The Messianic verses of Isaiah

[omega2xx]

Mostly in its reference to a generic, unnamed servant, then, secondarily, to the literarily consistent practice of referring to the nation as that servant.

Israel can't be the servant because of what it says the servant does: Pierced through for our transgressions---crushed for our iniquities---the chastening for our well being fell on Him and by His scourging we are healed--The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Keep in mind the sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish, making it impossible e for any person or nation to qualify.

Phil 2:7 - but emptied Himself taking the form of a bond-servant...

Mt 20:28 - Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serv,...

 

[Dawnofhope]

Perhaps it is this:
Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast.
14 ¶ These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with him, called and chosen and faithful.

Maybe we do. I'm with the Lamb, Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. Whose side are you on?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Poor Isaiah ...

 

[Dawnofhope]

Poor Isaiah ...

Poor us that we use the words of the prophets to throw at each other like stones....

 

[rosends]

Israel can't be the servant because of what it says the servant does: Pierced through for our transgressions---crushed for our iniquities---the chastening for our well being fell on Him and by His scourging we are healed--The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Actually, this does all apply to Israel, but requires that you actually understand the verses in context and not snip out bits and string them together to try and make them mean something else. I can give you loads of quotes and supporting documentation if you are interested. And all within the construct that is Hebrew and Jewish law -- the culture to which these statements were actually given.

Keep in mind the sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish, making it impossible e for any person or nation to qualify.

So we agree that this eliminates Jesus. Good. Next, you should understand that the word "sacrifice" is not accurate.

 

[wizanda]

I guess you think Moses was referring to Jesus's magical appearance in the desert in Ex. 14:13.

Nope, as that isn't a contextual specific reference that has all additional statements within context.

That's like saying that the first amendment to the constitution forbids congress from making any laws because it says "Congress shall make no law."

We'd then read all the additional contexts involved with the statement; like we do with the statement, ' the pursuit of happiness', and see if it fits across the board.

Do you agree with Muslims that the Song of Songs references Muhammed?

I'm not the one being illogical, and trying to add everything illogical you can find, says more about the lack of understanding.

Would you accept that the text names Saul in Deut 18:16 and Kings 1, 2:20?

Not examined the case, and without lots of investigation wouldn't be able to say....

Even ice cream menus use proper grammar and word choice.

Exactly, so the method applied in 'Yeshuat Eloheinu' is very specific, check all other references across the whole of the Tanakh for those key words to be placed next to each other.

There are 5 references to 'Yeshuat' used across the Tanakh in total; then there is only Psalms 98 that has 'Eloheinu' after it, and when we check the context of the whole Psalm it fits exactly with the specifications of Isaiah's statements for the Servant/Messiah.

Also if we search Isaiah specifically for the word Yeshua (H3444), we can see many of these are symbolically referencing things concerning him.

I write all of this, and then wonder why, as consistently you've shown so far, you will just try to be dismissive, whilst refusing to acknowledge or research any merit to the statements.

 

[rosends]

Exactly, so the method applied in 'Yeshuat Eloheinu' is very specific, check all other references across the whole of the Tanakh for those key words to be placed next to each other.

So let's take a look at your claim, and remember, yours is predicated on the statement that people get confused when the text, "doesn't use specific grammar." I'm not sure what you mean by "specific" grammar, but it seems that your reading requires that one throw out Hebrew grammar in order for you to have your interpretation. You don't say what the limit of throwing that grammar out is -- are nouns still nouns? Can we expect subject-verb agreement? Do tenses matter?

So in this case, you focus on the word "yeshuat" which means "the saving OF" and you connect that to your imagined Hebrew name for Jesus (the Hebrew disagrees with you but that's because of pesky grammar which we are ignoring, right?). You don't try and connect any other instance of the word "Yeshuah", just "Yeshuat." And you insist on looking at the 5 instances of just Yeshuat (with no other suffixes or prefixes and see where the text points out that saving comes from God. So you then decide that if saving comes from God, but the word for saving can be connected in your mind to your Jesus figure with his incorrect name, then that must be a reference to Jesus as the Saving OF God.

Exodus 14:13 also says "The saving of God" but uses the 4 letter name instead of "elo-heinu" so you dismiss that. It means what you are referring to but doesn't support your argument, so out it goes.
Chronicles 2, 20:17 also says "the Saving of God" but also uses the 4 letter name of God so you can't include that. Out of 5, you dismiss 2 not because they say something different but because they don't fit your schema. Then we have Psalms 14:7 which refers to "the Saving of Israel." Same word "saving OF" but it refers to the people's being saved so you chuck it out.

Then we have the Davidic Psalms 98:3 (which follows 98:2, a verse which refers to the salvation by the same word with a possessive suffix (yeshu'ato, His saving, with the His being God, as stated in verse 1). The events in Psalm 98 include people calling out to God, not Jesus, after seeing his saving he does through his metaphorical holy arm (I can give you all the times when God's might is called his right hand if you need them. Just ask). Since none of the other stuff has happened in this Psalm (all the earth singing God's praising and nature applauding God's work), trying to connect this to Jesus fails.

Isaiah 52 also uses the language of the right arm and again speaks of all the nations seeing the saving which God has performed through the redemption of Jerusalem and the collecting of His people. After that saving, verse 13 attests that God's servant will prosper. This makes the servant and the "Yeshu'at Elo-heinu" distinct. One is the act by God and one is recipient of the result.

