How is Google going to know why 'you' believe certain verses imply something.
I understand many verses that could mean that; I'm curious what you thought, since you said it, and if I'd missed anything in my analysis of what is stated.
In my opinion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Isaiah 53 and Human Sin
- Thread starter BilliardsBall
- Start date
I understand many verses that could mean that; I'm curious what you thought, since you said it, and if I'd missed anything in my analysis of what is stated.
In my opinion.
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
How can these words be about Jesus?
It seems Jesus is talking about someone else.
Because Jesus uses words such as -
"to him will I give",
"and he shall",
"even as I received",
"I will give him".
Multiple translations say the same things. No English translation that I've found suggests Jesus is talking about himself.
So how can those words mean that Jesus is talking about himself being the man with the rod of iron in Revelation?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You are obvious using minority texts, for example, claiming a Hebrew word is not in the text.
You are also being mean-spirited and not even attempting to learn anything.
The more we speak, the more I remain convinced that Yeshua is God and love, and those who oppose Him are broken, hateful.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The Father is speaking of the Son. There are hundreds of such verses in the Hebrew scriptures.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Ha! Calling the actual Hebrew a "minority text" is laughable. Can you show me a Hebrew text that has the words you claim? Betcha can't.
Oh, I'm learning a heckuva lot, but probably not what you are intending. For example, I learned that you have no knowledge of Hebrew. I thought you had a little. Clearly I was wrong! I learned that when you are proven wrong, instead of learning, you lash out.
The more we speak the more I realize how little you know and how unsupportable your position is - how much it lacks actual grounding or evidence and how quickly it runs when proven wrong.
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
But the sentence ends with "even as I received of my father".
Look again:
I have showed other English translations of the "even as I received of my father" part.
So how could that be the father speaking of the son?
It seems clear that Jesus is speaking about another man who comes with a rod of iron.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I have seen Psalm 2 in quite a few Bible versions, none of which end with "even as I received of my father".
And there remain hundreds of other verses about the two advents of Jesus--in the second, His glorious return, He is a conquering king.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
"The actual Hebrew" under discussion is which version? I've asked you before earlier in this thread but you posted Hebrew without telling me your source.
I have some knowledge of Hebrew, you claimed certain words aren't in the text in Hebrew--which is untrue, again, you are making your own interpretations from the Hebrew, which is different even then saying "here's how Jewish authorities and scholars render the text", which makes it the Wild West of You.
Which position of mine is unsupportable? That Jesus is King and Messiah? Or that your claim that many hundreds of Jewish and Gentile scholars are all wrong in their translations because you understand the Hebrew "on a different, superior plane"? THAT is the unsupportable claim here.
And you are still being rude, dismissive and using ad homs--"You don't understand Hebrew like I do, so you have nothing to add." With respect, you sound like the leaders who asked for Yeshua's death--and they were also mistaken both in Yeshua's knowledge and His mission.
As far as I understand having already fulfilled Revelation 5 & 10 three years before reading the Bible, and having the New name of Christ since birth (Zanda - Sananda).
The Archangel of Yeshua in Heaven is explaining Revelation to John-Mark; Yeshua means Salvation, and was used specifically in the Bible to fulfil prophecy - of the 'Lord becoming our Salvation' (Song of Moses - Exodus 15:2)...
Same with the full name Yehoshua being symbolic back to Moses's friend Hosea son of Nun, being prophesied to lead the people into the promised land.
The New name which we are told in Revelation 19:12 is only known by the Messiah, and is identifiable in Revelation 3:12 as our name - which is prophesied across the world's religious texts.
I've always since 5-6 years old remembered advanced details about what happened two thousand years ago, prior to being able to read or know any of the data...
Therefore whereas you're questioning is it another person, it is the same soul, yet in a new incarnation to fulfil the return of the Son of Man, with the name of the Lord of Creation before Judgement Day.
The way I understand what is prophesied with these multiple occurrences: is that David in Psalms 89:19-21 was appointed as the Suffering Servant, where Isaiah 52:10-14 paraphrased the Psalm.
Then in Isaiah 52:7, the Messiah returns as 'our divine being King Zion'; where Zion (ציון) implies the place of David.
In modern Hebrew they pronounce the word Flock (צאן) as Tson; yet I believe ancient Hebrew pronounced it Zan - which was also the name of the Lord of Creation in many cultures globally.
