Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[Brian2]

The point is - Jerusalem is under Jewish control. And this East Jerusalem thing is annoying as that part was seized by the new state of Jordan and the Jews driven out.

It's all very complicated.

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[101G]

Why would I base my theology on the language of a people who didn't even have a handy alphabet available before they started trading with the Phoenicians?

the same reason why you're using the English Lange now to respond to this post. God created all Languages, and it takes God to give anyone and everyone the ability to understand and know each language.

Hebrew is no better than English, nor French.... ect. they are all God authored.

#1. your theology should be base on the Language, and not the people of the Language.

#2. you should seek God's Wisdom in understanding. his Word no matter the Language.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

@PruePhillip and @Brian2 ,

Thank you for the thought provoking replies. It's Friday and I'm traveling this weekend. Hopefully, I'll be able to reply Sunday or Monday.

 

[dybmh]

What this 'spirit of grace' refers to I cannot tell. I take it that it's a blessing for those who awaited the second coming and a curse to those who didnt believe in the first coming.

OK, here's what that looks like:

And I will pour out on the house of David
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit
of grace and supplication a blessing and a curse.
They will look on me him, the one they have pierced,
and they will mourn for him as one mourns for
an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one
grieves for a firstborn son.

That's a little bit better, but the prophecy is still being rewritten.

But what is relevant here is that people will see the one who had been pierced, and they will mourn. Why mourn? Because the mourners did not believe in the one who was pierced, and have no part in his coming kingdom.

Sure. Here's what that looks like:

And I will pour out on the house of David
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit
of grace and supplication a blessing and a curse.
They will look on me him, the one they have pierced,
and they will mourn for him as one mourns for
an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one
grieves for a firstborn son.

So, there's just a minor change from 'me' to 'him', and the verse is taken out of context and chopped in half. That's still 3 changes that need to be made. It's not a very strong claim especially since it hasn't happened yet.

 

[dybmh]

How did Jesus botch it with verse 7?
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

The suffering servant is silent. Twice it says he did not open his mouth. The servant accepts the will of God and does not petition against it.

Matthew 23

​

46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,h lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”i​

​

47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He is calling Elijah.” 48One of them quickly ran and brought a sponge. He filled it with sour wine,j put it on a reed, and held it up for Jesus to drink.k​

​

49 But the others said, “Leave Him alone. Let us see if Elijah comes to save Him.”l​

​

50 When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit.​

Isaiah 53 twice says the servant will be silent. Matthew 23 twice says Jesus was not silent.

People generally say that because Jesus did not protest to pilate, that this is good enough. But, at the moment of truth, when he was actually brought to the slaughter, he protested to God. Read Psalm 22, it is a petition, an appeal to God. It is the opposite of accepting God's will. Even if Jesus intended to be the suffering servant, he wasn't able to follow through with it at the end. The example I gave was a person thanking God at the beginning of a meal, but then thanking Artemis at the end. It really doesn't matter that much what happened at the beginning of the meal, if the end of the meal is a fail.

Surely you need to look at the scriptures from the beginning to see what God was wanting to do with the death of Jesus.
A and E brought death to themselves and to the all of humanity as well. We all sin. God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and then God giving the sacrificial laws for Israel seem to me to be prophecies of what He would do to save us from our sins, and death through Jesus sacrifice of Himself. This is also seen in the Passover lamb.

Yes, agreed. Although, the sacrifices are annual.

Basically the gospel is nothing without the death and resurrection of Jesus.

And you have that regardless of what it says in Isaiah.

There was no atonement in the miracles and teachings of Jesus.
The suffering servant shows Jesus atoning for our sins and it show Him being killed and rising from the dead and giving life to children, the ones who become His children through faith and trust in Him.

"... giving life to children ... " that's a pretty big stretch based on what's written in Isaiah. There's plenty of other verses in the Gospels with the promise eternal life for following Jesus.

If Jesus had not been rejected by most of Israel then I suppose God would have to make atonement through Jesus death in some other way.

