Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[Harel13]

Why chat with me at all, then? "Here am I to clear your falsehoods but I'm too busy and too disdainful to discuss the best evident candidate for the JEWISH MESSIAH."

That's not what I said and I'm sure you know that perfectly well. I don't mind debating. I just don't have time now to look up old posts just to prove that you have referred to Jesus and Paul as rabbis. Seriously, why would anyone waste time on that? Would you?

 

[blü 2]

As I've explained before the genealogies dovetail beautifully to perfectly match two prophecies: David's line through Solomon would be cut off from kingship, yet a descendant of David would be an eternal KING (Matthew emphasizes kingship). Confusion arises unless you study historical context, how "in-laws" were called father/mother not "in-laws".

One genealogy, He is of David through Solomon, Mary's line is David through David's son Nathan. The ONLY way to fulfill BOTH prophecies was for a son of David through other than Solomon to be adopted as the eldest of Joseph, the most direct descendant of Solomon. PLEASE LEARN THIS and stop promulgating falsehoods.

The genealogies are lovely AND emphasize the kingship you derided. Stop goal post shifting also, if you would, please.

I'm not shifting any goalposts.

As it was in the beginning, it is now and ever shall be ─ there is no such thing as supernatural foreknowledge.

And I'm not the one trying to divert the conversation from 'descended from David' to 'descended from someone else'.

The point is that there are five incompatible versions of Jesus in the NT, and one of the matters that distinguish them is whether they're descended from David or not.

Mark's Jesus says he's not. (He adds that you don't have to be.)

Matthew's Jesus and Luke's Jesus are each provided with genealogies to show their descent from David, and both are nonsense, showing no such thing, and they're incompatible with each other into the bargain.

Paul's Jesus and John's Jesus are said to be descended from David, but nothing but the assertion is offered, not even the name of those Jesuses' parents.

Simple as that.

If you want to make a point about their being descended from someone else, feel free. It's not relevant to what I'm talking about.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ah, I see -- I was looking in the wrong verse. Twenty-two says that they went towards S'dom. Sorry about that.

You mean the men. The text doesn't say angels -- that's a rabbinic commentary. 19:1 calls the people who arrived "angels" (or messenger) and you have decided that because this narrative follows (sort of) the meeting with Abraham, the 2 angels here are ther same as the three men who went off in this direction a bunch of verses earlier. And then you have decided that because 3 men left and two angels arrived, the third angels wasn't an angel or a man but God. You are making a whole lot of interpretation here -- some of it is taken from the rabbinical understanding because you have shown that when it suits you, those understandings are acceptable. But when it doesn't suit you, you ignore it.

No, there is selective misrepresentation and an ignoring of the fact that Abraham was in God's presence before the men arrived and after they left. The text is quite clear about who is who, man, angel, God -- mixing and matching when it suits you is intellectually dishonest.

You say that it is intellectually dishonest to mix men and angels, yet this is exactly what the text does. This must indicate that angels can appear in the likeness of men.

In Genesis 19:1 it says that two angels came to Sodom. These two angels appeared as men because in verse 5 of the same chapter the inhabitants of Sodom say to Lot, 'Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them unto us, that we may know them.'

So, rather than being intellectually dishonest, l am actually being intellectually consistent with the scripture! The three men who appeared to Abraham at Mamre were three angels, and one of them was the angel of the LORD, for he remains behind in Mamre to negotiate with Abraham. Meanwhile, the two angels sent to Sodom carry out the duties they were called upon to perform.

 

[rosends]

You say that it is intellectually dishonest to mix men and angels, yet this is exactly what the text does. This must indicate that angels can appear in the likeness of men.

No, the text specifically doesn't. It has one event with men, and a separate event with angels/messengers. You have decided what "must" be because you mix the two. Though the question of angels' appearing the likeness of men was never in question. You were stating that God appears either in the likeness of an angel or n the likeness of a man.

In Genesis 19:1 it says that two angels came to Sodom. These two angels appeared as men because in verse 5 of the same chapter the inhabitants of Sodom say to Lot, 'Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them unto us, that we may know them.'

