Are you citing 9:6? There is no mention that the person spoken about will rule forever:
"To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this." To those who think it means that one person will be eternal, the commentators explain that the phrase in Hebrew does not mean that (and then at least one of the commentators points out that if one were to take the words incorrectly as non-Jews are wont to do, it would actually undermine a central idea of other religions...)
It makes things hard when translations differ. Isa 9:1 is Isa 8:23 in the Tanakh and "Galilee" is left out altogether.
Isa 9:1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—
Isa 8:23 For there is no weariness to the one who oppresses her; like the first time, he dealt mildly, [exiling only] the land of Zebulun and the land of Naftali, and the last one he dealt harshly, the way of the sea, and the other side of the Jordan, the attraction of the nations.
Isa 9:6,7 is Isa 9:5,6 in the Tanakh and it is completely different really. I have seen various Jewish translations of the name/s of the child and one in which the name is all the other names joined together into one big name. From this I ascertain that the Christian translation is legitimate. (and especially when part of the reason it is seen as about Hezekiah is that the name Hezekiah has a sort of similar meaning to "Mighty God".) All of this (including the leaving out of Galilee) makes me wonder if the Jewish translation is legitimate language wise or if it just a translation based on Jewish theology.
Isa 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7
Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and sustain it with justice and righteousness from that time and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts will accomplish this.
Isa 9:5
5For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
6To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.
Well, you need to be abit more precise about which section you are calling teh "Septuagint."
Here is a write up which explains that the translation of the 5 books was subject to revision, and the books beyond were never free from Chrsitian influence even in their creation.
That the text was corrupted by the Christians is unknown. All that is known is that it differs from the Masoretic text.
No, the citation I provided showed that the only ones who think that alma means virgin are Christians -- so the Sept is definitvely wrong..
OK
Well, one will be. The fact that none is now, and none was in the year 1 CE is exactly the point.
My point would be that it does not seem to matter with other candidates for Messiahship, only Jesus.
I'm not sure why this means anything other than what it says, talking to a singular (and mortal) king:
"Your sons will succeed your ancestors;
you will appoint them princes throughout the land.
I commemorate your fame for all generations,
so peoples will praise you forever and ever."
Again a different translation. It would be a very important King for the peoples (nations) to praise Him forever and ever. (that looks like it means into eternity)
In post 209 you wrote, "just as we see Moses as a type of the Messiah the prophet"
That would mean that I did not say he was a Messiah even if he was chosen and anointed by the Spirit to save Israel from Egypt.
Except for one problem -- though there was no oil, God explicitly said Cyrus was "anointed". Can you show me where God said the same of Moses?
Isa 45:1 “This is what the Lord says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
I have shown you where Moses is shown to have been anointed with the Spirit of God.
You want a Messiah to have been anointed and it is plain the Cyrus would not have been anointed with oil or the Spirit of God imo. So Isa 45:1 is evidence that you wanting Jesus to have been anointed with oil is something like a moot point. Of course he certainly was chosen by God and may have been led by the Spirit of God to release the Jews from Babylon to go and rebuild the Temple and in these way anointed.
Then he went against his own teaching about the particular religious authority of his day. He said to his followers to follow the teachings of a group that taught he wasn't a prophet. So either he misled his followers, or he contradicted his own advice.
Telling people to do what the teachers said was in relation to the Law of Moses and not about everything.
So God says that his law is perfect and then he changes it. Got it.
In Israel at that time, the Law was just what God wanted and was perfect. Times change and laws have to, in order to reflect the different times and circumstances.
If the New law is Love and God's Spirit is in us guiding us about what that means in all circumstances, then how can the law have changes in principle?
Let's face it, you don't follow the law to the letter these days, a Rabbi might guide you from the Law about what would be the appropriate thing to do in a circumstance that is not precisely covered by the Law.
What? The priest will be on HIS throne -- the throne that belongs to the priest. Two people, two thrones. Basic English.
In the prophecy there is only Joshua and he is the priest who wears the crowns of a King. He sits on only one throne because He is one person, and on that throne is both a King and a Priest. Basic comprehension.
There were 2 offices, stemming from 2 tribes and they were separate. While there was a time in Jewish history when the two were merged, that led to disaster. Your verse explicitly says 2 people. It explicitly notes 2 thrones "and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them." How can that be if there is only 1 person?
It can be because it is saying that the 2 offices, when joined into the one person, will not be a disaster. That is why some translations recognise that the peace is between the 2 offices and not 2 people.