That is divergent from Isaiah 53:3

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with sickness; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.​

​

Notice, you said "If Jesus had not been rejected..." but Isaiah 53 says "He was despised and rejected..." Again and again, if this is Jesus, then the whole story from beginning to end is necessary. Jesus says it's necessary. And yet, in order for Zecharia to fit the Christian narrative Jewish people are mourning for an event that was necessary and God's will.

The thing is that even though God loves His chosen people, Israel, there was a bigger picture to consider, salvation for Gentiles also.

Good. Enjoy that! I'm happy for you! Why am I mourning?

The Jews are God's witnesses that He is real and what He would do for the whole world. The whole world would be blessed through Abraham and his descendants.
God along the way did give grievances against the Jews and at various times save only a remnant. In Isaiah God says that the mission of Isaiah was to close the eyes and make deaf the Jews lest they see and hear and be healed.

If so, then there are no obvious prophecies from Isaiah.

The prophecies about the Messiah that the Christians see in the Hebrew scriptures are pretty obviously Messianic imo and yet Jews on the whole deny that even if over the years various Rabbis have seen what Christians see in the prophecies.

What Jews generally deny is that prophecy can be split into first and second advents. Also that specific verses and phrases of prophecy can be pulled out of context and read in isolation. And really, they're all like that with maybe 1 exception.

We Christians see the Messiah as the one who will rule the world, the creation of God, God's Kingdom, the Son of God who inherits it all, the one who calls God His Father and who is appointed to be God's firstborn,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the one who is rejected and killed by His own people.
Psalm 2, the Son the inheritor of the nations
Dan 7:13,14, the one like a son of man who comes to heaven from earth and is given a Kingdom to rule forever.
Isa 9:1-7, the great light from the region of Galilee who is the child who sits on the throne of David forever.
Ps 89:24-52 The King who calls God His Father, and is made firstborn and rules forever but who is rejected by His people and killed in His youth, and of course God is displeased and turns His hand against His people.

OK, great, let's look at these. Psalm 2, the inheritor of the nations... that's the other nations not Israel. When this actually happens please let me know. I see the word "son". It's a Christian buzzword. Not much else here. Daniel has the same problem. It clearly hasn't happened yet. Isaiah 9 doesn't say galilee, and the goverment was not and is not on Jesus' shoulders. But I see that "a child was born", and this phrase is exciting for a Christian, but it's not a real actual fulfilled prophecy about Jesus. It's just a phrase. For Psalm 89, I see the word "firstborn", but verses 31-33 are clearly talking about Jewish people. Otherwise every Christian needs to line up for circumcision.

See how that works? There's these little drip-drops, but nothing substantial. On the other hand, if a person goes by the gospel, Jesus says follow me for eternal life, I can raise this temple in 3 days... there's so much there to believe in. Not so much if you go backwards.

But Zech 12:10 and other Hebrew scriptures (and I suppose Psalm 89) and Romans 11 tell us not only of how God has harded the Jews from hearing His gospel but will also turn them, you, to His anointed again in the final days.

No. The last half of Zech 12:10 with a Christian translation, taken out of context, including the trinity doctrine, in spite of what Jesus said about his death and suffering being necessary... tell us not only of how God has harded the Jews from hearing His gospel but will also turn them, you, to His anointed again in the final days.

 

[PruePhillip]

OK, here's what that looks like:

And I will pour out on the house of David
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit
of grace and supplication a blessing and a curse.
They will look on me him, the one they have pierced,
and they will mourn for him as one mourns for
an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one
grieves for a firstborn son.

That's a little bit better, but the prophecy is still being rewritten.



Sure. Here's what that looks like:

And I will pour out on the house of David
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit
of grace and supplication a blessing and a curse.
They will look on me him, the one they have pierced,
and they will mourn for him as one mourns for
an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one
grieves for a firstborn son.

So, there's just a minor change from 'me' to 'him', and the verse is taken out of context and chopped in half. That's still 3 changes that need to be made. It's not a very strong claim especially since it hasn't happened yet.