Personally would prefer people to take on board 'that scripture could become like a fire' (Jeremiah 23:29), rather than God has to remove all of those who won't accept Messianic prophecy.
In my opinion.
rosends
Well-Known Member
You ask as if there are many version of the Hebrew. This shows definite ignorance. I gave you a source for the Hebrew but here are some more:
Bible and Mishneh Torah for All - Jews and Gentiles / Mechon Mamre
Tanakh | Sefaria
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm
Feel free to compare the Hebrew on these sites with an actual and kosher Torah scroll in any synagogue in the world. Torah - Evangel University
Your claim (you should keep your claim straight) was that the word "lo" means "himself. In fact, you wrote
"You are saying לּוֹ isn't "himself"? Here are some uses:" and you gave verses which have the English word "himself" but simply don't have the Hebrew word "lo". So your claim cannot be proven by your evidence. It isn't about a scholar renders or anyone interprets -- you quoted verses which lack the Hebrew you are trying to prove a meaning for. Give it up. You have no proof of your claim.
We can start with your claim that the hebrew word "lo" means "himself" in the verses you presented. Then, once that is shown to be unsupported, you cannot use that as evidence that in the earlier verse the wor means "himself"
That means that the translation you rely on must, perforce, be an interpretation, not an actual translation so your claim that it is authoritative or useful (or even accurate) is unsupported. And we haven't even gotten into the Greek work I presented and its meaning, and how the chosen English diverges from the meaning of the word into interpretation.
Well, sure, but that's nothing new.
Well, I have shown you that the words don't match the English and used your own evidence against you (the actual Greek and the word "lo" as used elsewhere). So far all you have given as a response is a stamping of your foot and an insistence that I can't be right because all the people who agree with you agree with you.
I'm being factual and having a fun time at your expense. If you don't want anything that offends you, stop being so consistently and provably wrong. You sound like a petulant child who is used to being told he is right so he can't stand it when anyone shows he is wrong.
Why don't you take a breath, review your own claims and what you are relying on and ask some objective and simple questions of what you think you know:
Why, if the Hebrew and Greek are words for "see" or even "show" does your English version have "provide"?
Why do you insist that "lo" means "himself" when the uses of himself that you cite are in verses that do NOT have the word "lo" in them, and the verse I showed you in which it means "himself" is NOT translated as such in your English version?
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
Psalm 2 does not have to end with "even as I received of my father" for Jesus to also be talking about the man with the rod of iron.
Because Jesus is not talking about himself. And it is not the father speaking of the son.
Jesus is talking about the man with the rod of iron.
A sword comes out of the mouth of the man that Jesus speaks of.
"And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords".
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
So you say the man with a rod of iron is a new incarnation of the soul of Jesus
As in reincarnation.
Are you able to explain any reasoning as to how that is known?
Yeah lots of reasons: firstly we can show reincarnation prophesied in Malachi 4:5-6; where Elijah is sent back before the day of the Lord.
Yeshua states he will come as the Bridegroom at the Midnight Hour in Matthew 25:1-13... Where it refers to Christ being a Son of Man.
'Son of Man' implies to me, a being that is more than a Man, needing to define he will be born in a human form.
In my opinion.
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
Yeah lots of reasons: firstly we can show reincarnation prophesied in Malachi 4:5-6; where Elijah is sent back before the day of the Lord.
Yeshua states he will come as the Bridegroom at the Midnight Hour in Matthew 25:1-13... Where it refers to Christ being a Son of Man.
'Son of Man' implies to me, a being that is more than a Man, needing to define he will be born in a human form.
In my opinion.
You have gone away from rod of iron and onto Bridegroom.
You say Yeshua states that he will come as the Bridegroom. But he does not say that he is the Bridegroom in the story.
You also say it refers to Christ being the son of man in the story. But again it does not say that.
It seems your reasons are not present in Matthew 25:1-13
Tell me. Even if reincarnation was possible what is the main reasoning that shows Jesus would be reincarnated specifically as the man with a rod of iron?
It doesn't specifically say Yeshua is the return in that verse; yet the context that he has to be the Bridegroom, is shown in the prophetic Messianic promise.
