Messiah Ben Joseph versus Messiah Ben David

[user4578]

If Isaiah 7:14-16 referred only to a son that would be born around the same time period, why would it take at least 130 -140 years for the land to be forsaken by its kings(Israel and Judah) before the child would have been born? The child could not have been born until at least that many years later in order for it to ring true for both the Assyrian captivity as well the Babylonian(i.e. before the child is born, the land shall be forsaken). In other words, saying it was Isaiah's son doesn't answer this point.

 

[Ingledsva]

If Isaiah 7:14-16 referred only to a son that would be born around the same time period, why would it take at least 130 -140 years for the land to be forsaken by its kings(Israel and Judah) before the child would have been born? The child could not have been born until at least that many years later in order for it to ring true for both the Assyrian captivity as well the Babylonian(i.e. before the child is born, the land shall be forsaken). In other words, saying it was Isaiah's son doesn't answer this point.

What?

Clarify and use verses so we can check them.

*

 

[omega2xx]

So you have changed your position. Now, you accept that the word doesn't mean "miraculous sign" even though you said, "The word for "sign" means a miraculous sign." (posts 132 and 134 I believe).

I haven't changed my position. Did you not understand what I said---the word does not have to mean a miraculous sign, but it can. In this case It still has to refer to a miraculous sign. If the maiden was not a virgin, teh child could not be identified and when this verse is quoted in the NT, the word for "virgin" in Greek can only mean a virgin. God is not going to have 2 quotes that are not consistgent.

OK, that's step 1.

Next would be your understanding that a young woman becoming pregnant is a miraculous event. I'm not sure why it would be -- young married women do that. Is there anything in the text which indicates that there is a miracle associated with a young woman getting pregnant.

I just said it had to be a miraculous birth.

And then there is the issue of verb tense. The verse is pretty clear about verb tense: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה
"behold, the young woman IS pregnant."

I don't know what version you are using but the verb tense is different in the KJ and the NASB. However the verb tense is irrelevant. The correct interpretation hangs on the meaning of "alma." Can that word refer to a virgin? Unless you think Abraham's servant prayed for a woman for his masters son, that was not a virgin, it can(Gen 24:43).

God answered his prayer immediately with Rebekah, and it is highly unlikely that she was not a virgin. Maybe you think God chose a non-virgin for Isaac.

So not only is the choice of word in terms of the women (young woman, not virgin) exact, but the verb tense makes it clear that the woman is already pregnant.

That depends on if your version is the best translation. However that she is pregnant is irrelevant. The correct understanding still depends on if she is a virgin.

If you want to believe that the Hebrew noun is inexact and the verb tense is wrong, that's fine with me.

If you think alma is limited to "young woman" in spite of the exampel I gave you that is fine with me.

If you think the child could have been identified if the young woman was not a virgin, that is also fine with me.

If you think God is inconsistent and uses one meaning in one verse and another meaning in another verse and the context is the same, that is also fine with me.

 

[omega2xx]

Mat 1:23 changes it from what YHVH says - the mother will name, - to man's word - "they" will call him!!!

Why do you think they will call His name Emmanuel? Because that is a name His mother gave Him

3 days??? Wow! You just proved my point about you folks not knowing the info.

When you referred to Jesus being dead, you exposoed your ignorance of the ??Bible.

From one of your Christian sites, - as I know you won't accept anything else.

Paul was born in Tarsus in AD 10, and died in Rome in AD 67, according to Eusebius,

Paul wasn't even born until after Jesus' death.

*

I said Jesus died before Paul knew Him. Do you think and omnipoetent God could not appear to Paul if He wanted to?

 

[RESOLUTION]

Isa 53 says the Messiah will die for the sins of the people. Keep in mind the person in Isa 53 will offer Himself as a guilt offering and no Jews is without spot or blemish and therefore would not qualify.

Actually, you are wrong.

You see Jesus was a second Adam...

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Both Adam and Jesus were born of God.

God was literally their Father and he spoke and they came into being by the power of God.