Yes, these 2 angels appeared as men. So? The text still explicitly calls them angels whereas in the earlier chapter, Abraham's visitors were explicitly called men. How is mixing those two descriptions honest?

The three men who appeared to Abraham at Mamre were three angels

That is certainly a rabbinic idea.

, and one of them was the angel of the LORD

Really? Where in the text does it say that? Stating it as fact when the text doesn't is more dishonesty.

for he remains behind in Mamre to negotiate with Abraham.

The text explicitly says that Abraham (after the men left) negotiated with God.

Meanwhile, the two angels sent to Sodom carry out the duties they were called upon to perform.

better, "Afterwards, two angels went to S'dom to carry out duties they were called on to perform."

 

[WonderingWorrier]

There seem to be two ways of understanding Isaiah 53 in the context of sin:

1) Jesus paid for human sin
2) A righteous remnant of Israel/Jewish people atones for sin

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how sin may be atoned for without an animal sacrifice (not punishment or repayment but actual atonement)?

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how a human may atone for another human's sin?

Thank you.

Perhaps there is no animal sacrifice mentioned in the Tanakh. Could be a misunderstanding of the words.


"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts". Ecclesiastes

Is it about people.

"Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him". Daniel.

And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the vail. Leviticus.


That the words are not talking about animals.

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. Isaiah.



The words are talking about judgement.

And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats. Ezekiel


Cattle, goats, and sheep as positions of judgement.

Judged along with other specific animals.


This is not a prophecy of a future event:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Isaiah.

They are positions.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
North - West - East
Brass - Silver - Gold
Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Lion - Leopard - Wolf
Bear - Deer - Horse

The wolf is with the lamb in group3, the leopard is with the kid goat in group2, and the lion is with the calf in Group1.




Each animal is also a tribe of Israel.

For example:

There are twelve gates of the city. One gate for each tribe. Three gates to each of the four directions.

Joseph (Sheep) is with Benjamin (Wolf).


Jospeh and Benjamin are together in the East.

And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan.

Benjamin as Wolf
Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil. Genesis.

Joseph as Sheep.
Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. Psalm.


The wolf is with the lamb. Always has been.
But people dont notice it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, the text specifically doesn't. It has one event with men, and a separate event with angels/messengers. You have decided what "must" be because you mix the two. Though the question of angels' appearing the likeness of men was never in question. You were stating that God appears either in the likeness of an angel or n the likeness of a man.

Yes, these 2 angels appeared as men. So? The text still explicitly calls them angels whereas in the earlier chapter, Abraham's visitors were explicitly called men. How is mixing those two descriptions honest?

That is certainly a rabbinic idea.

Really? Where in the text does it say that? Stating it as fact when the text doesn't is more dishonesty.

The text explicitly says that Abraham (after the men left) negotiated with God.

better, "Afterwards, two angels went to S'dom to carry out duties they were called on to perform."

You have argued that Abraham is the 'Lord' of Psalm 110:1.

Now you are suggesting that the 'Lord' who sits at the right hand of the LORD (Psalm 110:1) is bowing down to three men at Mamre and calling them 'Lords'. And you mean 'men' because, to you, they cannot be angels.

That, to me, is intellectual dishonesty, and it flies in the face of the text of Genesis 19:5, which indicates that the angels appeared as men. Moreover, the two angels, who appeared as men, had set their faces towards Sodom before arrival. This connects the narrative of ch. 18 with ch. 19, as does the negotiating that went on between Abraham and the LORD, who could both see the two cities in the plain below them!

 

[rosends]

You have argued that Abraham is the 'Lord' of Psalm 110:1.

No, I have been saying that according to one understanding, Abraham is the "my lord" of Psalm 110:1.

Now you are suggesting that the 'Lord' who sits at the right hand of the LORD (Psalm110:1) is bowing down to three men at Mamre and calling them 'Lords'. And you mean 'men' because, to you, they cannot be angels.

Well, since Abraham has a practice of bowing down to people (as do the other forefathers) it is perfectly in character to have him bow down to his houseguests.

