Comments by "Danshe" (@DanSh97) on "AM I WRONG for Believing in Jesus? | Street Interview" video.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. @tennitakara  I have. 53:8: “As a result of the transgression of my people [the nations] he [Israel] has been afflicted.” The literal rendering of this verse is: “From the transgression of my people the stroke [nega‘] to them.” That is, because of the transgressions of the Gentiles the servant (Israel) suffered. The speaker is the Gentile spokesman. As regards the word lamo, “to them,” grammarians recognize that it is also in a sense singular, “to him” (as it is in non-poetic usage), because it agrees with certain singular nouns. As in this verse, lamo, the poetic form of lahem (“to them”), is used often in referring to a collective noun. Examples are, Genesis 9:26 (where it refers to Shem, that is, the descendants of Shem); Psalms 28:8 where it refers to the people of verse 9; Psalms 73:10 (also in reference to “people”); Isaiah 44:15 (in reference to ’el [a god] and pesel [a carved image], which are also to be understood respectively as referring collectively to all false gods); and finally Isaiah 53:8. The translator of the Hebrew, into the Greek Septuagint, understood the proper use of lamo when rendering Isaiah 44:15: “That it might be for men to burn: and having taken part of it he warms himself; and they burn part of it; and bake loaves thereon; and the rest they make for themselves gods, and they worship them.” Lamo is generally rendered “to him” as it refers to the collective noun, servant, that is, the Jewish people, not a single individual. In such an instance, lamo can be translated in the singular. Although it must always be understood to be in the plural in relation to what numerically constitutes the entity that is given the appellative servant. The plural nature of the poetic form lamo is supported by the manner in which it is used in the Jewish Scriptures. Isaiah uses lamo eleven times: 16:4, 23:1, 26:14, 26:16, 30:5, 35:8, 43:8, 44:7, 44:15, 48:21 and 53:8. This poetic usage especially works well in verse 8. Although the subject of chapter 53 is given throughout in the singular, the change to the plural form in verse 8 is fully accounted for when the servant of God is considered to stand collectively for the people of Israel. That the plural lamo in verse 8 refers to the servant as a collective noun excludes any possibility that it pertains to an individual. Therefore, it cannot refer to Jesus.
    1
  20. @tennitakara  53:9: “his grave was set with the wicked” The burial of Jesus How was Jesus’ grave “set with the wicked”? Some Christians connect “wicked” with the two lestai (“thieves,” “brigands”) executed alongside Jesus (Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27; “others,” in John 19:18). Other Christians connect the lestai with, “a company of evil-doers have enclosed me” (Psalms 22:17 [verse 16 in some versions]). But, crucifixion was not the punishment for common criminals. Lestai was a derogatory Roman term for insurrectionists, who, by armed action, opposed Roman rule. These two men were more likely put to death for opposing Roman rule of the land of Israel and not for being “wicked.” In any case, the Gospels say, Jesus was not buried with them. The point is made by Christians that he was buried in a new empty tomb. As such, he was buried alone, and there is nothing in the New Testament narrative to illustrate how “his [Jesus’] grave was set with the wicked” in fulfillment of this statement. 53:9: “and his grave was set … with the rich in his deaths” The burial companions: first the wicked now the rich. How was Jesus’ grave “set … with the rich in his deaths”? Christians identify Jesus as the subject of “with the rich in his deaths” to be in conformity with the Gospel of Matthew. It is only in Matthew’s narrative that Joseph of Arimathea is identified as a “rich man” (Matthew 27:57) who laid the corpse of Jesus “in his own new tomb” (Matthew 27:60). In Mark, he is described simply as “a prominent member of the Council” (Mark 15:43). Luke describes him as “a member of the Council, a good and righteous man” (Luke 23:50). In John, he is “a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one” (John 19:38). It is not by chance that Matthew 27:57 specifically identifies Joseph as “a rich man from Arimathea.” Given Matthew’s propensity for adding biblical allusion to his narrative it is no wonder that he alone adds that Joseph was rich and that he placed Jesus’ corpse in his own tomb thereby supposedly fulfilling: “And his grave was set . . . with the rich.” Grave refers to the lands of exile; rich refers to the powerful men and institutions of the nations among whom the personified people of Israel are exiled; deaths is descriptive of the horrendous violent suffering of exile. The phrase “in his deaths” signifies that the servant experienced literally and figuratively multiple “deaths” in exile. The character of Joseph of Arimathea was introduced into Matthew’s Gospel narrative as a rich man in order to show a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9, which says that God’s servant will be buried “with the rich.” This is but one more example of Matthew attempting to introduce supposed biblical “fulfillment of prophecy” into his narrative. The material peculiar to Matthew is a creation of its author’s own imagination. It should be emphasized that despite the claim that Jesus was buried in a rich man’s tomb, he was not buried “with the rich.” The Gospels make a point of stating that Jesus alone was buried in the tomb" (Luke 23:53, John 19:41). Thus, if Jesus was buried in the new tomb of Joseph, then he was buried with neither the wicked nor rich but alone. Not only was Jesus not buried with the wicked and the rich, but he was also not the servant.