When first created Adam had no sin. When Christ became flesh he had no sin.

 

[rosends]

I haven't changed my position. Did you not understand what I said---the word does not have to mean a miraculous sign, but it can. In this case It still has to refer to a miraculous sign. If the maiden was not a virgin, teh child could not be identified and when this verse is quoted in the NT, the word for "virgin" in Greek can only mean a virgin. God is not going to have 2 quotes that are not consistgent.

So your statement that "The word in Hebrew means a miraculous sign, and you can't get around that." means "it CAN mean a miraculous sign." I see. So apparently, one CAN get around that.

I just said it had to be a miraculous birth.

What in the text indicates it has to be a miraculous birth? And what is a miraculous birth? If the woman is a virgin, I would think that the text would identify a miraculous conception. It doesn't.

I don't know what version you are using but the verb tense is different in the KJ and the NASB.

I'm using the Hebrew. Why use a translation?

However the verb tense is irrelevant.

Really? A statement about the present is no different from a statement about the past or future? "A woman is pregnant" is the same as "a woman will be pregnant"? If that works for you, then fine. I prefer to think that verb tenses exist for a reason.

The correct interpretation hangs on the meaning of "alma." Can that word refer to a virgin? Unless you think Abraham's servant prayed for a woman for his masters son, that was not a virgin, it can(Gen 24:43).

Actually, the text of Genesis indicates a specific concept but not a virgin: Eliezer had asked for a na'arah, a maiden, but then changes to alma, young woman. And yet the word for virgin isn't used. It exists, you know, and specifically is not being employed. Or do words matter as much as tenses to you? When the text wants to indicate a virgin, it uses a construction like betulah or na'arah betulah (deut 22:23 for example). In fact, the text ALREADY attests to Rivka's virginity status in 24:16. Guess how. "Betulah." When Eliezer recaps the events to her family, you think that he needs to point out her sexual status?

God answered his prayer immediately with Rebekah, and it is highly unlikely that she was not a virgin. Maybe you think God chose a non-virgin for Isaac.

No -- I think the text addressed that in 24:16. Did you miss that verse?

That depends on if your version is the best translation. However that she is pregnant is irrelevant. The correct understanding still depends on if she is a virgin.

What translation? I'm using the Hebrew.

If you think alma is limited to "young woman" in spite of the exampel I gave you that is fine with me.

If you think "alma" is "virgin" regardless of the actual meaning and its use as distinct from betulah, that's fine with me.

If you think the child could have been identified if the young woman was not a virgin, that is also fine with me.

If you think that the woman and child were only to be identified because someone would ask to see her hymen, that's fine with me. A little weird, but whatever.

If you think God is inconsistent and uses one meaning in one verse and another meaning in another verse and the context is the same, that is also fine with me.

If you think that the text uses words inconsistently and in a way that defies their meaning, that's fine by me.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually, you are wrong.<<

Why?

You see Jesus was a second Adam...

Actually He was the second man and the last Adam.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

OK, what's your point?

Both Adam and Jesus were born of God.

OK, what's your point?

God was literally their Father and he spoke and they came into being by the power of God.

When first created Adam had no sin. When Christ became flesh he had no sin.

OK, what's your point?

 

[RESOLUTION]

No, it does not. What verse in Isaiah 53 you are referring to say that the Messiah would die for the the People? If there were such a verse, the Prophets of the Most High would not have proclaimed by inspiration from the Lord that "No one can die for the sins of another." (Ezekiel 18:4,20; Jeremiah 31:30)

4 .Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

20 .The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

It simply says that they will not carry the punishment of the sins to the son from the Father.

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

So people won't die because their Fathers has sinned or vice versa everyone will die because of their own sin.

It is so easy to take out of context something said for something not said.



King James Bible
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

This would make it clearer.

Isaiah 53:
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[omega2xx]

So your statement that "The word in Hebrew means a miraculous sign, and you can't get around that." means "it CAN mean a miraculous sign." I see. So apparently, one CAN get around that.

Not and have the correct understanding of what is being taught.