That, to me, is intellectual dishonesty, and it flies in the face of the text of Genesis 19:5, which indicates that the angels appeared as men.

And yet when the text doesn't indicate that men were angels, you still say that that is so. The fact that Chapt 19 explicitly calls them angels and 18 calls the visitors men, to you, means they are the same. Weird.

Moreover, the two angels, who appeared as men, had set their faces towards Sodom before arrival.

That's not what the text says. The text says that three men faced S'dom and went off in that direction. Then, verses later, the text says that two angels went to S'dom. The connection is your interpretation. I don't necessarily mind it because it is actually a rabbinic idea, except that you then make other leaps and conclusions that fly in the face of the rabbinic idea so you coopt a position based in interpretation and then add a different interpretation unsupported by either the text or the rabbinic understanding.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, I have been saying that according to one understanding, Abraham is the "my lord" of Psalm 110:1

And l'm saying that Abraham cannot be the 'my Lord' of Psalm 110:1! A man who bows down to other men, and calls them Lord/s is not a man in authority over them. It is not the practice of a king to bow before his subjects.

If Abraham is not the 'my Lord' of Psalm 110:1, then to whom could this appellation refer?

 

[rosends]

And l'm saying that Abraham cannot be the 'my Lord' of Psalm 110:1! A man who bows down to other men, and calls them Lord/s is not a man in authority over them. It is not the practice of a king to bow before his subjects.

First, Abraham is shown in the text as bowing down to other people. Are you saying that verses like Gen 23:7 and 12.
Second, about kings and their practices, try 1 King 2:19
Third, Abraham was not a king.

If Abraham is not the 'my Lord' of Psalm 110:1, then to whom could this appellation refer?

There is another interpretation of the verse which I (IIRC) mentioned well earlier, quoting the Ibn Ezra: כי זה המזמור חברו אחד מהמשוררים על דוד
The Malbim and Radak both mention that same interpretation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, not exactly. The phrase is "yir'eh lo" which is a tough one to parse. It means something along the lines of "will show for him". The word "provide" isn't in the verse and neither is "himself." It means "God will show which sheep is for him", that is, the animal for a sacrifice to him.

The Aramaic Onkelos might help

קֳדָם יְיָ גְּלֵי לֵיהּ אִימְרָא

in front of God the sheep is discovered

the T"Y has "God will choose a sheep" and the T'Yesh has "God will invite a sheep"

I suppose the hundreds of translations that have it different are all wrong. Oy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Perhaps there is no animal sacrifice mentioned in the Tanakh. Could be a misunderstanding of the words.


"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts". Ecclesiastes

Is it about people.

"Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him". Daniel.

And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the vail. Leviticus.


That the words are not talking about animals.

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. Isaiah.



The words are talking about judgement.

And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats. Ezekiel


Cattle, goats, and sheep as positions of judgement.

Judged along with other specific animals.


This is not a prophecy of a future event:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Isaiah.

They are positions.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
North - West - East
Brass - Silver - Gold
Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Lion - Leopard - Wolf
Bear - Deer - Horse

The wolf is with the lamb in group3, the leopard is with the kid goat in group2, and the lion is with the calf in Group1.




Each animal is also a tribe of Israel.

For example:

There are twelve gates of the city. One gate for each tribe. Three gates to each of the four directions.

Joseph (Sheep) is with Benjamin (Wolf).


Jospeh and Benjamin are together in the East.

And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan.

Benjamin as Wolf
Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil. Genesis.

Joseph as Sheep.
Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. Psalm.


The wolf is with the lamb. Always has been.
But people dont notice it.

And everyone must therefore misunderstand related words in context like "young, blood, offal, without blemish, mature, not in its milk," etc. No.

 

[rosends]

I suppose the hundreds of translations that have it different are all wrong. Oy.

Suppose whatever you want. The Hebrew uses a word. You gave a different word. How do you get from יִרְאֶה to "provide"? Where do you see "himself" in the Hebrew?

 

[Redemptionsong]

First, Abraham is shown in the text as bowing down to other people. Are you saying that verses like Gen 23:7 and 12.
Second, about kings and their practices, try 1 King 2:19
Third, Abraham was not a king.

