Youtube comments of Danshe (@DanSh97).

  1. 17
  2. 8
  3. 7
  4. 4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. @user-co2li1vd5d  Trinitarian Christians maintain that Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 11:7 are proof-texts of an alleged tri-unity god, but this claim is erroneous. The inference that "Let us make man in our image" ((Genesis 1:26)) refers to the plurality of God is refuted by the subsequent verse, which relates the creation of man to a singular God, "And God created man in His image" ((Genesis 1:27)). In this verse, the Hebrew verb "created" appears in the singular form. If "let us make man" indicates a numerical plurality, it would be followed in the NEXT verse by, "And they created man in their image." Obviously, the plural form is used in the same way as in the divine appellation,"Elohim, to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God's attributes of authority and power, the plurality of majesty. It is customary for one in authority to speak of himself as if he were a plurality. Hence, Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel what we shall do" ((2 Samuel 16:20)). The context shows that he was seeking advice for himself,' yet he refers to himself as "we" ((see also Ezra 4:16-19)). There is another possible reason for the use of the plural on the part of God, and that is to manifest His humility. God addresses Himself to the angels and says to them, "Let us make man in our image." It is not that He invites their help, but as a matter of modesty and courtesy, God associates them with the creation of man. This teaches us that a great man should act humbly and consult with those lower than him. It is not unusual for God to refer to His heavenly court (angels) as "us," as we see in Isaiah 6:8, "And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?'" Although God often acts without assistance, He makes His intentions known to His servants. Thus, we find "Shall I conceal from Abraham that which I am doing" ((Genesis 18:17)); "He made known His ways to Moses, His doings to the children of Israel" ((Psalms 103:7)); "For the Lord God will do nothing without revealing His counsel to His servants the prophets" ((Amos 3:7)). A misconception similar to that concerning Genesis 1:27 is held by trinitarian Christians with reference to the verse, "Come, let us go down, and there confound their language" ((Genesis 11:7)). Here, too, the confounding of the language is related in verse 9 to God alone, ". . . because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth." In this verse, the Hebrew verb "did" appear in the singular form. Also, the descent is credited in verse 5 to the Lord alone, "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower." In this verse, the Hebrew verb "came down" appears in the singular form. If a doctrine of plurality of persons is to be based on the grammatical form of words, the frequent interchanging of the singular and the plural should vitiate such an attempt as being without foundation or merit. We may safely conclude that the Bible refutes most emphatically every opinion, which deviates from the concept of an indivisible unity of God. Chapter 45 of Isaiah, using the Tetragrammaton, unequivocally asserts that the Lord alone is the creator and ruler of all things in the universe. The six uses of 'Elohim in this chapter ((verses 3, 5, 14, 15, 18, 21)) show that the term 'Elohim is synonymous with the Tetragrammaton, and that both epithets refer to the absolute one-and-only God. The singularity of God, expressed in the first-person singular in verse 12, clearly shows who is meant by the phrase, "Let us create man in our image": "I, even I, have made the earth, and created man upon it; I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." As for the Messiah, of him God says, "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even My servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and My servant David prince among them; I the Lord have spoken" ((Ezekiel 34:23-24)). The Lord alone will be worshiped as God, while the Messiah, as the servant of God, lives with the people. God and the Messiah are not and can not be equals, for it is God alone who gives the Messiah power to rule in the capacity of His appointed servant.
    2
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. @kareemmitchell7357  Long day at work and just got home, so I see I missed a lot. Let me try and address each point as best I can. I do have to look up quotes as I unfortunately didn't memorize where every verse is in the Torah yet. In this passage the first word (LORD) in Hebrew is the four-letter (yud-hai-vav-hai) sacred name of G-d. However the second (Lord) is a completely different word spelled (aleph-dalet-nun-yud). Although this letter combination of letters can spell a name of God, there is no example in Tanach where this particular form (prefixed by the Hebrew letter “lamed- ל” which mean “to,”) is used to mean “to my God.” This "Lord" is the Hebrew word "adoni,"(pronounced adonee), with a “chirik” vowel under the letter yud. It means “to my master" or “to my lord” with a lower case “L” like the “lord of the manor.” In modern Hebrew, it is used like the English word "sir" or “master.” The phrase “slicha adonee” means “excuse me sir.” Based on this mistranslation many Christian English New Testaments intentionally capitalize the letter “L” to promote their opinion that this word is Divine. In English the word “Lord” and “lord” may be pronounced the same but one is Divine and the other is not. In Hebrew it is not uncommon to have a word that can either Divine or human depending on the context. An excellent example is the Hebrew “Elohim” that can mean either a human judge or God. For example: “In the beginning God (Elohim) created” Genesis 1:1 “Then his master shall bring him to the judges (elohim) Exodus 21:6 The first example refers to God the second to human judges. This word is also used to refer to idols. It is important to note that there are Christian translations like the Oxford Study Edition that recognize the mistake in Psalm 110 and correctly translated it as “The Lord said to my lord” with a lower case “L.”
    1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. @kareemmitchell7357  Just saw your response and, when looking it up, came across a great article answering it. I am quoting others here, but it's worth posting since I couldn't have said it better myself. Christian commentators who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah 48:16 as, "The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me." However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: "And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit." The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho ("He has sent me, and His spirit"), with "me, and His spirit" being the direct objects of "sent." Even though a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle 'et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4. In fact, 'et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him. The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal tri-unity god, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? We see that the Jewish Scriptures teach that "spirit" does not refer to the third person of a tri-unity god. Thus God says to Moses, "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them. . . . And He took of the spirit which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied. . . . And Moses said . . . 'would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them'" (Numbers 1:17, 25, 29). Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.
    1
  67. 1
  68. @kareemmitchell7357  As I was looking up the verse you mentioned, I came across this answer. I couldn't have said it better myself. Christian commentators who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah 48:16 as, "The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me." However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: "And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit." The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho ("He has sent me, and His spirit"), with "me, and His spirit" being the direct objects of "sent." Even though a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle 'et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4. In fact, 'et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him. The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal tri-unity god, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? We see that the Jewish Scriptures teach that "spirit" does not refer to the third person of a tri-unity god. Thus God says to Moses, "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them. . . . And He took of the spirit which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied. . . . And Moses said . . . 'would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them'" (Numbers 1:17, 25, 29). Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.
