Question for Jews: Please explain Psalms 45:6-8

[IndigoChild5559]

As I said in an earlier post, there is no conflict for me with no one being on the throne during the Babylonian captivity. Because the fulfillment of what was promised to David happened when the Messiah came

Well, then I guess there isn't any problem for Jews is there, since the Messiah hasn't yet come. It's no different then that period after the Babylonian captivity, except more extended.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Well, then I guess there isn't any problem for Jews is there, since the Messiah hasn't yet come. It's no different then that period after the Babylonian captivity, except more extended.

The only problem with that thought... is that there would be no way to know if a person was the Messiah today because Davids line is not known. Whereas in the time of Christ, King Davids line was clearly known.
The problem with the Jews not seeing Christ as the Messiah is the fact the Roman Catholic Church made them believe Jesus was God incarnate rather than Gods person in incarnate in that of his Son.

It we look at the reality involved then everything in creation was spoken into being by the word from Gods own mouth. Christ the word becoming flesh when he was born. Luke saying he was a Holy thing and to be called the Son of God. We would all be children of God for he created all humans according to the Torah and the NT.

The OT suggests God would allow the Jews the builders to miss the most important stone not recognising it.
But they would eventually see when the number of gentiles grafted in. The bible whether OT or NT is for believers so I am not sure what answer to this particular verses in this psalm would mean to anyone outside a faith?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God didn't want his name hidden. He wanted it revered and respected and honored. He had a book of remembrance for those who remembered and thought on his name. He wanted his great name and power to be known throughout the whole world. He wanted the glory and honor to be given to him whenever he did something. He didn't want it to not be spoken. He said it would be his name forever. Now because of what was done, we have the artificial name Jehovah tossed around, and we have it said that it is no longer known how to even say his name properly for sure. And we have scriptures where the inspired men of God wrote his name, but a title is being used. Do you really believe that is what YHWH wanted?

One of those little changes you are talking about would change v'qarat to v'qara in Isaiah 7:14 - making it "he will call" instead of she will call.
It's all those little differences that change the meaning.

I think for the most part the scriptures we have are very accurate. My point was that if even a small percentage of the text is changed in key points, that can make a huge difference in meaning. Also look at how much flexibility, and control the scribes had to steer the scriptures in the direction of meaning they want. With the very same consonants being used, different vowel points can be used to change the meaning. For example just look at adoni vs adonai, one would be referring to my lord/master (a human master), while the other is reserved for God. So with just the stroke or elimination of one vowel point, the meaning is totally different.

Again, the very fact that there are so exceedingly few changes to Isaiah is a grand testament to the fact that the sacred texts were so honored as to be faithfully transmitted without editing.

V'qarat to v'qara in Isaiah 7:14 is simply a "typo." I don't for a second think that it was deliberate.

I think there is a LOT to be said about not using the sacred name of God casually. I personally go out of my way not to even use the English equivilents for the yad hey and the vav hey. However, I think it is safe to say that one can go too far, and that at one point the Jews DID go to far, because the knowledge of how to pronounce it is now lost in history.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The only problem with that thought... is that there would be no way to know if a person was the Messiah today because Davids line is not known. Whereas in the time of Christ, King Davids line was clearly known.

It doesn't really matter. Christians claim that Jesus birth was a virgin birth, that he was conceived by the holy spirit and Joseph was only his adopted father or foster father. This is a problem for Christians, because tribal status is only through the natural father. It cannot pass through the mother, so it doesn't matter what Mary's tribe was (it matters that Mary was Jewish, making Jesus Jewish, but her tribal status doesn't pass to him). Nor does the tribal status of an adoptive father or foster father pass to a child. Essentially, according to the Christian story, Jesus would have had no tribal status at all, rather than claim to David's throne.

The problem with the Jews not seeing Christ as the Messiah is the fact the Roman Catholic Church made them believe Jesus was God incarnate rather than Gods person in incarnate in that of his Son.

I don't really see the difference, but whatever distinction you are making is irrelevant--Judaism does not allow for God to incarnate.

BTW, Protestantism has the same definition of the incarnation, and the same Trinitarianism, as Catholicism. All Christian branches share these basic dogmas.

Shalom

 

[TrueBeliever37]

What makes 1Q Isaiah the more accurate version?

You previously noted ...