Also if we search Isaiah specifically for the word Yeshua (H3444), we can see many of these are symbolically referencing things concerning him.

The word Yeshuah on its own appears 5 times in Isaiah and twice in Chavakuk. In Is. 59:17, God is described as having a hand that is not too short to be able to save (meihoshiyah). The chapter describes (from a first-person perspective) Israel's admission of its guilt and sinfulness. God sees that there is no one else to save us, so he dons righteousness like a coat of armor, and wears the "hat of saving." (chova yeshuah). This is what GOD does. No one else. He fights, then, on behalf of his people, Jacob -- you remember Jacob...the one that in Isaiah 41 and 44 is called "my servant, Jacob."

Isaiah 49:8 also talks about the saving of Jacob and the redemption of Israel which will happen on "yom yeshu'ah" the day of saving. That's a time, not a person. Is. 60:18 talks about a time when there is no more crime or violence in the holy land. Then people will call the walls their salvation (yeshuah chomotayich). Walls.

Should we go through every use of the word yeshu'ah? Maybe we should go through the other 63 uses of the word in other forms (plus the three archaic constructions as Yeshu'ata).

You want to ignore grammar. You want to ignore context. You want to make a connection which simply isn't there and ignore what is explicitly stated. It's confusing to me why you keep digging in more and more when you clearly don't understand the text.

 

[wizanda]

" I'm not sure what you mean by "specific"

Was saying 'specific' because 'Yeshua Elohim' is another concept within the same term; the word 'Grammar' is yours.

Mine is basic symbolism within the text, and find if we're over pedantic, we miss the obvious.

It doesn't need to be perceived as a noun to be meaning Yeshua, as the whole thing is a metaphor.

Like you're busy trying to dismiss stuff; I'm trying to work out, how the text fits together with what has already been blatantly fulfilled.

Yeshua's claim within the Synoptic Gospels indicates he was referring to himself as the Lord of David, it being his house of prayer, he said the Children of Israel are casting out devils through him, that we should love him above everything else...

Therefore all the statements about only YHVH saves; Isaiah 12:2 can be read YHVH is to become Yeshua.

The events in Psalm 98 include people calling out to God, not Jesus, after seeing his saving he does through his metaphorical holy arm (I can give you all the times when God's might is called his right hand if you need them. Just ask). Since none of the other stuff has happened in this Psalm (all the earth singing God's praising and nature applauding God's work), trying to connect this to Jesus fails.

So the start of the Psalms 98 talks of the Marvelous-Work, do a word search is the best way to understand the riddle....

It is only those who get it (Zechariah 8:6), which will return in the Remnant after the Tribulation; so Psalms 98 is praising Yeshua being the right Arm of the Lord, who came and acted justly, to lay a plummet line of righteousness across Israel.

This makes the servant and the "Yeshu'at Elo-heinu" distinct. One is the act by God and one is recipient of the result.

True, this is something still fully questioning, like Yeshua is David physically in the flesh, with the Spirit of the Lord upon him, to fulfill all things.

The Messiah isn't God Most High (CPU); it is a manifestation within the Matrix.

Then people will call the walls their salvation (yeshuah chomotayich). Walls.

We find this same event in Zechariah 2:5, where it says YHVH shall be as a wall of fire protecting us.... When the light of God, his saints, and Messiah shall be here.

This is what GOD does. No one else.

Agreed, and when you see in Zechariah 10:4: that out of him came the chief corner stone, the reference is about fulfillment by Yeshua (Isaiah 28:16).

Should we go through every use of the word yeshu'ah?

Have looked, yet found certain prophets seem more aware, so it isn't consistent...

Though it is always good to question all angles, as we never know, could have missed something so deep and profound, that it goes well over our head the first time, on only looking at it in one perspective.

 

[rosends]

Was saying 'specific' because 'Yeshua Elohim' is another concept within the same term; the word 'Grammar' is yours.

The word grammar describes the rules and relationship between components of a language. The rules are necessary so things make sense on a structural level. Then, of course, there is also the logical level and the rules for that as well. When you disregard them also, things don't make sense. For example, the phrase you just used "another concept within the same term" follows the rules of grammar but does not make any logical sense. What term? How can one be within a term? What concept? How is the phrase "Yeshua Elo-him" (which wasn't what you were focusing on -- you insisted it was "Yeshu'aT Elo-him") a concept within a term?

Mine is basic symbolism within the text, and find if we're over pedantic, we miss the obvious.

The problem with symbolism is in the decision that the meaning of the symbol is necessary so the symbol has to refer to it. When you start with meaning and not with symbol, then every symbol has to point to the necessary meaning. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It doesn't need to be perceived as a noun to be meaning Yeshua, as the whole thing is a metaphor.

It isn't "meaning Yeshua". The word IS Yeshua and it is a noun. Metaphors don't change the parts of speech.

Like you're busy trying to dismiss stuff; I'm trying to work out, how the text fits together with what has already been blatantly fulfilled.

See, again, you are working backwards. You decide that things were fulfilled in some way o you go back to text and try to work out how the text fits to justify the conclusion you started with.

Therefore all the statements about only YHVH saves; Isaiah 12:2 can be read YHVH is to become Yeshua.

This makes no sense grammatically or logically.