    1
  69.  @kareemmitchell7357   As I was looking up the verse you mentioned, I came across this answer. I couldn't have said it better myself. Christian commentators who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah 48:16 as, "The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me." However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: "And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit." The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho ("He has sent me, and His spirit"), with "me, and His spirit" being the direct objects of "sent." Even though a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle 'et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4. In fact, 'et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him. The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal tri-unity god, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? We see that the Jewish Scriptures teach that "spirit" does not refer to the third person of a tri-unity god. Thus God says to Moses, "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them. . . . And He took of the spirit which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied. . . . And Moses said . . . 'would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them'" (Numbers 1:17, 25, 29). Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.
    1
  70.  @kareemmitchell7357  As I was looking up the verse you mentioned, I came across this answer. I couldn't have said it better myself. Christian commentators who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah 48:16 as, "The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me." However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: "And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit." The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho ("He has sent me, and His spirit"), with "me, and His spirit" being the direct objects of "sent." Even though a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle 'et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4. In fact, 'et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him. The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal tri-unity god, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? We see that the Jewish Scriptures teach that "spirit" does not refer to the third person of a tri-unity god. Thus God says to Moses, "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them. . . . And He took of the spirit which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied. . . . And Moses said . . . 'would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them'" (Numbers 1:17, 25, 29). Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.
    1
  71.  @kareemmitchell7357   As I was looking up the verse you mentioned, I came across this answer. I couldn't have said it better myself. Christian commentators who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah 48:16 as, "The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me." However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: "And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit." The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho ("He has sent me, and His spirit"), with "me, and His spirit" being the direct objects of "sent." Even though a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle 'et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4. In fact, 'et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him. The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal tri-unity god, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? We see that the Jewish Scriptures teach that "spirit" does not refer to the third person of a tri-unity god. Thus God says to Moses, "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them. . . . And He took of the spirit which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied. . . . And Moses said . . . 'would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them'" (Numbers 1:17, 25, 29). Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.
    1
  72. @kareemmitchell7357  As I was looking up the verse you mentioned, I came across this answer. I couldn't have said it better myself. Christian commentators who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah 48:16 as, "The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me." However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: "And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit." The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho ("He has sent me, and His spirit"), with "me, and His spirit" being the direct objects of "sent." Even though a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle 'et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4. In fact, 'et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him. The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal tri-unity god, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? We see that the Jewish Scriptures teach that "spirit" does not refer to the third person of a tri-unity god. Thus God says to Moses, "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them. . . . And He took of the spirit which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied. . . . And Moses said . . . 'would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them'" (Numbers 1:17, 25, 29). Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.
    1
  73. As I was looking up the verse you mentioned, I came across this answer. I couldn't have said it better myself. Christian commentators who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah 48:16 as, "The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me." However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: "And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit." The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho ("He has sent me, and His spirit"), with "me, and His spirit" being the direct objects of "sent." Even though a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle 'et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4. In fact, 'et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him. The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal tri-unity god, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? We see that the Jewish Scriptures teach that "spirit" does not refer to the third person of a tri-unity god. Thus God says to Moses, "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them. . . . And He took of the spirit which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied. . . . And Moses said . . . 'would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them'" (Numbers 1:17, 25, 29). Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.
    1
  74. @samuelguzman5348  Yesterday, I had just gotten back from work and rushed to answer. I looked into the verse more, and please see the following. 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 can not refer to Jesus.
    1
  75. @samuelguzman5348  Long day yesterday and rushed to give an answer, which usually doesn't do me good lol. Please see below. 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
  76. 1
  77. @samuelguzman5348  When I last answered, I tried to rush my reply without looking up the verse, which is never a good thing. Please see below. 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 into 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 can not refer to Jesus.
    1
  78. @samuelguzman5348  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
  79. 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
  80. @samuelguzman5348  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 can not refer to Jesus.
    1
  81. @lexzenis2544  Sorry, my response disappeared again. Please see below. Some Christians argue that the verse: “Lament like a betulah girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth” (Joel 1:8) provides clear proof that betulah does not necessarily mean “virgin.” But the argument is faulty since this verse may refer to a young woman who is bereaved of the man to whom she had recently been betrothed and with whom she did not consummate her marriage before his death. In biblical times, a betrothal was considered as binding as a marriage, and there were formal ceremonies to celebrate it. (cf. Deuteronomy 22:23-24, where such a woman is punished as an adulteress if she cohabits with another man.) This loss is truly a deep tragedy, hence its use as a simile for extraordinary lamentation. The idea of extreme sorrow and anguish is here portrayed by the figure of a betrothed maiden who laments the death of her future husband. According to the Torah, during the period in which a couple is betrothed, before the actual marriage, they were legally bound to each other and could separate only through a formal act of divorce. Deuteronomy 22:23f makes it clear (cf. also Genesis 29:21) that a betrothed virgin was known as a “wife.” Consequently, her betrothed would be termed “husband.” This also seems to be the understanding of the verse as found in the Septuagint. There it is rendered, “Mourn for me, for a bride [numphe] girded with sackcloth [who mourns] over the husband of her virginity [ton andra autes to parthenikon].” There is no doubt that the word as used in Joel 1:8 as always elsewhere in the Jewish Scriptures has the meaning of “virgin.”
