Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[blü 2]

It is only an irreconcilable mess to those who fail to study it carefully!

I've had quite a good look.

Each of the Gospels reflects a perspective on 'the Branch'. The Gospel of Matthew looks at the life of Jesus as the coming King of the Jews. Royalty keep genealogies, and this is reflected in the royal line through David.

But as I said, Mark's Jesus is expressly not descended from David, and those of Matthew and Luke have descended into genealogical nonsense over someone who is no relative of Jesus at all.

Luke focuses on Jesus as the Son of Man, and the genealogy of Luke takes us back to Adam.

Hard to get more fake than that!

By combining these two genealogies it is possible to demonstrate that Jesus was of the royal line of David, whilst also being the Son of God (ie without Joseph as his father).

Nah, quicker and at least as authentic just to write your own.

As for the article to which you refer, it too is either ignorant or pretending to be ignorant of Mark's Jesus, the first with anything like an earthly bio, who is out loud and proud NOT descended from David.

Don't any of you read your own book? Try it one day ─ who knows but you might find it informative.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I've had quite a good look.
But as I said, Mark's Jesus is expressly not descended from David, and those of Matthew and Luke have descended into genealogical nonsense over someone who is no relative of Jesus at all.
Hard to get more fake than that!
Nah, quicker and at least as authentic just to write your own.

As for the article to which you refer, it too is either ignorant or pretending to be ignorant of Mark's Jesus, the first with anything like an earthly bio, who is out loud and proud NOT descended from David.

Don't any of you read your own book? Try it one day ─ who knows but you might find it informative.

What evidence do you have that 'Mark's Jesus', is not descended from David? Just because Mark's Gospel begins with John's record, does not negate the nativity records found in Matthew and Luke. The whole purpose of having four Gospels is to illustrate different perspectives on the one Messiah.

 

[Harel13]

You make a valid point about the use of the word 'save' in reference to a sinless soul. Clearly, a sinless soul does not require salvation. Resurrection, however, according to 1 Corinthians 15 , is about a transformation from bodily corruption to incorruption. In resurrection, the body has to be changed from mortal to immortal. A dead body becomes a living body.

We know from the record of Jesus' resurrection that his body was in a changed state after resurrection; so even if his soul was unchanged his body certainly was changed. This change was brought about by God the Father giving life to a dead body. In the case of Jesus, the dead body rose, indicating that it had been 'saved' from corruption.

In desperation to prove that Jesus was in fact "saved" you are attempting to twist the concept of bodily resurrection to also somehow mean "saving". That doesn't hold water, sorry.

 

[Redemptionsong]

In desperation to prove that Jesus was in fact "saved" you are attempting to twist the concept of bodily resurrection to also somehow mean "saving". That doesn't hold water, sorry.

What point are you trying to make? That Jesus was not resurrected from the dead?
Or is it that Jesus didn't need saving?

 

[Harel13]

What point are you trying to make? That Jesus was not resurrected from the dead?
Or is it that Jesus didn't need saving?

Evidently he was not saved. His essence was pure and therefore being saved was simply irrelevant to him.
Since he could not have been saved, he cannot be the "saved head of Israel". Which leads us back to your contradicting views on Israel and salvation. Israel=the shepherd king=already saved and all that.

 

[blü 2]

What evidence do you have that 'Mark's Jesus', is not descended from David?

You don't read it, do you. You only know what you've been told. Try Mark 12:35-37.

Just because Mark's Gospel begins with John's record, does not negate the nativity records found in Matthew and Luke.

Of course they do. Mark's Jesus was not born of a virgin, angels did not foretell him, his mother received no supernatural tip-off. Nothing happened until John the Baptist dips him in Mark 1, the heavens open, and God adopts him in the same way [he] adopts David in Psalm 2:7, as Acts 13:33 makes explicit. That's why, when Mark's Jesus clashes with authority with his early preaching, his family think he's nuts (Mark 3:21).

The whole purpose of having four Gospels is to illustrate different perspectives on the one Messiah.

