessed to live there life.
Now even taking away the cross.Whats next?
The same argument everytime We need to include everyone! and that will tear the church apart.They are removing the roots of everything
@Eagel To my mind, it's much more important to live like a Christian than to display Christian symbolism.
Also, unfortunately, much violence has been done to Jews and others in the name of Christianity over the centuries. In the minds of those who have been at the receiving end of that violence, the cross has a very different meaning.
@Eagel The cross is not the same as Christianity. The earliest Christians rarely if ever used it. It came into use in the second or third century. It's not as though putting a cross in our churches is something that was commanded by Christ or by any of the original Apostles.
@Eagel He doesn't say, "Anyone who doesn't display a cross in their church is unworthy of me." "Taking up our cross" is following in his footsteps. That's what he's talking about, and that's the most important thing for a Christian.
Many "Christians" and "Christian" churches prominently display crosses and other Christian icons, but don't lift a finger to help their fellow human beings, and even engage in bigotry and racism in the name of Christ. Are they better than people who don't display crosses, but love their neighbor as themselves?
@LeeWoofenden yes no one is saying having a cross on the wall will save the universe or saved by it or anything else.But it is apart of destroying a concervative doctrine,not because of light over the word but more apart of including everyone at any cost
@Eagel The difference I have with you on this is that I don't think that the cross as a symbol is fundamental to Christianity, and I don't think that covering it up from time to time out of respect for those who find it offensive and painful is all that great a cost compared to showing compassion and respect for our fellow human beings who don't share our particular faith, and may have been harmed by it in ways we don't even realize.
@LeeWoofenden But its never people who ask for it,its politics, the gouverment that have to think for other people,humanists,I would never ask A muslim to change anything in there house.Its there house .. let it be.I take off my shoes when i enter anothers house
The muslims would never ask us to take down the cross,they respect religion ,only they who have no respect would ask another to take it down and only they who have no respect for themselvs would do it.
They don not respect religion the humanist,dont buy the "bullshit" (i guess thats rude in america)
@Eagel I believe that Christians are called upon to rise higher than people of other faiths, and do greater things--meaning greater things of the spirit. We're not called upon to measure ourselves by how Jews or Muslims or humanists or atheists act, or to live by their principles. We're called upon to live by the spiritual principles that Christ taught us. And if we don't show greater love and tolerance for others than the world does, what right do we have to claim the name of "Christian"?
Clinging to external rituals and symbolism is not what Christ taught.
@LeeWoofenden I'm fine with a church taking down crosses and or other symbols in order to be sensitive to a group. But take them down and leave them down. Show Christ through the body of the church. But just hiding it on certain occasions is an entirely different precedence and mindset to me. It speaks more of embarrassment than love.
@LeeWoofenden Not the point Lee.Where not clinging to anything in that way.You know the jews talk about mitzva or commandment ,they guard the commandents ,we have faild to guard the right marriage,fail to keep a doctrine that keeps the priest to live a clean life.This is possible because the chruch have lost ground.Just a sign what is going on.And if we just take the cross down ,where saying something to the world.
That said @Eagel One must know the details of some of those cases. Such as, is the building even owned by the church? Some congregations assemble in places that are shared with other denominations or even faiths.
@Eagel which is then rented out to various multi faith events like weddings or funerals not associated with the church body itself? May be more of a business decision if it is helping to support the church. Which is, at least in part, an entirely different debate.
@Eagel I have a different view. I think that traditional Christianity has long since abandoned the teachings of Christ in favor of human doctrines and interpretations. The institutional Christian church is losing ground today, in my view, because society is finally seeing it for what it is: a poor excuse for a "Christian" institution.
@Joshua No this is A State lutheran Church.. they supported by the state with millions!
@LeeWoofenden one should consider where this is happening,A state church with and old protestant church that are supported by the state and millions use the church,and in just a few years .. the most central is gone!
The cross is just a sign of the lack of faith
Has nothing to do with respect
And another thing,looking at the symbols they take away,super rude to the artist behind it.who made the craft,not the cross but everything else they hide
@Eagel ohhh...well...uh.... State institutionalized churches, as a whole, never stay spiritually productive. Simple history. Individual congregations, many of them within the church, can defy this for centuries, but what is Caesar's should stay Caesar's.
I honestly wouldn't have expected anything different if you had given me that description of the church first, before the curtains thing.
@Joshua They vote over everything,pure democratic church
@Joshua But I would like to add(i take back my pure democtaric statment) A swedish preacher was talking about a church,Ulf Ekman said: This church is dead.And then He said God said to him:Never call my church dead,as long as it is my church it cant be dead.
@Joshua Not entirely. As I said earlier, the church I was a pastor of in Massachusetts had a small cross over its altar in the chancel. It commonly got covered when we had events such as interfaith marriages in which some of the participants and attendees would find the cross problematic. In fact, some interfaith couples chose our church for their ceremony precisely because the one cross in the sanctuary was easily covered with flowers or a hanging decoration.
Most of the churches in town had big, prominent crosses all over the place.
I believe displaying a cross is an external thing that is quite optional. I have no problem with churches having crosses that can be covered when non-Christian or not entirely Christian events are being held there.
@Eagel When the church becomes affiliated with the state, it almost automatically becomes corrupted. When Christianity became the state religion of Rome, that's when it started going downhill fast. That's also the time when the non-Biblical doctrine of the Trinity of Persons took over as the key doctrine of the church.
@LeeWoofenden hmm except Tertullian predates institutionalization by 100 years? The leaders at Nicean council were not apathetic institutionalized church leaders. Say you disagree with it, fine, but that shouldn't require twisting history