So the start of the Psalms 98 talks of the Marvelous-Work, do a word search is the best way to understand the riddle....

There is no riddle and my text doesn't talk about any "Marvelous-Work."

It is only those who get it (Zechariah 8:6), which will return in the Remnant after the Tribulation; so Psalms 98 is praising Yeshua being the right Arm of the Lord, who came and acted justly, to lay a plummet line of righteousness across Israel.

It wouldn't be "across" as plumb lines run up and down. The rest of this is well beyond any comment.

True, this is something still fully questioning, like Yeshua is David physically in the flesh, with the Spirit of the Lord upon him, to fulfill all things.

um, what?

The Messiah isn't God Most High (CPU); it is a manifestation within the Matrix.

OK then...check please. We're done here.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually, this does all apply to Israel, but requires that you actually understand the verses in context and not snip out bits and string them together to try and make them mean something else.

You need to understand the Levitical sacrificial system. The context includes someone dying for the sins of others. The sacrifice has to be without spot or blemish---They have ALL turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is NO ONE who does good, not even one(Psa 14:3).

How can Israel qualify as the sacrifice.

Phil 2:7 - but emptied Himself, tanking the form of a bond-servant....
I Cor 15:3 - For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures.
Heb For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weakness, but ONe who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

I can give you loads of quotes and supporting documentation if you are interested. And all within the construct that is Hebrew and Jewish law -- the culture to which these statements were actually given.<<

I don't interpret verses based on the culture of a society and you can't provide any Scripture that says Israel was without sin.

So we agree that this eliminates Jesus. Good. Next, you should understand that the word "sacrifice" is not accurate.

So now we agree that it does refer to Jesus the Messiah and His crucifixion, now that you understand the contest.

"Sacrifice" is not in Isa 53.

 

[wizanda]

How is the phrase "Yeshua Elo-him" (which wasn't what you were focusing on -- you insisted it was "Yeshu'aT Elo-him") a concept within a term?

See grammar can confuse us as well....

The roots of 'Yeshuat Eloheinu' is 'Yeshua Elohim', so not only does it imply specifically 'we shall physically see the salvation of our God' by its grammar; yet also that 'Yeshua is an Elohim made manifest for the world to see' within the sentences.

There are always multiple ways of looking at things, whilst still remaining logical...

Trying to limit things to only one perception, and then dismissing anything that doesn't fit that one narrative is illogical.

The problem with symbolism

The problem with symbolism is people being overly specific, before having a clue what is going on...

So start slowly, like when we build a jigsaw, begin with the outside pieces, so we can see where the edges are, and start with symbols that are easy to identify, then move on to harder things.

You decide that things were fulfilled in some way

Not in the slightest, do it from the Tanakh first to understand the fulfillment, else it doesn't make sense properly.... You end up getting deceived by Christianity or Islam if you go that way.

So lets take something basic, like Zechariah 11 Judah/Israel were divorced by Yeshua this doesn't come from the NT, as it is hard to even see.... It is Zechariah 11, Jeremiah 25, Isaiah 50, Daniel 9, Ezekiel 1-7, etc.

Explaining these things to someone who argues against prophetic fulfillment even existing, is where the problem lies.

This makes no sense grammatically or logically.

Confused if you didn't understand my sentence or if you can't compute, that Isaiah 12:2 is saying that just as El became YHVH, he shall then become Yeshua....

Yah-avah (Lord To Be), Yeh-oshua (Lord That Saves), and both are part of the one El Elyon (God Most High (CPU)).

There is no riddle and my text doesn't talk about any "Marvelous-Work."

If i post all the key word references for you throughout the Tanakh, then currently this will confuse you, as you're not looking up all the additional contexts, reading whole chapters, and are very dismissive, thus I'm afraid on explaining it will confuse you more.

It wouldn't be "across" as plumb lines run up and down.

Well spotted, it is because of the symbolism in the Tanakh, both are used, so there is a line of confusion (Isaiah 34:11), and plummet line of righteousness (Isaiah 28:17).

The rest of this is well beyond any comment.

If you got how the riddle worked or were even interested in being in the Messianic age, then you'd spend the time to understand every part of what was just stated.

 

[rosends]

You need to understand the Levitical sacrificial system. The context includes someone dying for the sins of others. The sacrifice has to be without spot or blemish---They have ALL turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is NO ONE who does good, not even one(Psa 14:3).

How can Israel qualify as the sacrifice.

Phil 2:7 - but emptied Himself, tanking the form of a bond-servant....
I Cor 15:3 - For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures.
Heb For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weakness, but ONe who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

No, the Levitical system does NOT have this concept. That's your central problem. A small subset of sins can be atoned for by a process that includes a sacrifice. But not all sins, and the sacrifice need not be an animal of any sort.

ALL sacrifices had to be unblemished (no scourge marks...) but no man dies for the sins of another. Now, there is a concept within Judaism of a death bringing about the repentance of others and thus leading to atonement, but that's an advanced idea and you may not be ready for it.

As for Ps. 14:3, you should read 14:4 and see who the "all" refers to and what their relationship is to the Jews.

 

[rosends]

See grammar can confuse us as well....

The roots of 'Yeshuat Eloheinu' is 'Yeshua Elohim', so not only does it imply specifically 'we shall physically see the salvation of our God' by its grammar; yet also that 'Yeshua is an Elohim made manifest for the world to see' within the sentences.