None of the gospel authors ever met an historical Jesus. If in fact there was such a person, they had only stories to go on. The whole purpose of writing the second gospel (Matthew) is to make the first gospel (Mark) read how the author of Matthew wanted it to read. And so on with the authors of Luke and of John. One example is the crucifixion scene in Mark, where Jesus is a thoroughly defeated figure, asking why his God has forsaken him (&c). The author of Matthew lifts the tone a little, but his Jesus still complains of being abandoned. Luke's Jesus is more positive, promising the thieves (who appear for the first time) that it will all be good, and not mentioning being forsaken. And the Jesus of John is more like the MC of his crucifixion than the victim.

They're not supporting each other. They're "correcting" each other. And they're not doing it from history but because their dramatic sense has been offended by the earlier versions.

Perhaps the most egregious example is the six accounts of the resurrection. None is by an eyewitness, none is within twenty years of being contemporary, none is an independent account. Each account contradicts the other five in major ways. If we try your approach and choose the parts we like from each account to get a 'single Jesus', all we in fact get is a seventh account which contradicts all the others.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Response to Harel 13.

Since l have used 'saved' and 'resurrected' interchangeably, it remains my position that Jesus Christ is resurrected and seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

When scripture says 'All lsrael shall be saved', l understand this to mean that a person cannot be saved without faith in the resurrected Christ. This applies to Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You don't read it, do you. You only know what you've been told. Try Mark 12:35-37.
Of course they do. Mark's Jesus was not born of a virgin, angels did not foretell him, his mother received no supernatural tip-off. Nothing happened until John the Baptist dips him in Mark 1, the heavens open, and God adopts him in the same way [he] adopts David in Psalm 2:7, as Acts 13:33 makes explicit. That's why, when Mark's Jesus clashes with authority with his early preaching, his family think he's nuts (Mark 3:21).
None of the gospel authors ever met an historical Jesus. If in fact there was such a person, they had only stories to go on. The whole purpose of writing the second gospel (Matthew) is to make the first gospel (Mark) read how the author of Matthew wanted it to read. And so on with the authors of Luke and of John. One example is the crucifixion scene in Mark, where Jesus is a thoroughly defeated figure, asking why his God has forsaken him (&c). The author of Matthew lifts the tone a little, but his Jesus still complains of being abandoned. Luke's Jesus is more positive, promising the thieves (who appear for the first time) that it will all be good, and not mentioning being forsaken. And the Jesus of John is more like the MC of his crucifixion than the victim.

They're not supporting each other. They're "correcting" each other. And they're not doing it from history but because their dramatic sense has been offended by the earlier versions.

Perhaps the most egregious example is the six accounts of the resurrection. None is by an eyewitness, none is within twenty years of being contemporary, none is an independent account. Each account contradicts the other five in major ways. If we try your approach and choose the parts we like from each account to get a 'single Jesus', all we in fact get is a seventh account which contradicts all the others.

More baseless claims.

Let's begin with what Jesus says in Mark 12 (which is a conversation also found in Matthew's Gospel, the Gospel recording the royal line of David!)

In Mark 12, Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is ALSO the Son of God.

If you read R.A.Torrey's explanation on point 4 [post 140] all will become clear.

The rest of what you say is just based on your unwillingness to believe the words of scripture. You present no arguments to refute the words written in the Gospels.

What the Gospel writers provide is constant reference to OT prophecies, so that a denial of the NT involves denial of the OT.

And, let me say now, l do not accept the late dating of the Gospels, or that we don't know who provides the testimony.

 

[blü 2]

More baseless claims.

None so deaf as those afraid to hear.

Let's begin with what Jesus says in Mark 12 (which is a conversation also found in Matthew's Gospel, the Gospel recording the royal line of David!)

If you're going to cite Mark 12, cite chapter and verse. That would be the minimum courtesy, no?

If you read R.A.Torrey's explanation on point 4 [post 140] all will become clear.

There you go again, not reading it for yourself, not bringing an independent judgment to it. If Citizen Torrey wishes to post here, let him or her do so in person.

The rest of what you say is just based on your unwillingness to believe the words of scripture.

I've shown you what the text actually says. You're replying with wafty generalities.

You present no arguments to refute the words written in the Gospels.

Why would I do that in this particular context? Instead I'm relying on what the text actually says. You're the one who wants to pretend it must mean something else that conforms with your preconceptions.