What in the text indicates it has to be a miraculous birth? And what is a miraculous birth? If the woman is a virgin, I would think that the text would identify a miraculous conception. It doesn't.

That depends on if alma can refer to a virgin. If the woman is not a virgin, how can the child be identified? A young woman having a son would be a common, everyday event in Jerusalem a that time.

I'm using the Hebrew. Why use a translation?

How do I know you know Hebrew better than the scholars who translated my Bible?

Really? A statement about the present is no different from a statement about the past or future? "A woman is pregnant" is the same as "a woman will be pregnant"? If that works for you, then fine. I prefer to think that verb tenses exist for a reason.<<

I have 2 versions that have different verb tenses than yours. Why should I accept yours? It still doesn't matter. What matters is if alma can also mean a virgin.

Actually, the text of Genesis indicates a specific concept but not a virgin: Eliezer had asked for a na'arah, a maiden, but then changes to alma, young woman.

Not true. He only use alma, but you are missing the point. Do you think Eliezer was asking for a non-virgin to be the wife of his master? God sent Rebekah there to answer the prayer. Do you think God sent a non-virgin to be 'wife?

And yet the word for virgin isn't used. It exists, you know, and specifically is not being employed. Or do words matter as much as tenses to you?

I have a Jewish source from an excellent scholar who says "alma" refers to a young girl, one of whose characteristic is a virgin. Also I link it with Mt 1:23 and in Greek, the word can only mean virgin. I am not willing to say God is inconsistent.

When the text wants to indicate a virgin, it uses a construction like betulah or na'arah betulah (deut 22:23 for example). In fact, the text ALREADY attests to Rivka's virginity status in 24:16. Guess how. "Betulah." When Eliezer recaps the events to her family, you think that he needs to point out her sexual status?<<

Since betulah could refer to an old virgin, God used alma. That way the identification could not be mistaken.

No -- I think the text addressed that in 24:16. Did you miss that verse?

I did miss that, but since both words refer to the same person, it makes my point. Thanks.

If you think "alma" is "virgin" regardless of the actual meaning and its use as distinct from betulah, that's fine with me.

If you think "virgin" in Gen 24:16 does not apply to "maiden" in Gen 24:43, making God inconsistent, tha is fine with me.

If you think that the woman and child were only to be identified because someone would ask to see her hymen, that's fine with me. A little weird, but whatever

What is weird is that you think I think that.

If you think that the text uses words inconsistently and in a way that defies their meaning, that's fine by me.

I don' t, you do. That is shown by you thinking "virgin" in 24:16, and maiden in 24:43 have different meanings.

 

[rosends]

Not and have the correct understanding of what is being taught.

With “correct” meaning “agrees with what you want to believe”.

That depends on if alma can refer to a virgin. If the woman is not a virgin, how can the child be identified? A young woman having a son would be a common, everyday event in Jerusalem a that time.

If alma CAN refer to a virgin? Sure it can. So can “isha”. I can refer to a virgin by something other than her sexual status, like by her age or hair color. But that doesn’t mean that “brunette” MEANS virgin. And yes, children are born everyday. The text though says “hineh” which means “behold” and points to a specific object of the statement, signified by the definite article before “alma”. THE young woman, not A young woman. During a conversation with Achaz, the prophet refers to a specific young woman. The pregnancy of this young woman is the sign, itself, even if Achaz refuses to ask for one (see the previous verses).

How do I know you know Hebrew better than the scholars who translated my Bible?

You’d have to learn Hebrew for that. הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה . It is a pretty basic point. Now wait, you say, if it is so simple then why do some translations have it in the future? In fact, the primary Jewish commentary interprets it to be a statement about the future! This would mean that your other sources are relying on Jewish commentaries when they choose to move past the written text. Amazing how authoritative some translations see the Jewish interpretations as being.

I have 2 versions that have different verb tenses than yours. Why should I accept yours? It still doesn't matter. What matters is if alma can also mean a virgin.