Chopped in half? Wot are you talking about? As for pronouns - I dont see the relevance - me/him. This is the Jewish Messiah, reigning over the nations - but the Jews recognize this man, and mourn.

 

[Brian2]

The suffering servant is silent. Twice it says he did not open his mouth. The servant accepts the will of God and does not petition against it.

Matthew 23

​

46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,h lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”i​

​

47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He is calling Elijah.” 48One of them quickly ran and brought a sponge. He filled it with sour wine,j put it on a reed, and held it up for Jesus to drink.k​

​

49 But the others said, “Leave Him alone. Let us see if Elijah comes to save Him.”l​

​

50 When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit.​

Isaiah 53 twice says the servant will be silent. Matthew 23 twice says Jesus was not silent.

People generally say that because Jesus did not protest to pilate, that this is good enough. But, at the moment of truth, when he was actually brought to the slaughter, he protested to God. Read Psalm 22, it is a petition, an appeal to God. It is the opposite of accepting God's will. Even if Jesus intended to be the suffering servant, he wasn't able to follow through with it at the end. The example I gave was a person thanking God at the beginning of a meal, but then thanking Artemis at the end. It really doesn't matter that much what happened at the beginning of the meal, if the end of the meal is a fail.

You are right that Jesus did not complain to those who were killing Him, and that is what Isa 53:7 tells us. Isa 53:7................. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth.
If there was any complaining to God it would have been in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was asking God to take the whole ordeal away if He was willing, but if not, let your will be done. Then an angel from heaven came to strengthen Him (Luke 22:42,43)
On the cross, just before physically dying, there was no angel to strengthen Him and so that Jesus would take the full consequences of sin on Himself, God withdrew any consciousness Jesus would have had of God's presence. That would be no doubt harder for Jesus than the hours of physical torment He had already endured. He still was not complaining to those who were killing Him but was praying to His God, and asking why God had taken away His presence. But it was Jesus who alone had to die. It sounds like a cry of despair, a lack of faith in God, but it was not.
When it says Jesus cried out again, we go to other accounts to find out what He cried and see He that it was "It is finished. Into you hands I commit my spirit".

Yes, agreed. Although, the sacrifices are annual.

The sacrifices were symbolic of what Jesus would do once and without any need for a repeat performance the following year.

And you have that regardless of what it says in Isaiah.

Isa 53, Psalm 22 etc show us prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. It isn't that Jesus came along and just said that He needed to be crucified and rise again without having anything to point back to in the Hebrew Scriptures that tells us the same thing. It is not just made.

"... giving life to children ... " that's a pretty big stretch based on what's written in Isaiah. There's plenty of other verses in the Gospels with the promise eternal life for following Jesus.

The servant in Isaiah died and was buried but lived on to see children. He sacrificed His life so we could get His eternal life. It was not just a matter of Jesus promising eternal life to those who believed, the whole thing is based on the promises in prophecy. Jesus did not come in His own authority.

That is divergent from Isaiah 53:3

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with sickness; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.​

​

Notice, you said "If Jesus had not been rejected..." but Isaiah 53 says "He was despised and rejected..." Again and again, if this is Jesus, then the whole story from beginning to end is necessary. Jesus says it's necessary. And yet, in order for Zecharia to fit the Christian narrative Jewish people are mourning for an event that was necessary and God's will.

Yes Isa 53:3 shows us Jesus suffering and rejection was necessary, as Psalm 89 shows us also, otherwise prophecy would not be fulfilled.
In Zechariah Jewish people are mourning that they, the Jews, killed their own Messiah imo.
God will wipe away our tears and comforts us whatever the reason for our mourning, but that does not mean we do not first mourn for things we have done or not done.

Good. Enjoy that! I'm happy for you! Why am I mourning?

I imagine the emotions would be mixed.

If so, then there are no obvious prophecies from Isaiah.

They aren't obvious to Jews whose eyes and ears have been closed.
If you reject Jesus then the Isaiah prophecies are obviously about other things and cannot be about Jesus.
If you turn to Jesus as the Messiah sent by God, if you believe the Gospel story, then the Isaiah prophecies become obvious to you also.