Grammar clarifies. If you find that grammar confuses then you have a problem with grammar. The answer isn't to ignore grammar or make stuff up. A phrase doesn't have a root. The words have roots, and the phrase cannot be connected to a meaning because of its root words. Also, what you claim is implied isn't. You infer it but the ideas you infer are not there. The secondary inference you make is completely invented and invalid.

Trying to limit things to only one perception, and then dismissing anything that doesn't fit that one narrative is illogical.

My students often ask if, on a quiz, spelling counts. I tell them, "you can't spell YES "N-O" and expect me to give you credit." There are limits to what is a defensible o valid understanding.

The problem with symbolism is people being overly specific, before having a clue what is going on...

The problem is people who don't have a clue trying to be overly specific. Get a clue.

Not in the slightest, do it from the Tanakh first to understand the fulfillment, else it doesn't make sense properly.... You end up getting deceived by Christianity or Islam if you go that way.

I do it through the Torah and that's why I haven't found the "fulfillment" you claim. You do it in relationship to some unrelated schema (CPU? The Matrix?) so you find what you want to find.

So lets take something basic, like Zechariah 11 Judah/Israel were divorced by Yeshua this doesn't come from the NT, as it is hard to even see.... It is Zechariah 11, Jeremiah 25, Isaiah 50, Daniel 9, Ezekiel 1-7, etc.

Zecharia 11 is about the destruction of the second temple.

Explaining these things to someone who argues against prophetic fulfillment even existing, is where the problem lies.

Except that the destruction happened over 500 years after Zecharia prophesied. So fulfillment happened. The problem is created when you ignore that.

Confused if you didn't understand my sentence or if you can't compute, that Isaiah 12:2 is saying that just as El became YHVH, he shall then become Yeshua....

Both. Your writing and this concept of a transitioning god figure. Totally alien.

Yah-avah (Lord To Be), Yeh-oshua (Lord That Saves), and both are part of the one El Elyon (God Most High (CPU)).

So ignore grammar, ignore logic and not, ignore Hebrew, then break god into parts. OK, all outside of Judaism, so have fun with that.

If i post all the key word references for you throughout the Tanakh, then currently this will confuse you, as you're not looking up all the additional contexts, reading whole chapters, and are very dismissive, thus I'm afraid on explaining it will confuse you more.

So more explanation will confuse me. Got it. Thanks.

If you got how the riddle worked or were even interested in being in the Messianic age, then you'd spend the time to understand every part of what was just stated.

If you understood that there is no riddle and that you are grasping at straws then you would make much more sense.

 

[wizanda]

You do it in relationship to some unrelated schema (CPU? The Matrix?)

Using these terms as they're easier to explain the complex dynamics of reality, not sure of a way to use Jewish terminology to specify the same.

The problem is people who don't have a clue trying to be overly specific. Get a clue.

This isn't a mud slinging match, otherwise you'd win with statements like that... I'm trying to help you see this, and seems you're still thinking you can win.

I do it through the Torah and that's why I haven't found the "fulfillment" you claim.

Seriously, stop trying to be so smart, you make yourself look foolish.... The Torah only has odd prophecies about Israel being cursed by Moses.

Yet the specifications are within the prophets, with a lot specifically within Isaiah, and the rest interlinking with his statements.

If we can't polemically show why Yeshua fulfills the Tanakh hypothetically, then we clearly don't know the case well enough.

Zecharia 11 is about the destruction of the second temple.

Well done, that is a start.... and it was destroyed as the 30 pieces of silver were paid for the price of his head, and put in the Pottersfield in the house of Israel.

Next is to recognize, if the 2nd temple was destroyed, clearly the covenant with Abraham was nullified at that point, else it couldn't have happened, as Zechariah 11:10 relates.

Except that the destruction happened over 500 years after Zecharia prophesied. So fulfillment happened.

Ok so we agree on Zechariah 11 being about the 2nd temple, which is clearly then identified in Yeshua's timeline, and his statements...

He challenged 3 foolish shepherds, Pharisees, Sadducee and Levites (Lawyers); when we compare it with Jeremiah 25, it is clear that the arrogant leaders of the people refused the Messiah, thus caused the destruction.

Your writing and this concept of a transitioning god figure. Totally alien.

This is because the foolish shepherds at the end of Zechariah 11, have been educating our people...

It is clear that within Exodus 6:3, El became YHVH, then it continues that YHVH became Yeshua.

So ignore grammar, ignore logic and not, ignore Hebrew, then break god into parts.

Where is that ignoring anything?.... It is trying to explain the progression we see within the Tanakh, whilst also fitting with Monotheism globally.

So more explanation will confuse me. Got it. Thanks.

Sorry, wasn't meaning to be rude; yet so far in our discussions, you've not taken on board a single point, whilst thinking somehow you win with these dismissals of my statements.

If you understood that there is no riddle and that you are grasping at straws then you would make much more sense.

Help, this doesn't over turn there being a riddle throughout the Tanakh; so to be specific, as know you need a word reference saying it, we could start with Habakkuk 2:6, yet that doesn't justify the amount of textual references interlinking with it...

Almost 80% of the prophets are about this, and then to say there isn't a riddle in the Tanakh.

Now tho there are odd references to it being 'a riddle', most of it is just cryptic metaphoric text, that adds up across time.

