Mistranslated Verses "Referring" to Jesus. How can Christians ignore/deny the Hebrew scholars?

So you visited a Jewish website.

That's nice.

But anything you say here has been refuted quite well by those who also are Hebrew scholars, who have examined the Scriptures, and come to believe beyond all doubt that Jesus Christ is in very fact the promised Messiah, as born out by the Hebrew scriptures.

this man can refute any argument you can present against Jesus being the Messiah:

http://askdrbrown.org/

The Jews Denied The Promised Messiah which was Promised since Genesis If you "Truly" read Scripture n understand it. For the very fact of them denying The Messiah and Crucifying him they must go through what Scripture says in Revalations. Though Jews Are GOD's Original People Of his Promise (Abraham's Descendants). satan has blinded many so that they don't recognize truth when they read it. Jesus IS the Prophesied messiah. Read Gen. 3:15,Gen.22:18,Gen.49:10,Deu.18:15,

Isa.7:14,Isa.42:1-4,Isa.9:2-6,Isa.53,Isa.61:1(Jesus Quoted n fullfilled this in Luke 4:16-21) Zac.9:9(fullfilled in Mathew 21:1-11)ect. Theres plenty more.

Please Remember and read Mathew 10:33.

May Our GOD Almighty Guide You In The Name Of The Father,The Son,and The Holy Ghost! Amen!! Halellujah!!!!!! GOD IS GOOD!

A) "Alma" was many times understood to mean "virgin". When Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew texts into Greek a few hundred years BEFORE Christ (Septuagint), they deliberately used the Greek word for "virgin". Moreover, if you read the text as simply meaning "young girl", you run into problems. Married women were not referred to as "alma", so any young girl who was pregnant was by definition a harlot --not exactly someone who the Jews would posit as the mother of some great figure. Scandalous implications aside, this text is taken to mean an incredible sign from God. A regular woman becoming pregnant isn't exactly something out of the ordinary is it? Women get pregnant all the time! And WHY is this baby who is a great sign from God only end up being an insignificant footnote in Jewish history, if he even shows up at all?? One would think that someone important enough for God almighty to speak of would at LEAST show up on the radar of significance in some way. So not only is the modern Jewish insistence that "alma" is not virgin in complete contradiction with the ancient JEWISH scholars who wrote the Septuagint, it also makes no sense in the context in which it was written.

B) First off, how can the Jews atone for their OWN sins? Secondly, isn't it morally repulsive to suggest that the suffering of one group of people heals the sins of humanity? Sorry, but you really do play with fire when you assert things like that. Lastly, yes, the OT many times uses the term "my servant" as synonymous with the Jews. Messianic prophecies use the term "my servant" in some cases, such as Isaiah 53. But remember, Abraham sacrifices a ram instead of his son Isaac. The ram then becomes the symbol of the Jews. But who is the ultimate sacrificial lamb that is required to bridge the distance between man and God? God the Father sacrifices his son so that the world may live. Jesus is the ultimate ram/lamb, and Abraham's sacrifice was ulitmately prophetic. The ram who is sacrificed so that Abraham's descendants may live, is symbolic of those descendants. The lamb who is sacrificed so that mankind may live, is what Abraham's sacrifice was foreshadowing. The point, again, is that the symbol of the Jewish people, IS the sacrificial ram. Hence, many messianic prophecies use notions of the Jewish people, as meaning the messiah himself.

Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that: "salvation is from the Jews". If Isaiah 53 truly meant that Jewish people are everyone else's salvation (which flirts with the idea that Jews are to be borderline worshipped by everyone else), then you would read Jesus's words in a straightforward manner. However, Jesus is using a play on words. "Yeshua", his own name, means "salvation". So yes, salvation DOES come from the Jews, but the Jews themselves are not the source of this salvation. The source of "jewish salvation" for the world is YESHUA.

EDIT: Criticizing Christians who can't read in the original Hebrew MAY be true, but Muslims invariably criticize those who can't read arabic when they find themselves in a corner with regards to violence in the Quran. Yes, it could be true, but something smells rotten in Denmark.

Short Answer: Because those in power know they can make the Bible say whatever they want, and those that believe them will defend what they are told no matter what.

Long Answer: I find myself very fortunate to have grown up with a grandfather who was not only highly educated (3 master's degrees in ethics, business, and law) but also highly religious. He constantly pushed me to question my own beliefs, to take nothing said as the absolute word of God at face value, and to always respect the theological choices of others.

Many years later, now a grown man, I find myself half bemused and half disheartened at the number of people who blindly list off verses from a 2,000 year old tome in defense of their violence, hatred, and ignorance. Yet, I understand that the ability to manipulate religious texts into justifying all manner of horror against our fellowman is not limited to merely the Bible. While others have attempted to stem this flow of ignorance by simplifying the texts or taking the words in their spirit, the damage to humanity has already been done.

People who want to hate will find a passage or verse that gives them free reign to do so. Those that want to love will find even more passages to verses. In the end, my hope rests in the humble idea that love is greater than hate, good is stronger than evil, and man will someday overcome its fear of the unknown.