    1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. @faustinem9071  In their effort to substantiate the belief in a triune deity, Christians have alleged that a prophecy given by Jeremiah supports their contention. The prophet declares: Behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is his name by which he will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6) Christians argue that only God could properly bear the name Y-H-V-H tsidkeinu — “The Lord is our righteousness.” However, names are often given to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, with the intention of expressing honor to God (e.g., Exodus 17:15, Jeremiah 3:17). It is not at all strange to find biblical names which incorporate the divine name within them. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the name is there to tell us why the Messiah’s rule will be just and equal for all, the source of the Messiah’s righteousness is God. “The Lord is our righteousness” indicates that God will direct His Messiah’s every step. The inclusion of God’s name signifies the total submission of the Messiah’s every action to the will of God. The Lord is our Righteousness is not an everyday name, but a descriptive title disclosing the level of honest judgment and compassion the Messiah will dispense as God’s wholehearted representative. That this is not an ordinary given name is seen in that when a biblical personality has a name which contains the word Y-H-V-H, the full name of God is never included in the person’s name. Most often the name takes the shortened form y-a-h (e.g., Isaiah, “God is Salvation”; Zechariah, “God Remembers”), or some other shortened form of the name, such as, y-h (e.g., Joshua, “Help of God”; Jehoshaphat, “God has Judged”). Nowhere are all four letters, Y-H-V-H found together in that form in a name given to a human being for everyday use. The bearer of the title The Lord is our Righteousness is imbued with the renown and reputation of God but he is not God or part of God. He will in a very real and concrete way emulate the full meaning of the righteousness of God expressed in this name. We find that the name chosen in the Bible for a child is often descriptive of the parents’ wishes or expectations for the personality that is to mature. This is also evident in the renaming of adults in the Bible, e.g., Jacob becoming Israel (Genesis 35:10). The name (or title) “the Lord is our righteousness” is one given to the Messiah when he is already a mature adult, not one given to him at birth. The Messiah will be a visible testimony of God’s activity as were the prophets, and like them he is not part of the Godhead. The name explains the very character and essence of the one bearing the name as being totally in sync with God’s righteousness. By no means is there the slightest hint that the Messiah’s being is of divine origin.
    1
  92. 1
  93. @faustinem9071 of course my original response was deleted by youtube. Please see below. In their effort to substantiate the belief in a triune deity, Christians have alleged that a prophecy given by Jeremiah supports their contention. The prophet declares: Behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is his name by which he will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6) Christians argue that only God could properly bear the name Y-H-V-H tsidkeinu — “The Lord is our righteousness.” However, names are often given to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, with the intention of expressing honor to God (e.g., Exodus 17:15, Jeremiah 3:17). It is not at all strange to find biblical names which incorporate the divine name within them. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the name is there to tell us why the Messiah’s rule will be just and equal for all, the source of the Messiah’s righteousness is God. “The Lord is our righteousness” indicates that God will direct His Messiah’s every step. The inclusion of God’s name signifies the total submission of the Messiah’s every action to the will of God. The Lord is our Righteousness is not an everyday name, but a descriptive title disclosing the level of honest judgment and compassion the Messiah will dispense as God’s wholehearted representative. That this is not an ordinary given name is seen in that when a biblical personality has a name which contains the word Y-H-V-H, the full name of God is never included in the person’s name. Most often the name takes the shortened form y-a-h (e.g., Isaiah, “God is Salvation”; Zechariah, “God Remembers”), or some other shortened form of the name, such as, y-h (e.g., Joshua, “Help of God”; Jehoshaphat, “God has Judged”). Nowhere are all four letters, Y-H-V-H found together in that form in a name given to a human being for everyday use. The bearer of the title The Lord is our Righteousness is imbued with the renown and reputation of God but he is not God or part of God. He will in a very real and concrete way emulate the full meaning of the righteousness of God expressed in this name. We find that the name chosen in the Bible for a child is often descriptive of the parents’ wishes or expectations for the personality that is to mature. This is also evident in the renaming of adults in the Bible, e.g., Jacob becoming Israel (Genesis 35:10). The name (or title) “the Lord is our righteousness” is one given to the Messiah when he is already a mature adult, not one given to him at birth. The Messiah will be a visible testimony of God’s activity as were the prophets, and like them he is not part of the Godhead. The name explains the very character and essence of the one bearing the name as being totally in sync with God’s righteousness. By no means is there the slightest hint that the Messiah’s being is of divine origin.
    1
  94. @faustinem9071  In their effort to substantiate the belief in a triune deity, Christians have alleged that a prophecy given by Jeramiah supports their contention. The prophet declares: Behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is his name by which he will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6) Christians argue that only God could properly bear the name Y-H-V-H tsidkeinu — “The Lord is our righteousness.” However, names are often given to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, with the intention of expressing honor to God (e.g., Exodus 17:15, Jeremiah 3:17). It is not at all strange to find biblical names which incorporate the divine name within them. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the name is there to tell us why the Messiah’s rule will be just and equal for all, the source of the Messiah’s  righteousness is God. “The Lord is our righteousness” indicates that God will direct His Messiah’s every step. The inclusion of God’s name signifies the total submission of the Messiah’s every action to the will of God. The Lord is our Righteousness is not an everyday name, but a descriptive title disclosing the level of honest judgment and compassion the Messiah will dispense as God’s wholehearted representative. That this is not an ordinary given name is seen in that when a biblical personality has a name which contains the word Y-H-V-H, the full name of God is never included in the person’s name. Most often the name takes the shortened form y-a-h (e.g., Isaiah, “God is Salvation”; Zechariah, “God Remembers”), or some other shortened form of the name, such as, y-h (e.g., Joshua, “Help of God”; Jehoshaphat, “God has Judged”). Nowhere are all four letters, Y-H-V-H found together in that form in a name given to a human being for everyday use. The bearer of the title The Lord is our Righteousness is imbued with the renown and reputation of God but he is not God or part of God. He will in a very real and concrete way emulate the full meaning of the righteousness of God expressed in this name. We find that the name chosen in the Bible for a child is often descriptive of the parents’ wishes or expectations for the personality that is to mature. This is also evident in the renaming of adults in the Bible, e.g., Jacob becoming Israel (Genesis 35:10). The name (or title) “the Lord is our righteousness” is one given to the Messiah when he is already a mature adult, not one given to him at birth. The Messiah will be a visible testimony of God’s activity as were the prophets, and like them he is not part of the Godhead. The name explains the very character and essence of the one bearing the name as being totally in sync with God’s righteousness. By no means is there the slightest hint that the Messiah’s being is of divine origin.