What Jews generally deny is that prophecy can be split into first and second advents. Also that specific verses and phrases of prophecy can be pulled out of context and read in isolation. And really, they're all like that with maybe 1 exception.

Certainly some prophecies are not in context in the Hebrew Scriptures but the main ones seem to be plain imo. All those about the one who will rule forever, inherit an eternal Kingdom, sit on throne of David forever etc are Messianic and imo Jews should be able to see that. Many would be plainly about Jesus if you believed first the gospel story. (eg Isa 53, Psalm 22) Some are easier to see if it is realised that Israel and David etc are used in prophecy as types of Jesus.
Some prophecies do seem to have double meanings but imo it is only the Messianic one that fulfills them fully.
Many prophecies it seems to me have been interpreted one way to avoid an alternative legitimate interpretation which points squarely to Jesus as necessarily being the Messiah. (The Daniel timing of the coming of the Messiah, Jacob's prophecy of Judah having the sceptre until Shilou comes-the one to whom it belongs etc)
But yes I can see that if someone is brought up as a Jew then the Hebrew scriptures are yours and your teachers know what they are talking about etc.

OK, great, let's look at these. Psalm 2, the inheritor of the nations... that's the other nations not Israel. When this actually happens please let me know. I see the word "son". It's a Christian buzzword. Not much else here. Daniel has the same problem. It clearly hasn't happened yet. Isaiah 9 doesn't say galilee, and the goverment was not and is not on Jesus' shoulders. But I see that "a child was born", and this phrase is exciting for a Christian, but it's not a real actual fulfilled prophecy about Jesus. It's just a phrase. For Psalm 89, I see the word "firstborn", but verses 31-33 are clearly talking about Jewish people. Otherwise every Christian needs to line up for circumcision.

See how that works? There's these little drip-drops, but nothing substantial. On the other hand, if a person goes by the gospel, Jesus says follow me for eternal life, I can raise this temple in 3 days... there's so much there to believe in. Not so much if you go backwards.

The point is that the inheritor of the nations (Psalm 2) is the one who will rule them on the throne of David and is the Son of God. It is a Messianic Psalm and the Kings of Israel are types of the Messiah, just as the prophets and priests are. Those who are anointed.
Daniel 7:13,14 has happened when "one like a son of man" (Jesus) ascended to heaven to be given an everlasting Kingdom to rule. So He is King now and will return as King (Ben David) and not the suffering servant (Ben Joseph).
(The Jews rejected Jesus but God meant the whole thing for good, both for the Jews and for everyone)Gen 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
The Tanach seems to have the numbering of Isa 8 and 9 different to Christian translations and the Christian translations have "Galilee" in Isa 9:1 as the Jewish Virtual Tanach Translation has also. (Maybe it has something to do with the scriptures used in translation. ) Nevertheless the child is to sit and rule on the throne of David forever. A Messianic passage.
With Psalm 89 if you see the word "firstborn" then you should also see that this "firstborn" calls God "my Father" and that He is a King that is rejected by the Jews and killed in His youth.
In the New Covenant we keep the Law but not as 613 commandments so no verses 31-33 are not specifically about the Jews.
You are right that there is a lot to believe in, in the Gospels, but most, if not all of it can be seen in drips and drops in the Hebrew Scriptures also and sometimes in big slabs.
There are places where we can see the Messiah coming twice. In Psalm 110 the Lord of Psalm 110:1 is not David because David is not in heaven with God putting His enemies under His feet. This Psalm is also Messianic and shows the highest human who sits next to God and will come to judge the nations as in Psalm 2. This will be His second coming to earth as Messiah unless you think your Messiah comes from heaven from the throne next to God. Either way it would need a change of doctrine for Jews I guess. Easier to stick with the Lord of Psalm 110:1 being David even though that does not make sense.

 

[101G]

OK, here's what that looks like:

And I will pour out on the house of David
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit
of grace and supplication a blessing and a curse.
They will look on me him, the one they have pierced,
and they will mourn for him as one mourns for
an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one
grieves for a firstborn son.