 

[rosends]

Using these terms as they're easier to explain the complex dynamics of reality, not sure of a way to use Jewish terminology to specify the same.

The complex dynamics of reality? When you clothe yourself in strange ideas like that, you need to invent other terminology to label it.

This isn't a mud slinging match, otherwise you'd win with statements like that... I'm trying to help you see this, and seems you're still thinking you can win.

I am not worried about "winning" -- you seem convinced that this is some sort of a competition when it isn't. You and I are on different sides of a particular fence. You are explaining things from your side's perspective and I am speaking based in how Judaism, and those who study the Judaic texts understand material given to the Jews. This is the clue you seem to be missing.

Seriously, stop trying to be so smart, you make yourself look foolish.... The Torah only has odd prophecies about Israel being cursed by Moses.

You think they are odd. I don't. Maybe that means I am smart, even without trying. Stop trying to be so mysterious as if you have some insight that the rest of the world has missed.

If we can't polemically show why Yeshua fulfills the Tanakh hypothetically, then we clearly don't know the case well enough.

Here, again, you have decided upon the conclusion and feel that if the facts don't match it, the facts aren't understood, not that the conclusion is wrong.

Well done, that is a start.... and it was destroyed as the 30 pieces of silver were paid for the price of his head, and put in the Pottersfield in the house of Israel.

Um, no. The temple was destroyed and there is no "his head" involved because temples don't have heads.

Next is to recognize, if the 2nd temple was destroyed, clearly the covenant with Abraham was nullified at that point, else it couldn't have happened, as Zechariah 11:10 relates.

No, what was nullified was the covenant with all the peoples of the world that they not harm Israel (sort of like the way God made a covenant with animals in Hosea 2:20).

Ok so we agree on Zechariah 11 being about the 2nd temple, which is clearly then identified in Yeshua's timeline, and his statements...

What Jesus might have spoken about (since it existed while he was supposedly alive) is of no relevance.

He challenged 3 foolish shepherds, Pharisees, Sadducee and Levites (Lawyers); when we compare it with Jeremiah 25, it is clear that the arrogant leaders of the people refused the Messiah, thus caused the destruction.

That is your interpretation. In fact, it is a reference to the events of 2 Kings 10 and 11.

It is clear that within Exodus 6:3, El became YHVH, then it continues that YHVH became Yeshua.

Nothing of the sort is clear. The text reads, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with [the name] Almighty God, but [with] My name YHWH, I did not become known to them."

Where you see "became" is beyond clear. It is invention.

Sorry, wasn't meaning to be rude; yet so far in our discussions, you've not taken on board a single point, whilst thinking somehow you win with these dismissals of my statements.

You haven't said anything that doesn't sink. Who wants to get on board a sinking ship?

Help, this doesn't over turn there being a riddle throughout the Tanakh; so to be specific, as know you need a word reference saying it, we could start with Habakkuk 2:6, yet that doesn't justify the amount of textual references interlinking with it...

The fact that the text uses the word "riddle" doesn't mean that all the text is a riddle. You might want to study that verse (and those around it) to see who will say the parable and "riddle", what the riddle (actually a pointed satire which has to be deciphered) is and what its answer is. Judges 14:12 also mentions a riddle. One wonders what you do with this.

Now tho there are odd references to it being 'a riddle', most of it is just cryptic metaphoric text, that adds up across time.

When you start with the answer, you find the pieces that "add up" to it. If that works for you, have fun.

 

[wizanda]

Here, again, you have decided upon the conclusion and feel that if the facts don't match it, the facts aren't understood, not that the conclusion is wrong.

To be completely logical, we've should examine all conclusions and facts...

Then test which has the least amount of faulty assumptions (ockams razor).

The temple was destroyed and there is no "his head" involved because temples don't have heads.

So are we just reading Zechariah 11:1-4?

We can continue through the whole text of Zechariah 11, to understand why the beginning context takes place... The 30 pieces are paid.

No, what was nullified was the covenant with all the peoples of the world that they not harm Israel (sort of like the way God made a covenant with animals in Hosea 2:20).

Zechariah 11:10 I took my staff Favor, and cut it apart, that I might break my covenant that I had made with all the peoples.

So YHVH ends 'favor' for the people of the world, which then makes them become like savage dogs ripping Israel to shreds at the 2nd temple destruction?

Zechariah 11:11 It was broken in that day; and thus the poor of the flock that listened to me knew that it was Yahweh’s word.

Thus how are the poor of the flock meant to be understanding this?

What Jesus might have spoken about (since it existed while he was supposedly alive) is of no relevance.

Unfortunately missing huge jigsaw pieces in the puzzle, won't help us put it together, especially if the statements are implicit.

Luke 19:41-44 When he came near, he saw the city and wept over it, (42) saying, “If you, even you, had known today the things which belong to your peace! But now, they are hidden from your eyes. (43) For the days will come on you, when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, surround you, hem you in on every side, (44) and will dash you and your children within you to the ground. They will not leave in you one stone on another, because you didn’t know the time of your visitation.”

In fact, it is a reference to the events of 2 Kings 10 and 11.

Is 2 Kings at the time of the 2nd temple destruction?

Where you see "became" is beyond clear. It is invention.

My question about the word 'became' is more based on Isaiah 12:2, and other places; YHVH doesn't just stay one state, 'yet shall become'...