So you have two versions because the translators can’t decide if they are translators or accepters of Jewish tradition in interpretation. They know that if the cede interpretive control, they have to buy in to other interpretations which undercut everything else they believe in (more on this later). Or they can just be selective and accept the Jewish understanding when it is convenient. I mean, that isn’t intellectually honest, but whatever.

Not true. He only use alma,

No, 24:14 uses na’arah. You should recheck your sources.

Do you think Eliezer was asking for a non-virgin to be the wife of his master? God sent Rebekah there to answer the prayer. Do you think God sent a non-virgin to be 'wife?

I think there might have been a presumption of virginity but Eliezer doesn’t see the need to identify a woman so crassly. But the text in 24:16 attests to her status explicitly. Do you ignore what the text actually says about her?

I have a Jewish source from an excellent scholar who says "alma" refers to a young girl, one of whose characteristic is a virgin. Also I link it with Mt 1:23 and in Greek, the word can only mean virgin. I am not willing to say God is inconsistent.

An excellent scholar who is looking to justify what you believe? I have plenty of excellent scholars who say that alma refers to a young girl and that her sexual status is not part of that word (you should read the Malbim on this verse which points out that if the text has to specify “na’arah betulah” then there must be a na’arah be’ulah, a non-virgin na’arah.) In fact, the same commentary which allows for this to be in the future also says that it refers to a particular woman who was not a virgin. So if you accept the tense shift, you have to accept the non-virginity of an alma.

Linking it to the Greek is adorable but irrelevant. I could link it to the Aramaic if you’d like.

Since betulah could refer to an old virgin, God used alma. That way the identification could not be mistaken.

But since alma could refer to a non-virgin if virgin was meant, the right word for virgin would have been employed as it was elsewhere. It wasn't.

I did miss that, but since both words refer to the same person, it makes my point. Thanks.

Yes, 2 different words refer to the same person. You seem to think that this makes the words synonyms. You are wrong.

If you think "virgin" in Gen 24:16 does not apply to "maiden" in Gen 24:43, making God inconsistent, tha is fine with me.

Swing and a miss. God isn’t inconsistent if the text refers to a person using two different words. Joshua can be a leader and a soldier. That doesn’t mean that “leader=soldier”.

I don' t, you do. That is shown by you thinking "virgin" in 24:16, and maiden in 24:43 have different meanings.

The words alma and betulah have different meanings. You don’t like that but that’s a fact in Hebrew.

 

[omega2xx]

With “correct” meaning “agrees with what you want to believe”.



If alma CAN refer to a virgin? Sure it can. So can “isha”. I can refer to a virgin by something other than her sexual status, like by her age or hair color. But that doesn’t mean that “brunette” MEANS virgin. And yes, children are born everyday. The text though says “hineh” which means “behold” and points to a specific object of the statement, signified by the definite article before “alma”. THE young woman, not A young woman. During a conversation with Achaz, the prophet refers to a specific young woman. The pregnancy of this young woman is the sign, itself, even if Achaz refuses to ask for one (see the previous verses).



You’d have to learn Hebrew for that. הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה . It is a pretty basic point. Now wait, you say, if it is so simple then why do some translations have it in the future? In fact, the primary Jewish commentary interprets it to be a statement about the future! This would mean that your other sources are relying on Jewish commentaries when they choose to move past the written text. Amazing how authoritative some translations see the Jewish interpretations as being.



So you have two versions because the translators can’t decide if they are translators or accepters of Jewish tradition in interpretation. They know that if the cede interpretive control, they have to buy in to other interpretations which undercut everything else they believe in (more on this later). Or they can just be selective and accept the Jewish understanding when it is convenient. I mean, that isn’t intellectually honest, but whatever.



No, 24:14 uses na’arah. You should recheck your sources.



I think there might have been a presumption of virginity but Eliezer doesn’t see the need to identify a woman so crassly. But the text in 24:16 attests to her status explicitly. Do you ignore what the text actually says about her?