I am very pleased that you say Abraham was not a king. Psalm 110:1 refers to God upon the throne, with his Lord at his right hand. This Lord is the strength and salvation of God. It is not Abraham.

Psalm 20:6. 'Now know l that the LORD saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand.'

The example you have given (1 Kings 2:19) of a king bowing down is of Solomon bowing to his mother! The mother is given a seat at the right hand of Solomon, indicating equality of status.

In Genesis 23:7,12, Abraham does not call the people of the land 'my Lord'. In fact, it's the children of Heth who use the words, 'Hear us, my Lord: thou art a mighty prince among us:' Abraham's bowing down, without words, is an acknowledgment of thanks for the sepulchres.

 

[rosends]

I am very pleased that you say Abraham was not a king. Psalm 110:1 refers to God upon the throne, with his Lord at his right hand. This Lord is the strength and salvation of God. It is not Abraham.

While you might want to make a metaphorical case that God sits on a throne, 110:1 doesn't mention anything of the sort. God tells the "my lord" character to sit.

Psalm 20:6. 'Now know l that the LORD saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand.'

Yes, God saves the king who was anointed. Clearly, God is not the same as the anointed one. You really do prefer jumping around instead of confronting when you have been proven wrong.

The example you have given (1 Kings 2:19) of a king bowing down is of Solomon bowing to his mother! The mother is given a seat at the right hand of Solomon, indicating equality of status.

So, a) Solomon bows to another human who is, regardless of where she sits, not the king. And b) we agreed that Abraham wasn't a king so the question of whom he bows to shouldn't be questioned.

In Genesis 23:7,12, Abraham does not call the people of the land 'my Lord'. In fact, it's the children of Heth who use the words, 'Hear us, my Lord: thou art a mighty prince among us:' Abraham's bowing down, without words, is an acknowledgment of thanks for the sepulchres.

Ouch, 2 problems:
1. You just acknowledged that it was Abraham who was called "my lord" which is the exact same word as was used in 110, thus cementing the connection, making Abraham the subject of 110.
2. Your decision about WHY Abraham bowed is completely your own supposition, and immaterial, as it confirms that Abraham DID bow to those that you would say are not on his level.

So now that we can agree that 110 is about Abraham, we can toss out the whole Jesus thing.

 

[Redemptionsong]

While you might want to make a metaphorical case that God sits on a throne, 110:1 doesn't mention anything of the sort. God tells the "my lord" character to sit.

Yes, God saves the king who was anointed. Clearly, God is not the same as the anointed one. You really do prefer jumping around instead of confronting when you have been proven wrong.

So, a) Solomon bows to another human who is, regardless of where she sits, not the king. And b) we agreed that Abraham wasn't a king so the question of whom he bows to shouldn't be questioned.

Ouch, 2 problems:
1. You just acknowledged that it was Abraham who was called "my lord" which is the exact same word as was used in 110, thus cementing the connection, making Abraham the subject of 110.
2. Your decision about WHY Abraham bowed is completely your own supposition, and immaterial, as it confirms that Abraham DID bow to those that you would say are not on his level.

So now that we can agree that 110 is about Abraham, we can toss out the whole Jesus thing.

Abraham bows to the people of Heth but does not utter the words 'my Lord'.

Abraham was not a king, and does not sit at the right hand of the LORD on the heavenly throne [lsaiah 6:1-5]. This should be obvious.

The reason Abraham is called 'my Lord' is because, as already argued, there exists a hierarchy of persons on earth, as in heaven. Sarah, as wife to Abraham, also called Abraham 'my Lord', as did Abraham's servant [Genesis 24:9].

Do you agree that the throne of God exists in heaven, and his footstool on earth? [1 Chronicles 28:2]

There's another interesting reference to Psalm 110:1 in the notes of the JPS on Jeremiah 22:24. Here they say, '24: Coniah is Jehoiachin. A signet on my right hand (cf.Hag.2:23) is a symbol of royal authority; this image, in which God wears the king as a signet ring, reflects the tremendous closeness between the Davidic king and God (see 2 Samuel 7:14; Ps.110:1).'