When you start with the answer, you find the pieces that "add up" to it.

Yeah we do this in algebra, to find answers to complex sums...

Thing is we can show the math across the Tanakh with accuracy, else really I'd not bother with any of this.

 

[rosends]

To be completely logical, we've should examine all conclusions and facts...

Then test which has the least amount of faulty assumptions (ockams razor).

But the fualty assumption is yours -- that one must come to your particular conclusion. That's incorrect. So testing until you find something which meets your flawed assumption is not logical.

So are we just reading Zechariah 11:1-4?

We can continue through the whole text of Zechariah 11, to understand why the beginning context takes place... The 30 pieces are paid.

Sure. Complete reading the whole thing. Where is the head of a person?

Zechariah 11:10 I took my staff Favor, and cut it apart, that I might break my covenant that I had made with all the peoples.

So YHVH ends 'favor' for the people of the world, which then makes them become like savage dogs ripping Israel to shreds at the 2nd temple destruction?

Parts are about that. Parts are not. 11:10 is not, but later in the chapter, the discussion is a prophecy about the destruction of the second temple. I mentioned the second temple in post 133 to show that the parts that are about the second temple's destruction were a fulfilled prophecy, even though you said in post 131 that I was one who argued AGAINST prophecies like Zech 11 having been fulfilled (or as you characterized me, wrongly, "someone who argues against prophetic fulfillment even existing).

Zechariah 11:11 It was broken in that day; and thus the poor of the flock that listened to me knew that it was Yahweh’s word.

Thus how are the poor of the flock meant to be understanding this?

They understand it because, as Rashi wrote 1000 years ago, "This decree the Holy One, blessed be He, already spoke to us through Moses (Deut. 28:36): “The Lord shall drive you and your king.”"

Unfortunately missing huge jigsaw pieces in the puzzle, won't help us put it together, especially if the statements are implicit.

Luke 19:41-44 When he came near, he saw the city and wept over it, (42) saying, “If you, even you, had known today the things which belong to your peace! But now, they are hidden from your eyes. (43) For the days will come on you, when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, surround you, hem you in on every side, (44) and will dash you and your children within you to the ground. They will not leave in you one stone on another, because you didn’t know the time of your visitation.”

Jesus isn't in my puzzle so trying to force his pieces in makes no sense. Your claim of "implicit" is without basis.

Is 2 Kings at the time of the 2nd temple destruction?

I don't think so. Neither are the verses in Zech 11 about the second temple until approximately verse 15.

My question about the word 'became' is more based on Isaiah 12:2, and other places; YHVH doesn't just stay one state, 'yet shall become'...

12:2 says nothing about becoming. Claiming God changes by citing a verse which doesn't mention that God changes makes no sense:
"Here is the God of my salvation, I shall trust and not fear; for the strength and praise of the Eternal the Lord was my salvation."
Note that the text sometimes talks about God changing his mind, but not his identity.

Yeah we do this in algebra, to find answers to complex sums...

Thing is we can show the math across the Tanakh with accuracy, else really I'd not bother with any of this.

When you start with an answer and test it, you have to be ready to change the answer when the pieces don't fit instead of twisting the pieces because you only want to come up with one answer. You have yet to show anything that adds up. But again, this isn't a competition. You can feel free to twist things any way you want.

 

[wizanda]

But the fualty assumption is yours -- that one must come to your particular conclusion.

The sentence structure just then was completely non-directional, why do you always need to make it personal.....

You keep quoting competition, my statements, are the level of communication not being a mud slinging match, as I'll just walk away again.

We should be open to questioning all conclusions, and then test the facts to see if the methodology is consistent that they add up.

So testing until you find something which meets your flawed assumption is not logical.

This is why quite open to discussing it, as so far in 13 years of debating religious people across the board, not had any conducive arguments to debunk the points.

Where is the head of a person?

Zechariah 11:12-13 I said to them, “If you think it best, give me my wages; and if not, keep them.” So they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver. (13) Yahweh said to me, “Throw it to the potter, the handsome price that I was valued at by them!” I took the thirty pieces of silver, and threw them to the potter, in Yahweh’s house.

Parts are about that. Parts are not.

Sorry, that isn't logical to me, things that are within the same chapters have contextual contexts.

They understand it because, as Rashi wrote 1000 years ago, "This decree the Holy One, blessed be He, already spoke to us through Moses (Deut. 28:36): “The Lord shall drive you and your king.”"

Rashi is saying about going into captivity, and receiving the curses that Moses stated, that is observable within the prophets, that after the 2nd temple the destruction happened, the diaspora took place.

The statement you made, that the poor of the flock knew YHVH had sent the Gentiles to utterly destroy them like ravenous dogs, isn't what the text implies; unless you can show where that is stated?

Jesus isn't in my puzzle so trying to force his pieces in makes no sense.

You can't just ignore any of the possible conclusions, whilst claiming to be logical.

This is the same as many today, they take one jigsaw piece out of a huge puzzle, and claim they see the bigger picture.

Your claim of "implicit" is without basis.

Other then removing jigsaw pieces and refusing to look at them, which is just denial of facts; then the basis is quite solid...

Yeshua stated there, and in other places, that the 2nd temple and diaspora would happen because of his rejection, that Zechariah 11 was a bill of divorce given, that after the abomination of desolation would occur, etc...