That's a little bit better, but the prophecy is still being rewritten.

GINOLJC, to all.
also @PruePhillip, the Spirit of GRACE, (favor), is the Holy Spirit who resides in us until the day of REDEMPTION, of our bodies. and the Spirit of Grace was poured out on the DAY of Pentecost. which was foretold by Joel also. Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:" Joel 2:29 "And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit." Joel 2:30 "And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke." Joel 2:31 "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come." Joel 2:32 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call."

and the Spirit of supplications, (earnest prayer), the same Spirit, the Holy Spirit is our MEDIATOR. for we don't know really what to pray for, so, God, the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf, he's the INTERSSOR, or HGELPER, supportive Scripture, Romans 8:26 "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

this mediator, intercessor, this Helper is none other than the Lord Jesus, God almighty.

@dybmh you said, "
And I will pour out on the house of David
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit
of grace and supplication a blessing and a curse.
They will look on me him, the one they have pierced,"

I see you strike through ME, and replaced it with HIM, so who is the "HIM" in the verse?

101G.

 

[Soapy]

U always ERROR, God is a ECHAD of ONE which is a plurality, not a Yachid which means single.

so you're reproved..... try again.

101G.

The verse with ‘Echad’ translates to ‘ONLY [one]’:

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YAHWEH your God, is your ONLY GOD’

The purpose, Moses was telling them, was that the Israelites were not to believe in many Gods like the nations and tribes around them but to believe in only one God, ‘YHWH’, alone.

Echad had NOTHING to do with multiplicity or ‘singleness of unity’… that idea is simply a fallacy of trinitarian ideology.

WHY… WHY… why would Moses tell the Israelites that they are to believe in a God who was MANY IN ONE when God had not told him any such thing - and there was not even a hint of such a ludicrous notion known in any deity by any nation or tribe… and notice that no one questioned such a notion proving if was not a claim.

No! Moses told them that their God was their ONLY GOD!!

 

[Brian2]

The verse with ‘Echad’ translates to ‘ONLY [one]’:

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YAHWEH your God, is your ONLY GOD’

The purpose, Moses was telling them, was that the Israelites were not to believe in many Gods like the nations and tribes around them but to believe in only one God, ‘YHWH’, alone.

Echad had NOTHING to do with multiplicity or ‘singleness of unity’… that idea is simply a fallacy of trinitarian ideology.

WHY… WHY… why would Moses tell the Israelites that they are to believe in a God who was MANY IN ONE when God had not told him any such thing - and there was not even a hint of such a ludicrous notion known in any deity by any nation or tribe… and notice that no one questioned such a notion proving if was not a claim.

No! Moses told them that their God was their ONLY GOD!!

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YAHWEH your God, is your ONLY GOD’

Why do you think that this shows that the trinity is not true?

 

[PruePhillip]

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YAHWEH your God, is your ONLY GOD’

Why do you think that this shows that the trinity is not true?

This Trinity is a Roman Catholic thing. Pay no attention. BUT did you not read where David wrote, 'THE Lord said to MY Lord, sit at my right side until I make your enemies your footstool." Maybe paraphrase there. TWO LORDS. And one is in subjection to the other, and must wait upon his Lord.

 

[rosends]

This Trinity is a Roman Catholic thing. Pay no attention. BUT did you not read where David wrote, 'THE Lord said to MY Lord, sit at my right side until I make your enemies your footstool." Maybe paraphrase there. TWO LORDS. And one is in subjection to the other, and must wait upon his Lord.

but in the Hebrew, those are 2 very different words. The first is the sacred 4 letter "name" of God that we replace with a hybrid/fictional word in pronunciation, "ado-nai" and the second is a completely different word that is pronounced "adonee." The fact that translations use "lord" for both, with a difference of capital letters is not at all reflective of the Hebrew.


The better translation is "God said to my boss..."

 

[101G]

The verse with ‘Echad’ translates to ‘ONLY [one]’:

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YAHWEH your God, is your ONLY GOD’

ERROR on "ONE" .... "LORD" read it again. ONE "LORD"

101G.