What the Gospel writers provide is constant reference to OT prophecies

Yes, that accounts for how the biography of Jesus is constructed in Mark and altered in the others. For example, the author of Matthew ─

requires Mary to have been a virgin because the LXX in translating Isaiah 7:14 had rendered Hebrew 'almah, young woman, as parthenos, virgin;​

invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to “fulfill” Micah 5:2​

invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to “fulfill” Hosea 11.1.​

absurdly sits Jesus across a foal and a donkey to ride into Jerusalem "to fulfill prophecy" (Matthew 21:2-5) in Zechariah 9.9;​

a denial of the NT involves denial of the OT.

Rather, it involves a denial that Jesus is mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. Which is easy to do, because Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh, and the claim that he is, is a wholly Christian invention, influencing the way the gospel writers starting with Mark's put their story together (as I mentioned above).

And, let me say now, l do not accept the late dating of the Gospels, or that we don't know who provides the testimony.

It's easy to show that the first gospel Mark was written in or after 75 CE. For instance, the author of Mark at Mark 13:2 has Jesus "predict" the destruction of Jerusalem, so he's writing after 70 CE. The trial of Jesus is derived from the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias as described in Josephus' Wars, which doesn't appear till 75 CE or so.

And so on.

 

[rosends]

Rather than being an obstacle to belief in Jesus as the 'anointed' of God, the two genealogies, in Matthew and Luke, provide support for his credentials not just as the Son of David, but as the Son of Man and Son of God. The beauty and harmony of the two genealogies makes it possible for us to see that Jesus fulfilled all these roles.

So you are using books that I find useless and which don't solve the incidental problem I raised. OK.

How will Torah Jews recognise the Messiah? For a start, they have concluded that the Messiah is only a man, despite the problem arising from Psalm 110:1, and other passages of scripture, which indicates that an exalted 'Lord' stands between David and God the Father. Jesus raised this issue with the Jews of his day, and they had no answer [Matthew 22:41-46].

Except we have ways of recognizing the messiah and your continued misuse of Psalms 110 doesn't change that. Your lenses are showing again.

 

[Redemptionsong]

None so deaf as those afraid to hear.
If you're going to cite Mark 12, cite chapter and verse. That would be the minimum courtesy, no?
There you go again, not reading it for yourself, not bringing an independent judgment to it. If Citizen Torrey wishes to post here, let him or her do so in person.
I've shown you what the text actually says. You're replying with wafty generalities.
Why would I do that in this particular context? Instead I'm relying on what the text actually says. You're the one who wants to pretend it must mean something else that conforms with your preconceptions.
Yes, that accounts for how the biography of Jesus is constructed in Mark and altered in the others. For example, the author of Matthew ─

requires Mary to have been a virgin because the LXX in translating Isaiah 7:14 had rendered Hebrew 'almah, young woman, as parthenos, virgin;​

invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to “fulfill” Micah 5:2​

invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to “fulfill” Hosea 11.1.​

absurdly sits Jesus across a foal and a donkey to ride into Jerusalem "to fulfill prophecy" (Matthew 21:2-5) in Zechariah 9.9;​

Rather, it involves a denial that Jesus is mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. Which is easy to do, because Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh, and the claim that he is, is a wholly Christian invention, influencing the way the gospel writers starting with Mark's put their story together (as I mentioned above).
It's easy to show that the first gospel Mark was written in or after 75 CE. For instance, the author of Mark at Mark 13:2 has Jesus "predict" the destruction of Jerusalem, so he's writing after 70 CE. The trial of Jesus is derived from the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias as described in Josephus' Wars, which doesn't appear till 75 CE or so.

And so on.

Let's do as you ask, and cite chapter and verse, instead of making generalised accusations about the inconsistency of scripture.

One point or issue at a time will also help in the resolution of differences.

Where would you like to begin?

 

[Redemptionsong]

So you are using books that I find useless and which don't solve the incidental problem I raised. OK.

Except we have ways of recognizing the messiah and your continued misuse of Psalms 110 doesn't change that. Your lenses are showing again.

I have watched a number of lectures given by orthodox Jews on the ways to recognise the Messiah. IMO, they do not provide a consistent picture for the reasons already outlined, principally that the Messiah expected by Torah Jews has no divine credentials. This matters, because scripture clearly states that it is God that saves, not man.