Yet what is the point in explaining specific precise prophecies across the Tanakh, if you've chosen to put blinkers on, refuse to even use the correct name, and keep going back to jesus, which personally find an insult.

Neither are the verses in Zech 11 about the second temple until approximately verse 15.

As saying earlier, everything is within a context... When people write, we put interlinking ideas and thoughts next to each other, even in prophetic poetry things have constraints that fit together.

Personally can show the whole of Zechariah 11 in the same timeline, with specific contexts, that interlink across the Tanakh (Jeremiah 25, Isaiah 53, Isaiah 5, Ezekiel 1-7, etc), like whole chapters within contexts, not start making stuff up all over the place, as we don't know how it all fits together.

It is like someone has taken the edges of the jigsaw pieces found they partially fit, so cut them off, and glued them with sticky tape to make a new understanding....

I accept Muslims, Christians also do this, and it is really shoddy workmanship.

12:2 says nothing about becoming.

Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation. I will trust, and will not be afraid; for Yah, Yahweh, is my strength and song; and he has become (היה hâyâh) my salvation.”

"Here is the God of my salvation, I shall trust and not fear; for the strength and praise of the Eternal the Lord was my salvation."

Posting a translation that serves a purpose, and doesn't match the Hebrew, just shows you're self up...

Hayah (H1961) is 'to become', 'to be', it is in a future context, not a past one; so it being translated as 'was' is a terrible translation.

Note that the text sometimes talks about God changing his mind, but not his identity.

Yeshua is the same identity, see this is where you're seeing God in parts; like everything that we see around us isn't here because the God Most High allows it to be.

This is where i used simpler terms like the Matrix and CPU, because if the CPU is the creator of reality within the Matrix, everything all stems from the One singularity.

Also since YHVH walked with Adam, eat with Abraham, spoke with Moses face to face...

Then YHVH hasn't changed, the people's perception did after coming back from the Babylonian exile.

when the pieces don't fit instead of twisting the pieces because you only want to come up with one answer.

Complete opposite, I'm open to seeing any conclusion; show the evidence that I've twisted a text or removed a context?

 

[rosends]

The sentence structure just then was completely non-directional, why do you always need to make it personal.....

Non-directional? I'm not sure what that means. I pointed out a flaw in your system. You should be open to questioning your system.

You keep quoting competition, my statements, are the level of communication not being a mud slinging match, as I'll just walk away again.

I'm not "quoting competition" just referencing your claim that I am trying to win. I'm the one insisting it isn't a competition. Feel free to walk away.

We should be open to questioning all conclusions, and then test the facts to see if the methodology is consistent that they add up.

But you aren't questioning conclusions. You are starting with necessary conclusions and trying to find a set of quotes that fit your conclusion. As you justified, "Yeah we do this in algebra, to find answers to complex sums..."

This is why quite open to discussing it, as so far in 13 years of debating religious people across the board, not had any conducive arguments to debunk the points.

And in my twenty years I haven't seen many as convoluted as what you have been presenting. Live and learn, I guess.

Zechariah 11:12-13 I said to them, “If you think it best, give me my wages; and if not, keep them.” So they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver. (13) Yahweh said to me, “Throw it to the potter, the handsome price that I was valued at by them!” I took the thirty pieces of silver, and threw them to the potter, in Yahweh’s house.

Still, no head. but at least I can see the source of your problem. Try (though I have others)
"And the Lord said to me: Cast it to the keeper of the treasury, to the stronghold of glory-of which I stripped them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and I cast it into the house of the Lord, to the keeper of the treasury."
Have you gone to the source of your translation and questioned the conclusions and methods of coming to those words? Here are some resources.

Sorry, that isn't logical to me, things that are within the same chapters have contextual contexts.

OK, so you can't see how an entire chapter (a relatively modern and imposed construct on biblical text) might discuss more than one idea. I'll establish this conceptual limitation as a baseline in further discussions with you.

Rashi is saying about going into captivity, and receiving the curses that Moses stated, that is observable within the prophets, that after the 2nd temple the destruction happened, the diaspora took place.

And after the first. There has been more than one exile, you know.

The statement you made, that the poor of the flock knew YHVH had sent the Gentiles to utterly destroy them like ravenous dogs, isn't what the text implies; unless you can show where that is stated?

The ravenous dogs bit was yours, but, again, this was written up 1000 years ago and you are just getting to the party, "To show them that because they betrayed Me, I nullified My covenant that I formed with all the peoples concerning them, that the [peoples] not harm them. For, on that condition I gave them the Torah, that if they keep it, they will be free from the kingdoms; that no nation or tongue shall rule over them." The "poor ones" means "The righteous among them who kept My statute understood". Basic stuff.

You can't just ignore any of the possible conclusions, whilst claiming to be logical.

I CAN ignore the impossible ones, though. You and I differ as to what is impossible.

Other then removing jigsaw pieces and refusing to look at them, which is just denial of facts; then the basis is quite solid...

Yeshua stated there, and in other places, that the 2nd temple and diaspora would happen because of his rejection, that Zechariah 11 was a bill of divorce given, that after the abomination of desolation would occur, etc...

Yet what is the point in explaining specific precise prophecies across the Tanakh, if you've chosen to put blinkers on, refuse to even use the correct name, and keep going back to jesus, which personally find an insult.