    1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. @artdent5388 sorry I didn't see your post until now. Let's go through Zecharia 12:10. 10. "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication, and they will look onto Me whom (et asher) they have pierced and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep for Him like the weeping over a first born. 11. In that day there will be a great mourning in Jerusalem like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12. and the land will mourn every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself; and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself; and their wives by themselves..." The Christian reading of this passage is somewhat problematic. The words "Me" and "Him" makes it quite obvious that the text is speaking of two different subjects. The gospel of John acknowledged this and therefore rendered the passage as, "they shall look on Him whom they pierced." This New Testament mistranslation of Zechariah in and of itself demonstrates that the New Testament is fallacious. To interpret this passage that at some future time the "Jewish people shall look unto Me (G-d/Jesus) whom they (the Jewish people) pierced" does not seem to be what John had in mind. It is important to note that according to John, Zechariah's prophesy was fulfilled at the time that the Roman soldiers pierced the side of Jesus. As it says in John 19:36, "For these things came to pass that the scripture might be fulfilled." John saw the two different subjects of Zechariah's passage as the Roman soldiers and Jesus. "They (the Roman soldiers) shall look on Him (Jesus) whom they (the Roman soldiers) pierced. There is an additional problem in this passage. The Hebrew words "et asher" are not found very often in scripture. When they do occur together the phrase is read as "concerning whom" or "concerning that" but never as "whom". You can see this by reading the Hebrew original of Ezekiel 36:27. (It is also interesting to note that the Septuagint does not translate "et asher" as "whom." Its translation does not at all resemble the Christian interpretation.) The correct translation of Zechariah 12:10 should be."they will look onto Me concerning whom they have pierced and they will mourn for him" This is consistent with the two subjects. By reviewing the context we can also understand of whom this passage is speaking. Starting with the beginning of Zechariah chapter 12 the prophet speaks of a time when the nations of the world will be gathered against Jerusalem to destroy it (Zec 12:3). On that day, G-d Himself will defend Jerusalem and destroy all of its enemies (Zec 12:4-9). G-d will pour out a spirit of grace and supplication toward the Jews. Grace is requested from G-d and supplication are directed to G-d. This new spirit will motivate the Jewish nation to look towards G-d concerning those Jews (collective Jewish Martyrs) (see Hosea 11:1 for the Jewish people described as him. See Ex.1 etc. verbs of oppression in singular. Cf. Deut 32, Hos 8:3 and Ex. 19:2) who have been killed in battle prior to G-d's divine intervention in fighting our adversaries. All the inhabitants of Jerusalem will mourn. This has obviously not yet been fulfilled, now or when the Roman soldier looked at Jesus. This understanding is validated by the scriptural description that this mourning in Jerusalem would be "like the mourning of Hadadrimmom in the Valley of Magiddo." This refers to the death of King Josiah who was killed in battle with Pharaoh Neco (2 Kings 23:29-30). After his death all of Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him (2 Chron 35:22-25). In the same way that the Jews mourned over King Josiah who died in battle so too will the Jewish people in the future mourn over their war dead.
    1
  40. 1
  41. 1