    1
  95. In their effort to substantiate the belief in a triune deity, Christians have alleged that a prophecy given by Jeremiah supports their contention. The prophet declares: Behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is his name by which he will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6) Christians argue that only God could properly bear the name Y-H-V-H tsidkeinu — “The Lord is our righteousness.” However, names are often given to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, with the intention of expressing honor to God (e.g., Exodus 17:15, Jeremiah 3:17). It is not at all strange to find biblical names which incorporate the divine name within them. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the name is there to tell us why the Messiah’s rule will be just and equal for all, the source of the Messiah’s righteousness is God. “The Lord is our righteousness” indicates that God will direct His Messiah’s every step. The inclusion of God’s name signifies the total submission of the Messiah’s every action to the will of God. The Lord is our Righteousness is not an everyday name, but a descriptive title disclosing the level of honest judgment and compassion the Messiah will dispense as God’s wholehearted representative. That this is not an ordinary given name is seen in that when a biblical personality has a name which contains the word Y-H-V-H, the full name of God is never included in the person’s name. Most often the name takes the shortened form y-a-h (e.g., Isaiah, “God is Salvation”; Zechariah, “God Remembers”), or some other shortened form of the name, such as, y-h (e.g., Joshua, “Help of God”; Jehoshaphat, “God has Judged”). Nowhere are all four letters, Y-H-V-H found together in that form in a name given to a human being for everyday use. The bearer of the title The Lord is our Righteousness is imbued with the renown and reputation of God but he is not God or part of God. He will in a very real and concrete way emulate the full meaning of the righteousness of God expressed in this name. We find that the name chosen in the Bible for a child is often descriptive of the parents’ wishes or expectations for the personality that is to mature. This is also evident in the renaming of adults in the Bible, e.g., Jacob becoming Israel (Genesis 35:10). The name (or title) “the Lord is our righteousness” is one given to the Messiah when he is already a mature adult, not one given to him at birth. The Messiah will be a visible testimony of God’s activity as were the prophets, and like them he is not part of the Godhead. The name explains the very character and essence of the one bearing the name as being totally in sync with God’s righteousness. By no means is there the slightest hint that the Messiah’s being is of divine origin.
    1
  96.  @faustinem9071  My replies keep being deleted. In their effort to substantiate the belief in a triune deity, Christians have alleged that a prophecy given by Jeremiah supports their contention. The prophet declares: Behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is his name by which he will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6) Christians argue that only God could properly bear the name Y-H-V-H tsidkeinu — “The Lord is our righteousness.” However, names are often given to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, with the intention of expressing honor to God (e.g., Exodus 17:15, Jeremiah 3:17). It is not at all strange to find biblical names which incorporate the divine name within them. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the name is there to tell us why the Messiah’s rule will be just and equal for all, the source of the Messiah’s righteousness is God. “The Lord is our righteousness” indicates that God will direct His Messiah’s every step. The inclusion of God’s name signifies the total submission of the Messiah’s every action to the will of God. The Lord is our Righteousness is not an everyday name, but a descriptive title disclosing the level of honest judgment and compassion the Messiah will dispense as God’s wholehearted representative. That this is not an ordinary given name is seen in that when a biblical personality has a name which contains the word Y-H-V-H, the full name of God is never included in the person’s name. Most often the name takes the shortened form y-a-h (e.g., Isaiah, “God is Salvation”; Zechariah, “God Remembers”), or some other shortened form of the name, such as, y-h (e.g., Joshua, “Help of God”; Jehoshaphat, “God has Judged”). Nowhere are all four letters, Y-H-V-H found together in that form in a name given to a human being for everyday use. The bearer of the title The Lord is our Righteousness is imbued with the renown and reputation of God but he is not God or part of God. He will in a very real and concrete way emulate the full meaning of the righteousness of God expressed in this name. We find that the name chosen in the Bible for a child is often descriptive of the parents’ wishes or expectations for the personality that is to mature. This is also evident in the renaming of adults in the Bible, e.g., Jacob becoming Israel (Genesis 35:10). The name (or title) “the Lord is our righteousness” is one given to the Messiah when he is already a mature adult, not one given to him at birth. The Messiah will be a visible testimony of God’s activity as were the prophets, and like them he is not part of the Godhead. The name explains the very character and essence of the one bearing the name as being totally in sync with God’s righteousness. By no means is there the slightest hint that the Messiah’s being is of divine origin.
    1
  97. @faustinem9071  In their effort to substantiate the belief in a triune deity, Christians have alleged that a prophecy given by Jeremiah supports their contention. The prophet declares: Behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is his name by which he will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6) Christians argue that only God could properly bear the name Y-H-V-H tsidkeinu — “The Lord is our righteousness.” However, names are often given to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, with the intention of expressing honor to God (e.g., Exodus 17:15, Jeremiah 3:17). It is not at all strange to find biblical names which incorporate the divine name within them. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the name is there to tell us why the Messiah’s rule will be just and equal for all, the source of the Messiah’s righteousness is God. “The Lord is our righteousness” indicates that God will direct His Messiah’s every step. The inclusion of God’s name signifies the total submission of the Messiah’s every action to the will of God. The Lord is our Righteousness is not an everyday name, but a descriptive title disclosing the level of honest judgment and compassion the Messiah will dispense as God’s wholehearted representative. That this is not an ordinary given name is seen in that when a biblical personality has a name which contains the word Y-H-V-H, the full name of God is never included in the person’s name. Most often the name takes the shortened form y-a-h (e.g., Isaiah, “God is Salvation”; Zechariah, “God Remembers”), or some other shortened form of the name, such as, y-h (e.g., Joshua, “Help of God”; Jehoshaphat, “God has Judged”). Nowhere are all four letters, Y-H-V-H found together in that form in a name given to a human being for everyday use. The bearer of the title The Lord is our Righteousness is imbued with the renown and reputation of God but he is not God or part of God. He will in a very real and concrete way emulate the full meaning of the righteousness of God expressed in this name. We find that the name chosen in the Bible for a child is often descriptive of the parents’ wishes or expectations for the personality that is to mature. This is also evident in the renaming of adults in the Bible, e.g., Jacob becoming Israel (Genesis 35:10). The name (or title) “the Lord is our righteousness” is one given to the Messiah when he is already a mature adult, not one given to him at birth. The Messiah will be a visible testimony of God’s activity as were the prophets, and like them he is not part of the Godhead. The name explains the very character and essence of the one bearing the name as being totally in sync with God’s righteousness. By no means is there the slightest hint that the Messiah’s being is of divine origin.