An excellent scholar who is looking to justify what you believe? I have plenty of excellent scholars who say that alma refers to a young girl and that her sexual status is not part of that word (you should read the Malbim on this verse which points out that if the text has to specify “na’arah betulah” then there must be a na’arah be’ulah, a non-virgin na’arah.) In fact, the same commentary which allows for this to be in the future also says that it refers to a particular woman who was not a virgin. So if you accept the tense shift, you have to accept the non-virginity of an alma.

Linking it to the Greek is adorable but irrelevant. I could link it to the Aramaic if you’d like.



But since alma could refer to a non-virgin if virgin was meant, the right word for virgin would have been employed as it was elsewhere. It wasn't.



Yes, 2 different words refer to the same person. You seem to think that this makes the words synonyms. You are wrong.



Swing and a miss. God isn’t inconsistent if the text refers to a person using two different words. Joshua can be a leader and a soldier. That doesn’t mean that “leader=soldier”.




The words alma and betulah have different meanings. You don’t like that but that’s a fact in Hebrew.

If Rebekah is a betulah is one verse and she is an alma in another verse, then alma can also mean a virgin. Alma shows the person is a young girl. betulah could refer to an old woman who is still a virgin. God likes to be precise, to make sure they found the right virgin.

I know you don't like that, but its a fact in Hebrew.

 

[rosends]

If Rebekah is a betulah is one verse and she is an alma in another verse, then alma can also mean a virgin.

What? She is listed as na'arah. Does that mean that na'arah means virgin? She is also listed as "isha" meaning woman. Does that mean that "isha" means virgin? She is also listed as bat-achi adoni, the daughter of the brother of my master, so that means virgin also? What about "achotam" 'their sister' or "achoteinu" 'our sister'-- virgin?The text refers to people in many different ways. That doesn't make all the descriptors synonyms. Is this really news to you?

Alma shows the person is a young girl. betulah could refer to an old woman who is still a virgin. God likes to be precise, to make sure they found the right virgin.

Yes, precision is important, which is why the word "betulah" is used here when the text describes her -- but it could mean an old virgin, so the words indicating a young woman are used when Eliezer describes her. Everything is there whether you like it or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

<yawn>

Oh, goodie, we get to discuss almah and betulah yet again.​

</yawn>

 

[RabbiO]

<yawn>

Oh, goodie, we get to discuss almah and betulah yet again.​

</yawn>

Yeah, you and I and others have seen this movie before. I would suggest that we all go out to the lobby for popcorn and wait for the second feature, but I just found out it's going to be "Echad Is A Compound Unity."

 

[Ben Avraham]

4 .Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. 20 .The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. It simply says that they will not carry the punishment of the sins to the son from the Father. 30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. So people won't die because their Fathers has sinned or vice versa everyone will die because of their own sin. It is so easy to take out of context something said for something not said. King James Bible Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; This would make it clearer. Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

See what I mean? Only the one who sins shall die. No one will die for the sins of another. (Ezekiel 18:4,20) The bottom line of the text is that no one can die for the sins of another as for his own sins, one shall die. See again? By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, not by his blood. The text is Jewish and talking about Jews. There is no such a thing as a human being to be sacrificed by another. Now, to pour out one's soul unto death is to be cut off from the land of the living aka the Land of Israel and be assigned to graves among the nations. That's the description of exile among the Jews. The text is not talking about physical death but to be exiled from one's own land and be counted as one among the Gentiles aka the transgressors. And the sin of many that Israel bored was the sin of Judah. Hence "many" and not all.

 

[Ingledsva]

When you referred to Jesus being dead, you exposoed your ignorance of the ??Bible.

Skirting the facts about what you said, and why I replied the way I did, - are you not?

You showed your ignorance by stating that Paul met Jesus within three days of his death.

Saul/Paul claims he met the long dead Jesus on the road. Interesting since he then preempted the religion, - and took it down a non-Jewish path.

Jesus was only dead 3 days. Paul took Christianity down the path God directed him to.

Paul wasn't even born yet - three years after Jesus' death, - let alone 3 days after..