Psalm 110 is acknowledged as a Psalm of David and in the JPS notes (which offers a reasoned commentary) on verse 1 it says: 'Here, God is speaking to the king, called my Lord; perhaps these are the words spoken by a prophet. The king is very proximate to God, in a position of privilege, imagined as being on His right in the divine council.'

Well, David was a prophet, as well as a king who performed priestly duties (see note v.4). Would David be speaking as a prophet about himself? To my understanding, this is not the role of a prophet. Furthermore, the king is at the right hand of God, and God's throne is in heaven. How does the king, even in vision, come to be in the midst of God's throne in heaven? If one sees all scripture as prophecy, then Daniel provides the answer to this mystery. In Daniel 7:13,14 he sees the Son of man ascend to God and receive dominion. It states that his dominion is over all people, which would include David.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Evidently he was not saved. His essence was pure and therefore being saved was simply irrelevant to him.
Since he could not have been saved, he cannot be the "saved head of Israel". Which leads us back to your contradicting views on Israel and salvation. Israel=the shepherd king=already saved and all that.

Please see response above. I failed to quote your post.

 

[blü 2]

Let's do as you ask, and cite chapter and verse, instead of making generalised accusations about the inconsistency of scripture.

One point or issue at a time will also help in the resolution of differences.

Where would you like to begin?

Let's begin with the obvious ─ there are five versions of Jesus in the NT, and they're all distinct ─ Paul's and John's gnostic one who dwelt in heaven with God and created the material universe, Mark's who was an ordinary Jew until God adopted him, and the fairy-tale virgin birth Jesuses in Matthew and Luke.

Which one of those five ─ if any ─ do you say is the true historical Jesus?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Let's begin with the obvious ─ there are five versions of Jesus in the NT, and they're all distinct ─ Paul's and John's gnostic one who dwelt in heaven with God and created the material universe, Mark's who was an ordinary Jew until God adopted him, and the fairy-tale virgin birth Jesuses in Matthew and Luke.

Which one of those five ─ if any ─ do you say is the true historical Jesus?

I say they are all true, and not inconsistent. Where is the chapter and verse inconsistency?

 

[rosends]

I have watched a number of lectures given by orthodox Jews on the ways to recognise the Messiah. IMO, they do not provide a consistent picture for the reasons already outlined, principally that the Messiah expected by Torah Jews has no divine credentials. This matters, because scripture clearly states that it is God that saves, not man.

Because you are starting from the wrong point, that of expecting the future messiah to be categorically not a man, based on your misuse and misunderstanding of text. Was king Solomon not a man? What about the high priests? Were they men? Yet somehow you assume that the term "messiah", used so often to refer to these men, will somehow mean something different. Weird.

Psalm 110 is acknowledged as a Psalm of David

That's a strange statement. What do you mean "acknowledged"? The text reads "of David, a song" so what is acknowledged (as if it is up for argument)?

and in the JPS notes (which offers a reasoned commentary) on verse 1 it says: 'Here, God is speaking to the king, called my Lord; perhaps these are the words spoken by a prophet. The king is very proximate to God, in a position of privilege, imagined as being on His right in the divine council.'

So the JPS offers the opinion/interpretation that in David's song, he recounts that God spoke to someone whom David sees as his "master" (his, being David's and the JPS being wrong about the translation, at least by introducing capitalization). So far, that's fine. Then you quote another interpretation of "perhaps these are the words spoken by a prophet." This "perhaps" offers a different interpretation otherwise, isn't it obvious, because David is a prophet? Next up you have the "imagined" line which reduces this all to imagination so nothing, according to the JPS, is to be taken as an actual statement of fact. If that's OK with you then you have David, the prophet, imagining a relationship.

Well, David was a prophet, as well as a king who performed priestly duties (see note v.4).

Wow, there's the jump. You now have David, the prophet, imagining God speaking to HIS master, and yet that master, the one to whom God is speaking in verse four is also David? And can you show me that other than God calling the master a "kohen" (which is a term biblically used in at least 3 different ways), that this "kohen" performed any priestly duties? Or are you just going along with the "imagination" idea? Most commentators see this as about someone other than David because David wasn't talking about himself in the third person.

You see, the "perhaps" statement above was actually the JPS referring to the opinion that David is not the writer of this text (see the Ibn Ezra for corroboration) but instead, it is written by ANOTHER prophet about David and the word "kohen" in verse 4 is simply used in another of the 3 meanings I mentioned.