You keep insisting that a piece referencing Jesus (why would I use an incorrect name? If you want to guess at hs Hebrew name, at least guess one that is textually and technically accurate, Yeyshu'ush, with the stress on the first syllable) exists and accounts for things. It doesn't and is without any basis other than a self-justifying one. Zecharia had already prophesied about the second temple. Looking at Jesus as if he is prophesying anything is an error as the age of prophecy had already ceased according to the Pharisees (whose teaching Jesus endorsed). So any point you make claiming Jesus prophesied ANYTHING is incorrect and an insult to what he actually taught. You have been caught up in Christian theology regarding Jesus' position.

As saying earlier, everything is within a context... When people write, we put interlinking ideas and thoughts next to each other, even in prophetic poetry things have constraints that fit together.

And Zech 11 is talking about a number of events and moments in Jewish history. These pieces have been assembled and understood for a long time. Your interest in reconnecting them with newer ideas because you want to is arbitrary and useless. But have at it. You are answering a question that students of the text simply don't have.

Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation. I will trust, and will not be afraid; for Yah, Yahweh, is my strength and song; and he has become (היה hâyâh) my salvation.”

Posting a translation that serves a purpose, and doesn't match the Hebrew, just shows you're self up...

Yeah, I was going to say that about yours. It is completely off base. How good is your Hebrew? Mine's pretty good. When you cut and paste things you don't understand, you look silly. I will demonstrate:

Hayah (H1961) is 'to become', 'to be', it is in a future context, not a past one; so it being translated as 'was' is a terrible translation.

The word "hayah" is not only the most basic PAST TENSE 'to be' verb in Hebrew), it also DOES NOT APPEAR in the verse you quote. Without knowing Hebrew you'd have a hard time seeing this. Of course, if you wanted to, you could answer this by trying to invoke the vav ha-hipuch which changes the tense of the verb, and would make "v'hayah" (which also doesn't appear in this verse) into a future verb (and it shall be) but then you would have to deal with that actual word in the verse, "vay'hi" which is a future tense verb (y'hi) meaning "it shall be" but which is introduced with the same vav-hahipuch turning it into a past tense verb. This is why the translation I quoted has " the Lord was my salvation." So you still lack any "become".

This is where i used simpler terms like the Matrix and CPU, because if the CPU is the creator of reality within the Matrix, everything all stems from the One singularity.

Ah, yes, much simpler.

Then YHVH hasn't changed, the people's perception did after coming back from the Babylonian exile.

True. In which case God didn't change. Perfect.

Complete opposite, I'm open to seeing any conclusion; show the evidence that I've twisted a text or removed a context?

Well, you refuse to see all the contextual points in Zech 11 that show that it refers to a variety of events. In fact, you JUST said, "things that are within the same chapters have contextual contexts." So to you, inclusion in a "chapter" defines the context, not the material itself. QED. And twisted a text? You are claiming the word "hayah" appears where it doesn't. Any other requests?

 

[wizanda]

Non-directional? I'm not sure what that means.

It means the sentence said 'we', as in 'we' can both look objectively at this by using that methodology....Then you turn it into 'your conclusions', 'your facts', etc....

These don't belong to me, this information is everyone's, when we start to take sides with it, we will always have trouble comprehending the true meaning, as we have personal biases to serve first.

You are starting with necessary conclusions and trying to find a set of quotes that fit your conclusion.

This is your perception; not my methodology.

I've learn what the Tanakh said was going to happen, not what Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe; yet what the text stipulated....

Since you couldn't quote all that i understand within the text, this ego driven statement presenting what you think I'm talking about, really just shows why you have comprehension problems, as you're making claims without any evidence.

I haven't seen many as convoluted as what you have been presenting.

I do admit it is convoluted, as instead of just being able to explain my interpretation of the text; you dismiss everything, thus I'm not presenting how it fits together in one clear essay.

Still, no head.

It doesn't use the word 'Head', that is my own English phraseology to mean a person, which the text implies, a person is paid a miserly price of a slaves wage 30 pieces of silver.

a relatively modern and imposed construct on biblical text

Well aware that some things have chapters placed around them, are not specifically as the author intended their own paragraphs; yet in the case of Zechariah 11 it is one context, shown by the continuing words within it all having specification.

There has been more than one exile, you know.

Am aware of the two main ones.

prophecy had already ceased according to the Pharisees (whose teaching Jesus endorsed).

Yeshua said tho the Pharisees think they sit in the seat of Moses, they're a bunch of hypocrites who have done away with the Torah, and who are going to Hell.

Yeshua made prophecies, and they've all come to pass as well... The prophets all clarify each other, and Yeshua being the chief corner stone, shows how much of it fits together.

textually and technically accurate

Zechariah chapter 3 is his name specifically about him, Yehoshua is full version; yet we also know Yeshua was a shortened version of the name, that then fits with all the prophecy.

Zecharia had already prophesied about the second temple.

Yes with the specifics of that prophecy in Zechariah 11, fitting with what happened to Yeshua exactly across the whole chapter.

Your interest in reconnecting them with newer ideas because you want to is arbitrary and useless.

Thank you, this just proves you're not interested in any conclusions other than your own, and have no interest in questioning other perspectives or to be shown that it could be wrong.

Proverbs 18:2 A fool has no delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own opinion.