​

Of course, were one interested in honestly evaluating the DSS one would have also examined the other Isaiah fragments. To the best of my knowledge, Isaiah 6:11 is only found in the the Great Isaiah Scroll (1Q Isaiah), so no comparison is possible. On the other hand:

• Isaiah 7:14 is found in one other remnant, 4Q65 Isaiah, where no change is found. Similarly,
• Isaiah 21:16 is found in one other remnant, 4Q55 Isaiah, where, again, no change is found.

So what we see is not evidence of later redaction by some band of 6th - 10th century Masoretes, but, rather, a pluriformity (see Tov) of textual witnesses.

Please don't imply I am not interested in honestly evaluating the DSS. I am interested in any fragments/information available. I may not have investigated every possible piece of information out there, but that does not mean I am dishonest.

You aren't saying Isaiah 6:11 is not in the MT are you? Because I think it is. (Maybe you mean it is not in those other Isaiah fragments.) Please clarify.

Are you saying the information regarding the scribal emendations written in Wikipedia is inaccurate?

When you say no change is found in those fragments, are you saying they match the MT?

I think you are essentially agreeing to the point I was initially trying to make - that there were variations in the Hebrew textual witnesses. Which should mean you can't just dismiss something out of hand, just because it is not in the MT.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Again, the very fact that there are so exceedingly few changes to Isaiah is a grand testament to the fact that the sacred texts were so honored as to be faithfully transmitted without editing.

V'qarat to v'qara in Isaiah 7:14 is simply a "typo." I don't for a second think that it was deliberate.

I think there is a LOT to be said about not using the sacred name of God casually. I personally go out of my way not to even use the English equivilents for the yad hey and the vav hey. However, I think it is safe to say that one can go too far, and that at one point the Jews DID go to far, because the knowledge of how to pronounce it is now lost in history.

I have already said I think the scriptures we have are very good. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't think they made that typo intentionally. My point there was to show how even a small change can make a difference in the meaning.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Well, then I guess there isn't any problem for Jews is there, since the Messiah hasn't yet come. It's no different then that period after the Babylonian captivity, except more extended.

I think what you are saying would be accurate, if the Messiah had not come. Except that I thought the Jewish belief was that this was fulfilled when Solomon and then his descendants took the throne. (Am I incorrect in the Jewish belief on this?)

In other words, are you saying the Jewish belief regarding the promise made to David, is that the one that will be raised up to sit on the throne is the Messiah?

 

[rosends]

But it does show there was evidently slightly different Hebrew available at the time. What makes the MT the more accurate version of the Hebrew? There is an awful lot of time for changes to have been made. There has been a lot of dispute between Christianity and the Jews over whether the Messiah has come or not. How do you know that some tweaking to the scriptures wasn't done to battle the idea that the Messiah had come?

If you read the article I cited you'll see why your questions are already answered.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think what you are saying would be accurate, if the Messiah had not come. Except that I thought the Jewish belief was that this was fulfilled when Solomon and then his descendants took the throne. (Am I incorrect in the Jewish belief on this?)

In other words, are you saying the Jewish belief regarding the promise made to David, is that the one that will be raised up to sit on the throne is the Messiah?

It's a messianic prophecy written after David is it not?

 

[RESOLUTION]

It doesn't really matter. Christians claim that Jesus birth was a virgin birth, that he was conceived by the holy spirit and Joseph was only his adopted father or foster father. This is a problem for Christians, because tribal status is only through the natural father. It cannot pass through the mother, so it doesn't matter what Mary's tribe was (it matters that Mary was Jewish, making Jesus Jewish, but her tribal status doesn't pass to him). Nor does the tribal status of an adoptive father or foster father pass to a child. Essentially, according to the Christian story, Jesus would have had no tribal status at all, rather than claim to David's throne.

