From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: Disproof of "Proof 2" (was *** MoJ: Proof 2: The Passover Prophecy ***)
Organization: University of Turku
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:25:47

In article <1jvcalINNouf@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@silver.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.115444.28751@ucl.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay
> Bhuchar) writes:

> Finally, there is a passage in Isaiah 53 which shows us that Jesus was
> *certainly* not the messiah.  In Isaiah 53:10, it says that "he shall
> see his seed, he shall be prolonged in his days."  This means that the
> subject of Isaiah 53 will have children (seed) and will live a long life.  
> Any learned Christian will tell you that neither of these is true of the
> life of Jesus.  

Here you have to take account the context of the whole chapter. In many 
verses (v.5,7,8,9,12) it is said that the person of whom the chapter 
speaks about will *die*. Thus the verse 10 actually is a prophesy of the
resurrection of the Messiah. Compare to Psalm 16:10:

    "because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let 
     your Holy One see decay."

(See especially the word 'decay' (shachat) -- David's body surely saw 
decay.)

As to the offspring, compare Isaiah 8:18:

    "Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and 
     symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion."

> >Yet
> >it pleased God to put him to grief because he makes himself an
> >offering for sin.

> The Jewish G-d does not recieve pleasure from inflicting people.

Which is not what the above quote says in the first place.

> >Under the Torah, there is no atonement without blood (Lev 17:11,
> >Yoma 5a) and Messiah came to shed his blood for a new covenant
> >(Luke 22:20).

> It has been repeatedly pointed out that in Judaism one man cannot die
> for the sins of another.  Murder is an averah (sin).

Haven't got any references at hand right now, but if I recall it right,
Rav Hillel taught that in every generation there are people who bear the
sins of others -- if there aren't enough righteous men, even children 
are taken. (From memory.)

> Even *if* Jesus *was* a sacrifice of the Jewish people, then why was he
> not sacrificed as one?  Jewish sacrifices (animals, etc.) were
> sacrificed on the altar, not on a cross.  *If* Jesus was the messiah,
> and the son of G-d, why wasn't he killed by the Kohanim on the altar
> in G-d's house.  Certainly Jews would have been more likely to see this
> as a sacrifice for their sake, as opposed to being hung on a cross by
> the Romans.  If Jesus *were* the son of G-d, the G-d would have destined
> Jesus to die on the altar in the Temple, were all sacrifices for the
> Jewish people are made.  This is in accordance with sacrifices for
> Jews which cannot be deviated from.

This is because the sacrifice of Yeshua and the sacrifices ordered in 
Torah are in different levels.

Here's what I wrote about this some time ago (and btw I'm still waiting 
for a reply from Hillel [or anybody]):

----------------------
In article <1992Nov16.222944.12721@cbfsb.cb.att.com> hem@maverick.col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz) writes:
> In article <LJMORLY.92Nov16161600@polaris.utu.fi> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
> >that R. Hillel did consider also the Oral Torah significant. However
> >we must remember that there really are things added to it afterwards,
> >like the idea that sacrifices are no longer needed for atonement, but
> >somehow the Day of Atonement has become the central factor in it, and
> >repentance is enough. That's R. Yochanan ben Zakkai's invention and
> >was not the original Jewish view.

> As posted in the past, this last segment is an invention of the
> missionaries and has nothing to do with Judaism.  Once the temple
> is rebuilt, the sacrifices could be reestablished.  Until then
> proper tshuvah (see RMBM on what is proper tshuva) is what we can
> do.

Lev. 17:11: "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given
it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; IT IS THE BLOOD
THAT MAKES ATONEMENT FOR ONE'S LIFE."

MB>  Until the Temple was destroyed in A.D.  70, Jewish teaching emphasized
     the  necessity of blood atonement.  According to the Talmud, "There is
     not atonement (kapparah) without the  blood"  (Yoma  51;  Zebahim  6a;
     Menahot 93b).

But after there was no temple, Jews who didn't accept Yeshua as the 
sacrifice were in troubles... Rav Yochanan ben Zakkai was walking 
with Rav Joshua when the latter saw the Temple in ruins. He cried out:

    "Woe to us that this is in ruins -- the place where the sins of
     Israel were expiated !" Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai replied: "My
     son, be not grieved, we have a means of atonement that is 
     commensurate with it. Which is this ? It is the performance of
     acts of lovingkindness, as it is said, 'For I delight in loyalty
     rather than sacrifice' [Hosea 6:6]." (Avot de Rabbi Nathan 4:18)

Thus teaching against Scriptures was considered better than accepting the
sacrifice of Yeshua. Furthermore, there were signs that implied that
God didn't even accept the temple sacrifices anymore, like that a cord
stopped turning white and the doors of the temple started opening by
themselves. 

Yet even the disciples of Yeshua continued doing the sacrifices as 
ordered in Torah until the destruction of the temple. The relationship
between animal sacrifices and the Lamb that God provided can be seen
so that Yeshua is the ultimate meaning of the whole sacrificial system.
Thus even before him all sacrifices were merely symbolic; they couldn't
take away the sins, only turn away the wrath of God. The longing for 
the Redeemer, who would restore our relationship with God, is seen e.g.
in the book of Job.

Job 19:25: "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will
stand upon the earth/my grave."
--------------

> >The passage of Isaiah 53 was always considered Messianic until
> >the middle ages.  

> Jews do not deny messianic prophecies or the virtues of the prophets.
> We only deny that Jesus was the messiah; and we believe that Isaiah 53
> equally could refer to any Jew who has suffered (potentially tens of
> millions of people).  

Here I wouldn't use the word 'we'. Don't forget there are already more
than 200,000 Jews who *do* believe that Yeshua is the Messiah !

> >At some point, the sages changed over to interpreting this fine
> >piece as referring to the nation Israel.  Whilst Israel IS called
> >a servant, it is NEVER referred to as a RIGHTEOUS servant.

> Please prove this.  There is no reason to believe that sages followed
> *only* one opinion during one period of time and then universally
> switched at a later point in time.  This is not how Judaism works.
> The sages (I assume that you are referring to the rishonim) were great
> chachamim and we follow their lead and expand upon, and adapt, their
> teachings.  What you are implying is that some time after the rishonim
> there was a universal movement to break from their teaching.  This is
> not consistent with Judaism, and therefore is a disregardable without
> textual citation (in context) and proof.

But this is exactly what happened. Harvey, Bill, Vijay & others have
continuously been posting quotes which aren't in the normal Jewish 
teaching because of their too close reference to Christianity. 
The development of Rabbinic Judaism is a continuous path *away* from 
Tanach. Just read haBrit haChadasha and you'll see it's perfectly 
consistent with Tanach. 

> Gedaliah Friedenberg
> -=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
> -=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
> -=-Michigan State University

- Laura

--
"Who has gone up to heaven and come down ?
 Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands ?
 Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak ?
 Who has established all the ends of the earth ?
 What is his name, and the name of his son ?
 Tell me if you know !"      - Mishlei 30:4