It is these verses that say Yeshua is specifically the one who will return, as it says "me" (Matthew 23:39, Luke 13:35), and with the name of the Lord of Creation - as Revelation 3:12 also relates.
There have been peer reviewed studies into children born with memories of past lifes.
I believe based on scripture that King David in Psalms 89:19-21 is paraphrased in Isaiah 52:10-14, where Yeshua is David, and returns as the same being for the Messianic age (Ezekiel 34:23-24, Ezekiel 37:24-25, Jeremiah 23:5, Jeremiah 30:8-9, Jeremiah 33:15, Hosea 3:5, Isaiah 55:3, Isaiah 22:22, Isaiah 9:6-7, Revelation 5:5, etc).
This is why Zechariah 12:8-10 prophesied Israel shall mourn for King David as the one they pierced.
In my opinion.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Check the Hebrew, too, there is a similar mistake made with God's promise to David "a priest will walk ahead of the anointed forever" when it's talking about Messiah as the priest Himself.
So who is the man with the rod of iron in your opinion, since hundreds of other verses show Jesus reigning on the Earth during the Millennium?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
As far as I understand having already fulfilled Revelation 5 & 10 three years before reading the Bible, and having the New name of Christ since birth (Zanda - Sananda).
The Archangel of Yeshua in Heaven is explaining Revelation to John-Mark; Yeshua means Salvation, and was used specifically in the Bible to fulfil prophecy - of the 'Lord becoming our Salvation' (Song of Moses - Exodus 15:2)...
Same with the full name Yehoshua being symbolic back to Moses's friend Hosea son of Nun, being prophesied to lead the people into the promised land.
The New name which we are told in Revelation 19:12 is only known by the Messiah, and is identifiable in Revelation 3:12 as our name - which is prophesied across the world's religious texts.
I've always since 5-6 years old remembered advanced details about what happened two thousand years ago, prior to being able to read or know any of the data...
Therefore whereas you're questioning is it another person, it is the same soul, yet in a new incarnation to fulfil the return of the Son of Man, with the name of the Lord of Creation before Judgement Day.
The way I understand what is prophesied with these multiple occurrences: is that David in Psalms 89:19-21 was appointed as the Suffering Servant, where Isaiah 52:10-14 paraphrased the Psalm.
Then in Isaiah 52:7, the Messiah returns as 'our divine being King Zion'; where Zion (ציון) implies the place of David.
In modern Hebrew they pronounce the word Flock (צאן) as Tson; yet I believe ancient Hebrew pronounced it Zan - which was also the name of the Lord of Creation in many cultures globally.
Personally would prefer people to take on board 'that scripture could become like a fire' (Jeremiah 23:29), rather than God has to remove all of those who won't accept Messianic prophecy.
In my opinion.
Reincarnation--even the kind some Orthodox Jews believe about souls returning within 11 months or so of death--are laid aside by the biblical examples, for example, Samuel being raised by the Witch of Endor as least 18 months after his death....
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You are not telling the truth about either the word "himself" appearing in the cited verses as presented, or how most translators accept the word "himself" in the English versions.
After several attempts asking you, you STILL are yet to respond as to why you believe hundreds of translators are all lying. I know, however, that some Jewish leaders teach its okay for you to lie to Messianic Jews--that God will forgive your lies if you can win us back from our heresy.
rosends
Well-Known Member
I'm not telling the truth about the lack of a word in the Hebrew? Well then, prove me wrong. Betcha can't.
And I made no comment about how "most translators accept" anything. I just showed you how your claim about the word "lo" is wrong and how, even when it might be right, your preferred translation doesn't follow your understanding.
That "lying" has consistently been YOUR word. I have simply pointed out that the translations don't follow the Hebrew and have said that they are INTERPRETATIONS. You have yet to explain how the translators came up with those interpretations -- and yet you accept them as if they are objective translations.
You can believe whatever you want. You can claim to "know" stuff whether or not it is true. But you have yet to confront the facts that I presented about the Hebrew, the Greek and the English. Why not try facing up to your own errors?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
1) The verses shared contain "himself" in Hebrew and English
2) You have yet to explain how you came to understand how hundreds of translators all translate the same verses in the same way--and how you claim they ALL are liars, that's ridiculous on its face--I came to trust Yeshua for salvation in part because of meeting Gentiles who adore the Jewish people and the Hebrew scriptures--and who act nothing like you