    1
  98. @faustinem9071  In their effort to substantiate the belief in a triune deity, Christians have alleged that a prophecy given by Jeremiah supports their contention. The prophet declares: Behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is his name by which he will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6) Christians argue that only God could properly bear the name Y-H-V-H tsidkeinu — “The Lord is our righteousness.” However, names are often given to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, with the intention of expressing honor to God (e.g., Exodus 17:15, Jeremiah 3:17). It is not at all strange to find biblical names which incorporate the divine name within them. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the name is there to tell us why the Messiah’s rule will be just and equal for all, the source of the Messiah’s righteousness is God. “The Lord is our righteousness” indicates that God will direct His Messiah’s every step. The inclusion of God’s name signifies the total submission of the Messiah’s every action to the will of God. The Lord is our Righteousness is not an everyday name, but a descriptive title disclosing the level of honest judgment and compassion the Messiah will dispense as God’s wholehearted representative. That this is not an ordinary given name is seen in that when a biblical personality has a name which contains the word Y-H-V-H, the full name of God is never included in the person’s name. Most often the name takes the shortened form y-a-h (e.g., Isaiah, “God is Salvation”; Zechariah, “God Remembers”), or some other shortened form of the name, such as, y-h (e.g., Joshua, “Help of God”; Jehoshaphat, “God has Judged”). Nowhere are all four letters, Y-H-V-H found together in that form in a name given to a human being for everyday use. The bearer of the title The Lord is our Righteousness is imbued with the renown and reputation of God but he is not God or part of God. He will in a very real and concrete way emulate the full meaning of the righteousness of God expressed in this name. We find that the name chosen in the Bible for a child is often descriptive of the parents’ wishes or expectations for the personality that is to mature. This is also evident in the renaming of adults in the Bible, e.g., Jacob becoming Israel (Genesis 35:10). The name (or title) “the Lord is our righteousness” is one given to the Messiah when he is already a mature adult, not one given to him at birth. The Messiah will be a visible testimony of God’s activity as were the prophets, and like them he is not part of the Godhead. The name explains the very character and essence of the one bearing the name as being totally in sync with God’s righteousness. By no means is there the slightest hint that the Messiah’s being is of divine origin.
    1
  99.  @faustinem9071  In their effort to substantiate the belief in a triune deity, Christians have alleged that a prophecy given by Jeremiah supports their contention. The prophet declares: Behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is his name by which he will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6) Christians argue that only God could properly bear the name Y-H-V-H tsidkeinu — “The Lord is our righteousness.” However, names are often given to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, with the intention of expressing honor to God (e.g., Exodus 17:15, Jeremiah 3:17). It is not at all strange to find biblical names which incorporate the divine name within them. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the name is there to tell us why the Messiah’s rule will be just and equal for all, the source of the Messiah’s righteousness is God. “The Lord is our righteousness” indicates that God will direct His Messiah’s every step. The inclusion of God’s name signifies the total submission of the Messiah’s every action to the will of God. The Lord is our Righteousness is not an everyday name, but a descriptive title disclosing the level of honest judgment and compassion the Messiah will dispense as God’s wholehearted representative. That this is not an ordinary given name is seen in that when a biblical personality has a name which contains the word Y-H-V-H, the full name of God is never included in the person’s name. Most often the name takes the shortened form y-a-h (e.g., Isaiah, “God is Salvation”; Zechariah, “God Remembers”), or some other shortened form of the name, such as, y-h (e.g., Joshua, “Help of God”; Jehoshaphat, “God has Judged”). Nowhere are all four letters, Y-H-V-H found together in that form in a name given to a human being for everyday use. The bearer of the title The Lord is our Righteousness is imbued with the renown and reputation of God but he is not God or part of God. He will in a very real and concrete way emulate the full meaning of the righteousness of God expressed in this name. We find that the name chosen in the Bible for a child is often descriptive of the parents’ wishes or expectations for the personality that is to mature. This is also evident in the renaming of adults in the Bible, e.g., Jacob becoming Israel (Genesis 35:10). The name (or title) “the Lord is our righteousness” is one given to the Messiah when he is already a mature adult, not one given to him at birth. The Messiah will be a visible testimony of God’s activity as were the prophets, and like them he is not part of the Godhead. The name explains the very character and essence of the one bearing the name as being totally in sync with God’s righteousness. By no means is there the slightest hint that the Messiah’s being is of divine origin.
    1
  100.  @faustinem9071  In their effort to substantiate the belief in a triune deity, Christians have alleged that a prophecy given by Jeremiah supports their contention. The prophet declares: Behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is his name by which he will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6) Christians argue that only God could properly bear the name Y-H-V-H tsidkeinu — “The Lord is our righteousness.” However, names are often given to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, with the intention of expressing honor to God (e.g., Exodus 17:15, Jeremiah 3:17). It is not at all strange to find biblical names which incorporate the divine name within them. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, the name is there to tell us why the Messiah’s rule will be just and equal for all, the source of the Messiah’s righteousness is God. “The Lord is our righteousness” indicates that God will direct His Messiah’s every step. The inclusion of God’s name signifies the total submission of the Messiah’s every action to the will of God. The Lord is our Righteousness is not an everyday name, but a descriptive title disclosing the level of honest judgment and compassion the Messiah will dispense as God’s wholehearted representative. That this is not an ordinary given name is seen in that when a biblical personality has a name which contains the word Y-H-V-H, the full name of God is never included in the person’s name. Most often the name takes the shortened form y-a-h (e.g., Isaiah, “God is Salvation”; Zechariah, “God Remembers”), or some other shortened form of the name, such as, y-h (e.g., Joshua, “Help of God”; Jehoshaphat, “God has Judged”). Nowhere are all four letters, Y-H-V-H found together in that form in a name given to a human being for everyday use. The bearer of the title The Lord is our Righteousness is imbued with the renown and reputation of God but he is not God or part of God. He will in a very real and concrete way emulate the full meaning of the righteousness of God expressed in this name. We find that the name chosen in the Bible for a child is often descriptive of the parents’ wishes or expectations for the personality that is to mature. This is also evident in the renaming of adults in the Bible, e.g., Jacob becoming Israel (Genesis 35:10). The name (or title) “the Lord is our righteousness” is one given to the Messiah when he is already a mature adult, not one given to him at birth. The Messiah will be a visible testimony of God’s activity as were the prophets, and like them he is not part of the Godhead. The name explains the very character and essence of the one bearing the name as being totally in sync with God’s righteousness. By no means is there the slightest hint that the Messiah’s being is of divine origin.