Would David be speaking as a prophet about himself? To my understanding, this is not the role of a prophet.

Prophets never speak of themselves? Where do you get that from? Isaiah speaks of himself in Is 5:9 (in MY ears). And in chapter 6. And elsewhere.

Furthermore, the king is at the right hand of God, and God's throne is in heaven. How does the king, even in vision, come to be in the midst of God's throne in heaven?

Well, first, it is in a vision (or, if you will, according to the JPS, "imagined as being on His right in the divine council"). Second, if you read carefully, the person spoken to is on God's right, and THEN is called a king (3 verses later) so your question is flawed.

If one sees all scripture as prophecy

then one is a fool

, then Daniel provides the answer to this mystery. In Daniel 7:13,14 he sees the Son of man ascend to God and receive dominion. It states that his dominion is over all people, which would include David.

So now you want to misunderstand the book of Daniel? In 7:13, Daniel discusses a vision (not a literal event) in which one who is like a human appears. Unless you think of the animals previously listed as being literal animals, you have no reason to think that this was an actual human being because this was all a vision. But let's play along -- if this vision is of a future messianic figure who will be given dominion of king then all people will be in his dominion, but not David, who is already dead. Oh, wait, does a future king have dominion over the dead also? And this guy's kingship will never be destroyed. Since Jesus is dead, this can't refer to him. Since there is no current kingship, this can't have happened yet.

I shall wait until you jump to a different text. I love surprises!

 

[blü 2]

I say they are all true, and not inconsistent. Where is the chapter and verse inconsistency?

So you say all the Jesuses are the same?

Despite what your own text tells you?

Ah, but of course, you don't read it ─ you want others to tell you what it says. So giving you chapter and verse won't lead to any understanding on your part, only a defense by way if assertion of what you want it to say and an attempt to avoid the substantial issues by arguing about trivia.

I've seen all that before.

Okay, have a nice day.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Because you are starting from the wrong point, that of expecting the future messiah to be categorically not a man, based on your misuse and misunderstanding of text. Was king Solomon not a man? What about the high priests? Were they men? Yet somehow you assume that the term "messiah", used so often to refer to these men, will somehow mean something different. Weird.

That's a strange statement. What do you mean "acknowledged"? The text reads "of David, a song" so what is acknowledged (as if it is up for argument)?

So the JPS offers the opinion/interpretation that in David's song, he recounts that God spoke to someone whom David sees as his "master" (his, being David's and the JPS being wrong about the translation, at least by introducing capitalization). So far, that's fine. Then you quote another interpretation of "perhaps these are the words spoken by a prophet." This "perhaps" offers a different interpretation otherwise, isn't it obvious, because David is a prophet? Next up you have the "imagined" line which reduces this all to imagination so nothing, according to the JPS, is to be taken as an actual statement of fact. If that's OK with you then you have David, the prophet, imagining a relationship.

Wow, there's the jump. You now have David, the prophet, imagining God speaking to HIS master, and yet that master, the one to whom God is speaking in verse four is also David? And can you show me that other than God calling the master a "kohen" (which is a term biblically used in at least 3 different ways), that this "kohen" performed any priestly duties? Or are you just going along with the "imagination" idea? Most commentators see this as about someone other than David because David wasn't talking about himself in the third person.

You see, the "perhaps" statement above was actually the JPS referring to the opinion that David is not the writer of this text (see the Ibn Ezra for corroboration) but instead, it is written by ANOTHER prophet about David and the word "kohen" in verse 4 is simply used in another of the 3 meanings I mentioned.

Prophets never speak of themselves? Where do you get that from? Isaiah speaks of himself in Is 5:9 (in MY ears). And in chapter 6. And elsewhere.

Well, first, it is in a vision (or, if you will, according to the JPS, "imagined as being on His right in the divine council"). Second, if you read carefully, the person spoken to is on God's right, and THEN is called a king (3 verses later) so your question is flawed.

then one is a fool

So now you want to misunderstand the book of Daniel? In 7:13, Daniel discusses a vision (not a literal event) in which one who is like a human appears. Unless you think of the animals previously listed as being literal animals, you have no reason to think that this was an actual human being because this was all a vision. But let's play along -- if this vision is of a future messianic figure who will be given dominion of king then all people will be in his dominion, but not David, who is already dead. Oh, wait, does a future king have dominion over the dead also? And this guy's kingship will never be destroyed. Since Jesus is dead, this can't refer to him. Since there is no current kingship, this can't have happened yet.