Yup. That is about right.

Xtians have tried to make Isaiah fit jesus for years. They mistranslate and misinform and misinterpret to suit their needs. As you can see with some of the answers you got here, they simply look for things that say they are right and do not do any real analysis.

Ask Dr Brown? Brown is wrong on MANY points and loses most every debate he has with real Jews (Brown is an evangelical xtian who happened to be born to Jewish parents and is simply an apostate/heretic in the eyes of real Jews. He has refuted NOTHING and in fact many have refuted Brown. He is a nice guy but he is dead wrong about what he says Judaism is but many xtians seem to think because he was born to Jewish parents he is has magical ability to translate and interpret Torah. I have a friend who's grandparents were Irish catholics. Does that mean he has some automatic ability to interpret the catholic bible..even though he himself is Jewish? NO. Somehow, many imbue Brown with this uncanny ability though. Its amazing.

If xtians read Isaiah themselves, they would figure it out but they can't read it in Hebrew so they have to be spoon fed the xtian interpretations (from Hebrew, to Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin to English) from people who they think have all the answers and then refute those who disagree with the xtian writings.

Xtians don't accept the knowledge of Hebrew scholars or Jewish texts from Jewish leaders because we don't back up THEIR beliefs. I even had one guy tell me that he would learn Hebrew but only from a xtian teacher (nothing like willfully keeping yourself ignorant).

So the answer in short (I know, too late for me to give a short answer) is that they refuse to accept it because they NEED it to be about jesus. If it is not about him, then it calls some of their beliefs into question. They think they know our Torah and how to interpret it better than we do. Arrogance at its most extreme though is when they evangelize us...telling us what Isaiah means. It is BEYOND maddening.

Try being a Jew and have xtians throw this at you. It makes you want to slap them (almost literally)

A. The quality of the translations in the Septuagint varies greatly from book to book. It does alright with Torah, those were translated separately. But the Septuagint's, ahem, translation of Isaiah is very poorly done. That book - and those mistakes - carry the bulk of the Christological weight.

Another part of the problem is the Christian tendency to read Jewish texts as if they were sound bytes. Jews understand that every verse is part of a much larger whole and the rest of that context is crucial to reading it. We read in paragraphs, chapters, books; the skilled amongst us are fluent in their ability to pull in references from elsewhere.

When you read in sound bytes, you get the mention of the sign and the birth close together. When you read in paragraphs, you see that the sign was the special name, which was a common enough motif. Look at how often the explanation for a kid's name is given or a name changed along the way. A signifying name was important, but hardly rare.

B. The divisions into chapters and verses aren't Jewish. They're another bit of Christian creativity, yet many people read them as if they have meaning and significance, as if the whole thing was written that way. Isaiah 52 and 53 are definitely meant to be read together as one unit.

Singular used as plural and plural used as singular seem to confuse many Christians, at least when it comes to sacred texts written in another language. They make a big deal out of Elohim being structurally plural but rarely bother to look at the verbs which accompany it. Those are singular, a superior indication that the noun is functionally singular as well.

Judaism has a rock solid sense of itself as a collective. It absolutely works for us to talk about ourselves with a singular noun. The song cycle in Isaiah reflects that.

Neither of these uses should be problematic for English speakers. English has plenty of examples of structurally plural, functionally singular nouns as well. We use them so naturally we don't even think about it. The only difference for most Christians is that Hebrew isn't their daily language and they need to learn its quirks.

C) Why do Christians ignore all of this? Cultural conditioning, lack of fluency in the original language, including awareness of that language's conventions and usage patterns, a polar opposite theology colouring all of their interpretations. But it all comes down to this - Christianity has tied itself deeply (and unnecessarily) to another culture's sacred texts and their theology is dependent on misunderstanding and misrepresenting those writings.

If they read our texts correctly, they lose their entire framework.

A. I should certainly hope that a young woman would conceive. The words "young woman" do not in any take away from the concept of virgin birth.. That is directed connected with "the woman's seed" in Genesis 3. So God advocates pagan impregnation. Certainly not.

B. Regarding Isaiah 53. The text states "He was bruised for our iniquities. He bore our sicknesses." According to Jewish interpretation that it refers to them as a people, then the our would be them, and the he would be them too. That would mean that they'd be their own redemption but that would be pride to rely upon themselves. God advocates that. Certainly not.

The knowledge of the language is not being properly observed by any scripture that speaks of the Messiah when Christians apply it to Jesus.

Because of the following scripture. "The stone that the builders rejected has become the precious cornerstone." -118:22-23.

Your original premise is debatable, and assumes that God has allowed knowledge of Himself on this planet to remain severely limited. The scriptures, any portion of them, indicate that that is not His purpose.

they wouldn't be Christians then would they...they be Jewish

On the point of Alma, it is pedantic and disingenuous to quibble on this point. Alma means a young maiden, who by very definition WOULD be a virgin. this is especially true if said "alma" was to be used by God to give a special sign.