Paul was born in Tarsus in AD 10, and died in Rome in AD 67, according to Eusebius,

*

 

[omega2xx]

Skirting the facts about what you said, and why I replied the way I did, - are you not?

No.

You showed your ignorance by stating that Paul met Jesus within three days of his death.

I didn't say within 3 days

Paul wasn't even born yet - three years after Jesus' death, - let alone 3 days after..

Paul was born in Tarsus in AD 10, and died in Rome in AD 67, according to Eusebius,

*

When Paul was born is irrelevant. The Bible says Jesus met him. Unless your can prove that is not true, you are just blowing smoke.

You should also know that it is impossible to give accurate dates from that time period.

 

[Ben Avraham]

4 .Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. 20 .The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

It simply says that they will not carry the punishment of the sins to the son from the Father. 30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. So people won't die because their Fathers has sinned or vice versa everyone will die because of their own sin. It is so easy to take out of context something said for something not said.

King James Bible Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; This would make it clearer. Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servajustify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Either the father or the son, individually, no one can die for the sins of another. (Ezekiel 18:4,20) It simply comes down to the bottom line that the soul that sins, it shall die. Jesus knew Jewish Theology and he knew from the Tanach that the servant who justified "many" was not the individual for the people but a people aka Israel for another People aka Judah. (Psalms 78:67-70)

 

[Ingledsva]

No.

I didn't say within 3 days

When Paul was born is irrelevant. The Bible says Jesus met him. Unless your can prove that is not true, you are just blowing smoke.

You should also know that it is impossible to give accurate dates from that time period.

You are hilarious.

I said Paul CLAIMS to have met him many years after his death, - and you came back with three days.

I, on the side of real history and archaeology, don't have to disprove your myths. LOL!

That is like someone saying to you, - prove Cronus didn't regurgitate the Goddess Hera.

*

 

[RESOLUTION]

See what I mean?

No! What you mean is not what it says:-
For it means God will not punish you for a sin your Father committed. So no longer punish up to the fourth generation of descendants for one persons sin.
Now everyone punished by God only for the sins they commit.

Only the one who sins shall die. No one will die for the sins of another. (Ezekiel 18:4,20)

The truth is no one dies for their sin now unless they commit sins which lead to death. Clearly shown in the stoning of the woman who committed adultery,
So if they stoned her sister would that make it fair? You see if you break one commandment you break them all.
As everyone is guilty of sin then which sin would she die for if all sin leads to death?
God clearly showing that we die because of our own sin. He punishes us for our own sins and not the sins others have committed.
Job offered sacrifices for his children's sin.

Job 1:4-5King James Version (KJV)
4 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.

5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

Christ died for forgiveness. Just as the priest offered sacrifices to take away sin... Job offered burnt offerings to sanctify them.

So you deliberately taking the punishment of our own sins as being the sacrifice issue. Saying one cannot make a sacrifice to take sins away for another which the priests and Job
are proof that they can.

The bottom line of the text is that no one can die for the sins of another as for his own sins, one shall die.

As all sinners they all die because of their own sin. No one is punished their own sins and the sins of the Father.
But as we see others can make sacrifices on behalf of others and have their sins removed. You cannot fool God and you cannot twist the truth.

See again? By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, not by his blood. The text is Jewish and talking about Jews.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Whom was he despised and rejected by? Men

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The life is in the blood. When Christ poured out his soul how would he have done that? How do you not pour out blood at crucifixion?

There is no such a thing as a human being to be sacrificed by another. Now, to pour out one's soul unto death is to be cut off from the land of the living aka the Land of Israel and be assigned to graves among the nations. That's the description of exile among the Jews. The text is not talking about physical death but to be exiled from one's own land and be counted as one among the Gentiles aka the transgressors. And the sin of many that Israel bored was the sin of Judah. Hence "many" and not all.

YOU are going to have your eyes opened.
Leviticus 17.
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.


So Christs blood being shed makes the offering of atonement from sin thus saving the soul.
You cannot change what God has said, Christs own righteousness made him a perfect and acceptable human sacrifice for sinners.