I shall wait until you jump to a different text. I love surprises!

In Isaiah chapter 1, Isaiah tells us who he is, and the period during which his prophecies occur. This is quite different from claiming to be the subject of prophecy! In chapter 2, Isaiah opens with 'The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem'. This is not some vain attempt to enhance his own reputation, yet, if we accept your interpretation of Isaiah 61, it is just that... an act of vanity. Why would a prophet claim that God had sent him 'to bind up the brokenhearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of prison to them that are bound'? If Isaiah made this prophecy about himself then it should have the backing of other prophets ... but it doesn't.

If one allows a prophet to make themselves the subject of prophecy you end up with false prophets leading the people astray. God's prophets do not make themselves the subject of prophecy, they make God, and his Christ, the subject.

The interpretation of Psalm 110, and of Isaiah 61, that you have offered, demonstrates inconsistency in the application of prophecy. In Psalm 110, the man Abraham becomes the subject of everlasting glory, and in Isaiah 61, Isaiah becomes the arm of salvation. Yet, scripture clearly sees man as a fallen creature, in need of salvation from God. Why, therefore, would you turn to a sinful man to supply eternal salvation?

 

[Redemptionsong]

So you say all the Jesuses are the same?

Despite what your own text tells you?

Ah, but of course, you don't read it ─ you want others to tell you what it says. So giving you chapter and verse won't lead to any understanding on your part, only a defense by way if assertion of what you want it to say and an attempt to avoid the substantial issues by arguing about trivia.

I've seen all that before.

Okay, have a nice day.

You keep saying, 'despite what your own text tells you', without supplying the text!

I'm asking for the evidence that there is more than one Jesus in scripture, with references.

 

[rosends]

In Isaiah chapter 1, Isaiah tells us who he is, and the period during which his prophecies occur.

So if someone says "I was told by God to say the following" then that person isn't the subject of prophecy? OK. Well then, this must really limit your understanding of Is 42 (and possibly Jer 51). But whatever floats your boat.

if we accept your interpretation of Isaiah 61, it is just that... an act of vanity. Why would a prophet claim that God had sent him 'to bind up the brokenhearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of prison to them that are bound'? If Isaiah made this prophecy about himself then it should have the backing of other prophets ... but it doesn't.

Why is that vanity? Isaiah is proclaiming his mission. You are labeling that vanity? And why should it have the "backing" (whatever you mean by that) of anyone else? He has his mission, they have theirs. Now you are judging Isaiah's motives and telling other prophets their job. That's a bit arrogant.

If one allows a prophet to make themselves the subject of prophecy you end up with false prophets leading the people astray. God's prophets do not make themselves the subject of prophecy, they make God, and his Christ, the subject.

You have a strange idea of what prophecy is then. (This, I already know, because you insist that all text is prophetic.) The prophet gives the message he is commanded to give. It might be about past, present or future. If it includes information about the prophet then the prophet speaks it. And, no, they don't speak of "his Christ" except for Moses who does speak of false prophets...

The interpretation of Psalm 110, and of Isaiah 61, that you have offered, demonstrates inconsistency in the application of prophecy. In Psalm 110, the man Abraham becomes the subject of everlasting glory, and in Isaiah 61, Isaiah becomes the arm of salvation. Yet, scripture clearly sees man as a fallen creature, in need of salvation from God. Why, therefore, would you turn to a sinful man to supply eternal salvation?

Remember, the words are important -- so when the text uses words that, if read consistently, speak of Abraham, then the text is about Abraham whether you like it or not. The biblical text uses the word "adoni" for Abraham and the word in Ps 110 is adoni. Unless you think that that is some sort of coincidence. And what's all this about "everlasting glory"? I don't see that in Ps 110 (or Daniel 7:14).

And "salvation"? What are you talking about? Is 61 has the prophet proclaim his mission -- to give people the news of future redemption and victory. "Arm of salvation"? If you make things up, you end up with a mass of confusion, and you have that in spades.