 

[101G]

but in the Hebrew, those are 2 very different words. The first is the sacred 4 letter "name" of God that we replace with a hybrid/fictional word in pronunciation, "ado-nai" and the second is a completely different word that is pronounced "adonee." The fact that translations use "lord" for both, with a difference of capital letters is not at all reflective of the Hebrew.


The better translation is "God said to my boss..."

NONESENSE. Lord is the LORD shared in flesh as an ECHAD. verse 5 prove this out.

101G.

 

[101G]

@rosends,
is God an ECHAD before he created this world, or After he created this world. which one?

101G.

 

[rosends]

@rosends,
is God an ECHAD before he created this world, or After he created this world. which one?

101G.

no one is "an echad". Echad isn't a thing.

Siddur Ashkenaz, Weekday, Shacharit, Preparatory Prayers, Adon Olam 3

And after all things shall cease to be the Awesome One will reign...

www.sefaria.org

 

[PruePhillip]

but in the Hebrew, those are 2 very different words. The first is the sacred 4 letter "name" of God that we replace with a hybrid/fictional word in pronunciation, "ado-nai" and the second is a completely different word that is pronounced "adonee." The fact that translations use "lord" for both, with a difference of capital letters is not at all reflective of the Hebrew.


The better translation is "God said to my boss..."

David mentions 'my Lord' and 'God' as separate entities. I take this as refering to the regining and suffering Messiah. Who else could it be?

 

[101G]

no one is "an echad". Echad isn't a thing.

Siddur Ashkenaz, Weekday, Shacharit, Preparatory Prayers, Adon Olam 3

And after all things shall cease to be the Awesome One will reign...

www.sefaria.org

LOL, LOL,.... LOL

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" so, you're saying that "ONE" here is not the term,
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

so, there is no ECHAD.... ok, back to Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Lord here is the Hebrew term,
H113 אָדוֹן 'adown (aw-done') n-m.
אָדֹן 'adon (aw-done') [shortened]
1. sovereign (i.e. controller, human or divine).
2. lord.
{also used as a prefix for names}
[from an unused root (meaning to rule)]
KJV: lord, master, owner.

now, this same "Lord" at the "LORD" right hand. Psalms 110:5 "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath." Lord: H136 אֲדֹנָי 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') n-m.
1. (meaning) Lord (used as a proper name of God only).
2. (person) Adonai, The Lord God of Israel (which is actually “Yahweh God of Israel” - see Exodus 5:1 and 120 other occurrences).
[am emphatic form of H113]
KJV: (my) Lord.
Root(s): H113


so, please explain how you have two Gods of Israel?

101G.

 

[rosends]

David mentions 'my Lord' and 'God' as separate entities. I take this as refering to the regining and suffering Messiah. Who else could it be?

In the Psalm, David speaks of 2 entities -- God, as represented by the 4 letter name of God, and a person called "my boss."
The most common explanation of the second reference (adonee/my boss) is Abraham, who was called adonee in Gen 23:6.

 

[rosends]

LOL, LOL,.... LOL

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" so, you're saying that "ONE" here is not the term,
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

so, there is no ECHAD.... ok, back to Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Lord here is the Hebrew term,
H113 אָדוֹן 'adown (aw-done') n-m.
אָדֹן 'adon (aw-done') [shortened]
1. sovereign (i.e. controller, human or divine).
2. lord.
{also used as a prefix for names}
[from an unused root (meaning to rule)]
KJV: lord, master, owner.

now, this same "Lord" at the "LORD" right hand. Psalms 110:5 "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath." Lord: H136 אֲדֹנָי 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') n-m.
1. (meaning) Lord (used as a proper name of God only).
2. (person) Adonai, The Lord God of Israel (which is actually “Yahweh God of Israel” - see Exodus 5:1 and 120 other occurrences).
[am emphatic form of H113]
KJV: (my) Lord.
Root(s): H113


so, please explain how you have two Gods of Israel?

101G.

you have completely missed the point of what I said. Again. When you learn basic English, let me know.