The suggestion that the one who sits at the right hand of God is also the son of God is very enlightening. Who do you think is the son of God [2 Samuel 7:14]?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, God saves the king who was anointed. Clearly, God is not the same as the anointed one. You really do prefer jumping around instead of confronting when you have been proven wrong.

In reference to Psalm 20:6, you say that God saves the king who was anointed. Which anointed king is referred to here?

In 20:9, we see that David's call for salvation is directed at God, the king. This must be a call to the king in heaven, who sits upon his throne.

So, who is God's 'anointed one' on earth? Who is the shepherd king that God establishes on earth?

 

[WonderingWorrier]

And everyone must therefore misunderstand related words in context like "young, blood, offal, without blemish, mature, not in its milk," etc. No.

Perhaps.

Consider the heifer.

"This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke". Numbers.

And the colours,

"And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the Lord commanded Moses". Exodus.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Sea - River - Stream

The heifer is red.

Red like the sea.

As the cattle are in the corn.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine

For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Corinthians.


The word positions are in different levels of height.

Level1 - Level2 - Level3
Sea - River - Stream
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Corn - Oil - Wine

Level1 - The valley of corn
The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing. Psalm

Level2 - The river of oil
Then will I make their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God. Ezekiel

Level3 - The mountain of wine
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. Amos.



Perhaps people have also misunderstood the words corn, oil, and wine. Seems like they couldnt hear them.
And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. Hosea

Perhaps like misunderstanding the words cattle, goats, and sheep.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Suppose whatever you want. The Hebrew uses a word. You gave a different word. How do you get from יִרְאֶה to "provide"? Where do you see "himself" in the Hebrew?

I see it where hundreds of other translators see it. But I'm long used to Jewish brethren "fixing" translations to veil Mashiach.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Perhaps.

Consider the heifer.

"This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke". Numbers.

And the colours,

"And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the Lord commanded Moses". Exodus.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Sea - River - Stream

The heifer is red.

Red like the sea.

As the cattle are in the corn.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine

For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Corinthians.


The word positions are in different levels of height.

Level1 - Level2 - Level3
Sea - River - Stream
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Corn - Oil - Wine

Level1 - The valley of corn
The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing. Psalm

Level2 - The river of oil
Then will I make their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God. Ezekiel

Level3 - The mountain of wine
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. Amos.



Perhaps people have also misunderstood the words corn, oil, and wine. Seems like they couldnt hear them.
And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. Hosea

Perhaps like misunderstanding the words cattle, goats, and sheep.

How do you come to learn these mysteries?

 

[rosends]

Abraham bows to the people of Heth but does not utter the words 'my Lord'.

No, they call HIM "my lord" using the same language that the subject of 110 is called "my lord." That's the point.

Abraham was not a king, and does not sit at the right hand of the LORD on the heavenly throne [lsaiah 6:1-5]. This should be obvious.

So then questioning why he would be bowing to anyone since he is king is useless, and yet that's what you did.

The reason Abraham is called 'my Lord' is because, as already argued, there exists a hierarchy of persons on earth, as in heaven. Sarah, as wife to Abraham, also called Abraham 'my Lord', as did Abraham's servant [Genesis 24:9].

I'm not sure that there is a hierarchy of people in heaven but I'll let that go. Bottom line, Abraham is called "my lord" so 110 is about Abraham. Well done.

Do you agree that the throne of God exists in heaven, and his footstool on earth? [1 Chronicles 28:2]

I agree that that is the poetic language that the texts use.

The suggestion that the one who sits at the right hand of God is also the son of God is very enlightening.

So Abraham is the son of God? Didn't you just confirm that he is the subject of 110?

Who do you think is the son of God [2 Samuel 7:14]?

Well, Solomon is called a son of God (in Sam and in Chronicles), the same way that David is called the son of God (Psalms 2:7), angels are called sons of God and the entire nation of Israel is called sons of God.[/QUOTE]