Hello IndigoChild5559,

I am afraid you are incorrect regarding the 'tribal' only being passed through the Father.
God chose the mother in the case of the Son who would become the Son of the promise made to Abraham about Isaac. I believe YWHW did this to stop arguments like your own preceding his will. If you proceed down that line you take away the will of God and make it about man. Ishmael is the eldest son of Abraham born of a slave girl. However God did not choose Ishmael he chose Sarah to have the Son of the Covenant. The facts are in the days of both Abraham and Mary and Joseph under the laws any child born within a marriage would automatically become the child of the husband, We go to the fact God said if a man died without a child that his brother should marry the widow and the first child born would become the child of the dead brother.
So God decides who and through whom the child is born. It is clear to be a child of God you need only be born by the power and will of God. So the very first Son of God, Adam whom it is said Christ is a second Adam. Were not born by the will of an earthly Father or by the flesh. Both were born by the WORD and will of God. God said let us make man in our image and he made man in his image. Just as he created Christ in the womb. Both Adam and Christ had ONLY God as their Father. Both are therefore the WORD made flesh. So Jesus like Adam is created as the first man not from fallen flesh but by the way man was first created without sin. A man must be born of a Jewess to be a Jew because the tribes like Jacob and Israel come down through the mother. Who is chosen for what work comes from the Will of God. As we see that God accepts anyone who does what is right in his sight. Gentiles through the covenant of the Messiah will also become Jews. Because Abraham and those who did as Abraham did were the true descedents spiritually. Christ did as his heavenly father did and was therefore the Son of God according to the Jewish scriptures.

I don't really see the difference, but whatever distinction you are making is irrelevant--Judaism does not allow for God to incarnate.

Did not God say to Moses...
JPS Tanakh 1917
And the LORD said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in God's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

So did Moses become God or did he represent God to Pharaoh showing Gods power working through him?
Did God not also say...JPS Tanakh 1917
A prophet will the LORD thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

It is clear that the Prophet spoke about by God would like Moses do the things God has for him to do. Doing the things God himself would do. But unto that Prophet everyone
would have to listen to him.

Does it not say that God said:-

JPS Tanakh 1917
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;

We know that all the chosen men of God throughout the Torah and in fact everything biblical were empowered by the presence of Gods Holy Spirit within them. God clearly pouring out his Spirit ON ALL FLESH.
When you know the Prophecy and you understand Gods words are truth and that God is the real power behind those words and his Spirit is the giver of those words in men. Where do you believe your authority or knowledge would stand when compared?

JPS Tanakh 1917
He sent His word, and healed them, And delivered them from their graves.

If a Jew or a Gentile the knowledge would still be the same. In the truth of Gods words you see God is the real person and power behind all things good and all things planned.
He is capable as with Adam and Christ to do as he pleases today. A God of the Living THOSE who live by Spirit and Truth.

BTW, Protestantism has the same definition of the incarnation, and the same Trinitarianism, as Catholicism. All Christian branches share these basic dogmas.

Shalom

Who taught you the above? The bible or Man?

Did God not say:- JPS Tanakh 1917
and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

If you read Jeremiah 31:31-34 you will see God teaches the believers be it Christian or Jew who are one and the same in Christ, that no man would need to teach another to know God for all would know him. The One teacher in man has always been the Holy Spirit. Your last paragraph teaches man made teachings
But all those in Spirit are one with one another in Christ through Gods will and the Spirit. The bible has always been about coming to the knowledge God is real and his plan is always at work and in that plan we come to know the living God. That all mankind can be saved if they listen to the LORD God. In my personal view and opinion I have found the above in scriptures. God is truth. So we hold different beliefs but they can be debated and we should I believe know why we hold them in light of any religious words.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I'm just not seeing your point. This doesn't undermine the Psalm being about David.


All of the evidence you discussed can be explained by the fact that the people in the history SPOKE in Aramaic, and that the authors THOUGHT in Aramaic. There exists no manuscript of any of the NT books in Aramaic, nor any reference to one in any other early Christian document. Therefore such a belief is groundless.

What I had said about split words can't be explained by that. If Greek was the original, then why in the Greek are there unrelated words in different manuscripts that only have a commonality when looking at the Aramaic word?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It's a messianic prophecy written after David is it not?

Well, let's connect it with 2 Samuel 7:11-13 - this was told to David before he died. Is it the jewish belief, that this was fulfilled with his son Solomon taking the throne, or is it regarding the Messiah?

If you say Solomon, then I refer you to Jeremiah 33:14-17 (isn't the promise still in the future in Jeremiah's prophecy?) If it was Solomon, then wasn't there a period of time where David did lack a man to sit on the throne?

I know according to 2 Chronicles 6:7-17 Solomon built the temple, and if his descendants would have lived as they should, they would have remained on the throne. But wasn't the ultimate promise to David that he wouldn't fail to have a man to sit on the throne, actually to be fulfilled through the Messiah?

Isn't it after the Messiah has come, that the promise would be fulfilled that David would never lack a man to sit on the throne?