    1
  101. 1
  102. @ContrabandTube  OK, let me take this argument apart step by step. Number one, if it didn't happen, why would that be proof for a second coming? If it hasn't happened yet then the messiah hasn't come. Thank you for proving my point that since this hasn't happened the messiah has NOT come yet. Second: The vast majority of anthropomorphisms used by scripture can in no way be interpreted literally. The outstretched arm of the exodus (Exodus 6:6, Deuteronomy 4:34, 5:15, 26:8, 2Kings 17:36), the heavens as God’s throne (Isaiah 66:1, Psalms 11:4, 103:19), the eyes of God (Deuteronomy 11:12, Amos 9:8, Zechariah 4:10, Ps. 34:16, Proverbs 5:21, 15:3, 22:12) are just some of the expressions scripture uses to describe God’s actions – and cannot be understood as a description of His being. Furthermore, scripture uses the same figures of speech to describe the actions of entities other than God. Isaiah 55;12 has the trees “clapping their hands”, while Psalm 98:8 attributes the same action to the rivers. 2Samuel 12:11 speaks of the “eyes of the sun”, while Jeremiah 30:18 describes a palace “sitting”. In the language of scripture both human actions and the limbs of the human body represent various concepts. The outstretched arm denotes a manifestation of strength, while the luminous face represents favor. The human body as a whole, together with the full range of human activity stand for a complete conceptual image. This image encompasses the entire spectrum of interaction that is possible between the Creator and His creations. This is not a coincidence. The passage in Genesis is telling us that this is the mold in which man was formed. God formed man in the image of the conceptual totality of His own interaction with His creations. Thus whenever scripture describes an action of God, it finds a metaphor from this conceptual human image. The image projected by the animals does not encompass the full range of activities possible between God and His creations. Thus, it is only man that is created in the image of God.
    1
  103. 1
  104. @ContrabandTube  If you would like me to mention the verse above, I will repost with an inclusion of the verse. Christians sometimes quote passages in scripture that speak of God in anthropomorphic terms. These passage may refer to God’s hands or feet, they may talk of God going down or up, in short these passages speak of God in a way that in a literal sense, would only be applicable to humans. Take the verse in Zechariah 14:4, which tells us that “His (God’s) feet shall stand that day on the Mount of Olives”. Christians understand this verse as a reference to the physical feet of a human god. The Jewish understanding is that these words are a metaphor describing God’s actions. The point of the verse is that God will cause a direct impact on the Mount of Olives in a manner that will be unmistakably attributed to Him and to Him alone. So, whose interpretation is correct? The vast majority of anthropomorphisms used by scripture can in no way be interpreted literally. The outstretched arm of the exodus (Exodus 6:6, Deuteronomy 4:34, 5:15, 26:8, 2Kings 17:36), the heavens as God’s throne (Isaiah 66:1, Psalms 11:4, 103:19), the eyes of God (Deuteronomy 11:12, Amos 9:8, Zechariah 4:10, Ps. 34:16, Proverbs 5:21, 15:3, 22:12) are just some of the expressions scripture uses to describe God’s actions – and cannot be understood as a description of His being. Furthermore, scripture uses the same figures of speech to describe the actions of entities other than God. Isaiah 55;12 has the trees “clapping their hands”, while Psalm 98:8 attributes the same action to the rivers. 2 Samuel 12:11 speaks of the “eyes of the sun”, while Jeremiah 30:18 describes a palace “sitting”. In the language of scripture, both human actions and the limbs of the human body represent various concepts. The outstretched arm denotes a manifestation of strength, while the luminous face represents favor. The human body as a whole, together with the full range of human activity, stands for a complete conceptual image. This image encompasses the entire spectrum of interaction that is possible between the Creator and His creations. This is not a coincidence. The passage in Genesis tells us that this is the mold in which man was formed. God formed man in the image of the conceptual totality of His own interaction with His creations. Thus, whenever scripture describes an action of God, it finds a metaphor from this conceptual human image. The image projected by the animals does not encompass the full range of activities possible between God and His creations. Thus, it is only man that is created in the image of God.
    1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. @faustinem9071  It is mentioned in the Talmud and learned from Zecharia 2. Please see below: To understand what the Rabbis have taught about the major figures that will have a role in end time’s story, we need to look at a few verses in Zechariah 2: 1. And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns. 2. And I said unto the angel that spoke with me: ‘What are these?’ And he said unto me: ‘These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.’ 3. And the LORD showed me four craftsmen. 4. Then said I: ‘What come these to do?’ And he spoke, saying: ‘These—the horns which scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head—these then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horn against the land of Judah to scatter it.’ 5. And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand. 6. Then said I: ‘Whither goest thou?’ And he said unto me: ‘To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.’ 7. And, behold, the angel that spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him, 8 and said unto him: ‘Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein. 9. For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will be the glory in the midst of her. 10. Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. 11. Ho, Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.’ 12. For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: ‘Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. 13. For, behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them’; and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me. These verses seem to be talking about the end times. Jerusalem is filled again with people (8), and verse 10 indicates the ingathering which we have seen the Tenach places in the end-times. But look at 1-4; we see that there are 4 horns, which represent the enemies of the Jewish people, who sent them into exile. Opposed to them are four craftsmen, who cut them down. These four seem to be important figures in the end-times. Who are they? Here is what the Rabbis teach[^13]: “ ‘And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.’ Who are these four craftsmen? Rav Chunah, the son of Bizna, said in the name of Rebbi Shimon, ‘These are Moshiach ben Dovid, Moshiach ben Yosef, Elijah and the Righteous Priest.’
    1
  116. @faustinem9071  To explain Jer 8: What is the real Jewish meaning of Jeremiah 8:8? The context of that passage does not refer to Biblical corruption. The general chapter in Jeremiah concerns God's expressed frustration at the people for not listening to Jeremiah's prophesies. It is in this context that the scriptural passage appears, which is: אֵיכָה תֹאמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֲנַחְנוּ וְתוֹרַת יְהֹוָה אִתָּנוּ אָכֵן הִנֵּה לַשֶּׁקֶר עָשָׂה עֵט שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים How can you say, "We are wise, and we possess the Instruction of the Lord"? Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes! [NJPS translation] Obviously, the passage shouldn't be read on its own, and reading chapters 7 and 8 clarifies the subject as rebuking the people's stubbornness for not listening to the word of God. There are many Jewish commentators on this chapter, but here is one example, from the Radak: אם תורת ה' אתכם מה תועיל אם לא תקיימו אותה מי שעשה הקולמוס לכתוב אותה לחנם עשה אותו וכן שקר סופרים הסופרים כתבו אותה לחנם כי אחרי שאין אתם מקיימין אותה הרי היא כאילו אינה כתובה לשקר לחנם כמו אך לשקר שמרתי If the Law of the Lord is with you what good is it if you do not fulfill it [the laws]? The same person who made the quill to write it did it in vain. And that is the meaning of the false scribes: the scribes wrote it for naught because afterward you didn't fulfill it. So it is as if it wasn't written but to lie in vain, as if to lie [and not the Law] is what I possess. In summary, this has nothing to do with a corrupt Bible but with corrupt people who do not follow the Bible.
    1
  117. @faustinem9071  Also, the Messiah from Joseph is learned from Zecharia 2 and mentioned in the Talmud. To understand what the Rabbis have taught about the major figures that will have a role in end time’s story, we need to look at a few verses in Zechariah 2: 1. And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns. 2. And I said unto the angel that spoke with me: ‘What are these?’ And he said unto me: ‘These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.’ 3. And the LORD showed me four craftsmen. 4. Then said I: ‘What come these to do?’ And he spoke, saying: ‘These—the horns which scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head—these then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horn against the land of Judah to scatter it.’ 5. And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand. 6. Then said I: ‘Whither goest thou?’ And he said unto me: ‘To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.’ 7. And, behold, the angel that spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him, 8 and said unto him: ‘Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein. 9. For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will be the glory in the midst of her. 10. Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. 11. Ho, Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.’ 12. For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: ‘Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. 13. For, behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them’; and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me. These verses seem to be talking about the end times. Jerusalem is filled again with people (8), and verse 10 indicates the ingathering which we have seen the Tenach places in the end-times. But look at 1-4; we see that there are 4 horns, which represent the enemies of the Jewish people, who sent them into exile. Opposed to them are four craftsmen, who cut them down. These four seem to be important figures in the end-times. Who are they? Here is what the Rabbis teach[^13]: “ ‘And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.’ Who are these four craftsmen? Rav Chunah, the son of Bizna, said in the name of Rebbi Shimon, ‘These are Moshiach ben Dovid, Moshiach ben Yosef, Elijah and the Righteous Priest.
    1
  118. 1
  119. @faustinem9071  Look at a few verses in Zechariah 2: 1. And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns. 2. And I said unto the angel that spoke with me: ‘What are these?’ And he said unto me: ‘These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.’ 3. And the LORD showed me four craftsmen. 4. Then said I: ‘What come these to do?’ And he spoke, saying: ‘These—the horns which scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head—these then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horn against the land of Judah to scatter it.’ 5. And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand. 6. Then said I: ‘Whither goest thou?’ And he said unto me: ‘To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.’ 7. And, behold, the angel that spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him, 8 and said unto him: ‘Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein. 9. For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will be the glory in the midst of her. 10. Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. 11. Ho, Zion, escape, thou that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.’ 12. For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: ‘Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. 13. For, behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them’; and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me. These verses seem to be talking about the end times. Jerusalem is filled again with people (8), and verse 10 indicates the ingathering which we have seen the Tenach places in the end-times. But look at 1-4; we see that there are 4 horns, which represent the enemies of the Jewish people, who sent them into exile. Opposed to them are four craftsmen, who cut them down. These four seem to be important figures in the end-times. Who are they? Here is what the Rabbis teach[^13]: “ ‘And the LORD showed me four craftsmen.’ Who are these four craftsmen? Rav Chunah, the son of Bizna, said in the name of Rebbi Shimon, ‘These are Moshiach ben Dovid, Moshiach ben Yosef, Elijah and the Righteous Priest.’ Messiah of Joseph (through Ephraim) is brought down in the Talmud learned from Zecharia 2 and other sources.
    1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. @ContrabandTube   Some trinitarians (like yourself) claim that whenever the Scriptures mention malach ’Adon-ai (Y-H-V-H), “an angel of the Lord,” the angel is Jesus. They translate all passages mentioning such an angel as “the Angel of the Lord,” although the Hebrew may just as well mean “an angel of the Lord” (literally “a messenger of the Lord”; cf. Judges 2:1, 6:11-22).  True, in the construct state, when the second noun has the definite article, the first noun is automatically definite without the need for the article, however, with proper nouns, which are automatically definite, only context determines whether the first noun attached to it is to be taken as definite or indefinite. The context, in all the verses where malach ’Adon-ai occurs, strongly indicates that it is not to be taken as definite. Even when the noun “angel” (malach) appears with a definite article in a scriptural passage, it is not used in the sense of a definite personality, but only as a reference to the particular angel mentioned previously in the text. The angel is always an impersonal being whose name is not necessary, since he is simply a messenger (the Hebrew word malach means “messenger” as does the Greek anggelos) to whom God, in whom all power resides, has entrusted a specific mission (1 Chronicles 21:16, 27; Zechariah 1:12-17). It is for this reason that the prophet Haggai, who conveyed God’s message to Israel, is also called “a messenger of the Lord” (Haggai 1:13). The Hebrew term applied to Haggai, malach ’Ado-nai, is the same that is translated as “an angel of the Lord” and points to his prophetic role as an intermediary. Similarly, the priest is designated as “a messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7). The angel who appears to Abraham does not swear by his own name but merely conveys God’s message: “‘By Myself I have sworn,’ says the Lord” (Genesis 22:16). God sends angels to act in His name, not in their own names. Therefore, to Jacob an angel says: “Why is it that you ask my name?” (Genesis 32:30), and to Manoah an angel says: “Why is it that you ask my name, seeing it is hidden?” (Judges 13:18).1 There is no indication that these verses all refer to one specific angel. The angels that appeared to various biblical personalities were acting only as messengers bearing God’s word. That the words of a messenger of God may be attributed directly to God is evident from Isaiah 7:10, which reads: “And the Lord spoke again to Ahaz.” Ahaz received this message through Isaiah, but it is nevertheless reported as if God Himself spoke directly to him because a messenger represents the one who sends him. Therefore, an action of an angel may be credited directly to God, who gave him the message (Zechariah 3:1-8). In describing the beginning of Moses’ career as a prophet the Torah states: And an angel of the Lord appeared to him [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the brush was not consumed. And Moses said: “I will turn aside now, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.” And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said: “Moses, Moses.” And he said: “Here am I.” Then He said: “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” And He said: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look at God. Then the Lord said: “I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; for I know their pains; and I have come down to deliver them out of the hands of the Egyptians.… Come now, and I will send you to Pharaoh, that you may bring forth My people the children of Israel out of Egypt.” But Moses said to God: “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?” And He said: “Certainly I will be with you; and this shall be the sign to you, that I have sent you: when you have brought forth the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God upon this mountain.” Then Moses said to God: “Behold, when I come to the children of Israel, and shall say to them: The God of your fathers has sent me to you; and they shall say to me: ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses: “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE”; and He said: “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: I WILL BE has sent me to you.” And God also said to Moses: “Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you; this is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations. Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them: The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me.… And they shall hearken to your voice. And you shall come, you and the elders of Israel, to the king of Egypt, and you shall say to him: The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. And now let us go, we pray you, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God.” (Exodus 3:2-8, 10-16, 18)
    1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. @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
  142. @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
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. @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
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. @user-co2li1vd5d  I am not sure what exactly you are pointing out in Isaiah 42 so please let me know your point. As for the NT quotes, that means less than nothing to me since without fulfilling the criteria for being the Jewish messiah, jesus word would be worthless. And he didn't fulfill the criteria, Christians just came up with a "second coming" excuse to explain any major prophecies that he missed. One simple questions? Where in the Old Testament or more accurately the Torah does it mention a second coming in regards to the messiah? Regarding Deuteronomy 18:15: Christians allege that these verses are a prophecy that refers to Jesus. This tendentious interpretation has no basis in fact. It is simply Christian wishful thinking that has them apply these verses to Jesus. The singular noun navi’, is most likely used in a plural sense generically and does not refer to a particular prophet. The people of Israel are promised that God will raise up prophets to guide Israel just as Moses himself did. This does not mean that these prophets will be like Moses in their level of prophetic stature. The uniqueness of Moses is unsurpassed. What is promised is that following the death of Moses, God will still send prophets to Israel who will possess the true prophetic spirit associated with Moses. The Torah’s message to Israel is that they should beware of false prophets as described in verses 20-22: “But the prophet who will presume to speak a word in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the words which the Lord has not spoken?’ Know that when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the things do not follow, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it out of presumption; you shall not be afraid of him.” The people of Israel are to be ever watchful against false teachers who would attempt to undermine the Torah given by God at Mount Sinai. The true prophet, the true teacher of Torah, will continue in the path and tradition of Moses. Among the teachings of the New Testament’s Jesus were those that undermined God’s Torah (e.g., Mark 7:14-15, 18-19; Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18). Moreover, as we shall see, he never fulfilled the major promise to return to his contemporaries. As a result, this so-called “second coming” has been constantly put off to a future date by those professing to be his followers.
    1
  187. @user-co2li1vd5d  6 Prophecies that jesus needed to fulfill, yet didn't, to be the messiah: Reason #1 – The Messiah must be from the Tribe of Judah and a Descendant of King David AND King Solomon – Jesus did not qualify. The Messiah must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct descendant of King David & King Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:9-10). Genealogy in the Bible is only passed down from father to son (Numbers 1:1-18). There is no evidence that Jesus really had this pedigree, and the Christian Bible actually claims that he did not have a “birth-father” from the tribe of Judah descending from King David and King Solomon (Matt. 1:18-20). Reason #2 – Ingathering of the Jewish Exiles – Jesus did not do this. When the Messiah is reigning as King of Israel, the Jews will be ingathered from their exile and will return to Israel, their homeland (Deut. 30:3; Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 30:3, 32:37; Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24). This has clearly not yet happened, and we still await its fulfillment. Reason #3– Rebuilding of the Holy Temple – Jesus failed to achieve this. The Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt (Isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20; Ezekiel 37:26–27; Malachi 3:4; Zech. 14:20-21). The Temple was still standing in Jesus’ day. It was destroyed 38 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, and it has not yet been rebuilt. Reason #4– Worldwide Reign of Peace – Jesus did not accomplish this. There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hoseah 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18). Wars have increased dramatically in the world since the start of Christianity. Reason #5 – Observance of the Torah Embraced by All Jews – Jesus didn’t bring this about. The Messiah will reign as King at a time when all the Jewish people will observe G-d’s commandments (Ezekiel 37:24; Deut. 30:8,10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27). Jesus never ruled as King, nor have all Jews embraced the commandments of G-d’s Torah. Reason #6 – Universal Knowledge of G-d – Jesus clearly failed here also. The Messiah will rule at a time when all the people of the world will come to acknowledge and serve the one true G-d (Zechariah 3:9, 8:23,14:9,16; Isaiah 45:23, 66:23; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Psalm 86:9; Zeph. 3:9). This, as well, has not yet taken place, and we await its fulfillment. No matter how many unusual & miraculous things Jesus seems to accomplish in the New Testament, he doesn't fulfill even one of the 6 criteria by which the Nation of Israel can recognize him as the true Jewish Messiah.
    1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1