Twin Jewsih Messiahs?

[Kemosloby]

When he talked about "God will provide the lamb" he meant that God would provide whatever he was supposed to sacrifice. In fact, what he said was "God will seek out for Himself, the lamb...my son" hinting that Isaac was what God would find. No Jesus, no "savior".

Perhaps Abraham didn't completely understand the lamb meant Jesus. You're right. But I believe the veiled meaning is visible in hindsight.

The Apostles talked about this and say Abraham reckoned God could raise Isaac from the dead, so he was ready to sacrifice him even though God promised "through Isaac your people will be reckoned", so there is a loose tie to the resurrection.

Hebrews 11

 

[rosends]

Perhaps Abraham didn't completely understand the lamb meant Jesus. You're right. But I believe the veiled meaning is visible in hindsight.

The Apostles talked about this and say Abraham reckoned God could raise Isaac from the dead, so he was ready to sacrifice him even though God promised "through Isaac your people will be reckoned", so there is a loose tie to the resurrection.

Hebrews 11

Oh, so to support your belief in the rectitude of the reading of Christianity, you cite the Christian bible. Got it.

 

[Kemosloby]

Oh, so to support your belief in the rectitude of the reading of Christianity, you cite the Christian bible. Got it.

It's still talking about the Jewish scripture about Abraham, plain for everyone to see. And even more trusted since the Jews aren't going to change the OT to please the Christians. The fact is there, Abraham was ready to kill Isaac even though God promised" through Isaac his people would be reckoned". What do you make of that?

 

[wizanda]

Isaiah 41:8

Specifically Jacob son of Abraham, doesn't say the rest.

Isaiah 43:10

Helps if you read the line before it, that states The Gentiles (הגוים) are the servant in that instance... As if you read on, you see that:

Isa 43:28 Therefore I will profane the princes of the sanctuary; and I will make Jacob a curse, and Israel an insult.”

Isaiah 44:21 + Isaiah 44:1

They do say 'And Israel' is the servant...So 2 out of 4 isn't bad.

Show me where the text identifies Jesus as the servant.

Isa 52:10 Yahweh has made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God (Yeshuat Eloheinu).

Isaiah 53:1 continues the 'Arm of the lord', as does Psalms 98 explaining 'we shall see the Salvation of our God'....

As you know these are the roots of his name Yeshua (salvation), and stating he is an Elohim.

Basically we couldn't get more specific, the reference in Isaiah 52:10 thus identifies him by name in a symbolic sense, and that he is the right arm of Yah-Avah.

The 'marred' bit (Isaiah 52:14), if you check the concordance is the word 'blemished', only used elsewhere in Leviticus 22:25 to mean an unclean offering.

 

[rosends]

It's still talking about the Jewish scripture about Abraham, plain for everyone to see. And even more trusted since the Jews aren't going to change the OT to please the Christians. The fact is there, Abraham was ready to kill Isaac even though God promised" through Isaac his people would be reckoned". What do you make of that?

No, you are talking about what you see as "veiled" and subject to your reading as informed by Christianity. In the Hebrew, the words are different. In the Hebrew, the references are clear. You have decided Abraham's thought process and God's intent which are NOT in the text. God made a promise and God made a request. The two must have seemed contradictory to Abraham and that's why this was explicitly referred to in the text as a test (22:1). How could Abraham reconcile the two ideas? Through absolute faith. That's the whole point.

 

[Kemosloby]

No, you are talking about what you see as "veiled" and subject to your reading as informed by Christianity. In the Hebrew, the words are different. In the Hebrew, the references are clear. You have decided Abraham's thought process and God's intent which are NOT in the text. God made a promise and God made a request. The two must have seemed contradictory to Abraham and that's why this was explicitly referred to in the text as a test (22:1). How could Abraham reconcile the two ideas? Through absolute faith. That's the whole point.

Blind faith or did Abraham suspect something? Should we have blind faith or should we try to understand?

Some I see myself, some I see from the new testament. I don't see them all, just glimpses of things that hint at this or that. In the new testament though Jesus opened their minds to the scriptures, and I figure they could see all of the connections and were in awe. Luke 24:45 "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." and the veil between God and man was torn in two.

 

[rosends]

Specifically Jacob son of Abraham, doesn't say the rest.

2 problems -- one, if it does mean only Jacob, that doesn't refute my point that the text explicitly identifies Jacob as the servant, not Jesus. Two, the text is addressing Jacob, and yet was written well after Jacob died. So unless it refers to a ghost, it must refer to the seed of Abraham (even though Jacob was actually the seed of Isaac).

Helps if you read the line before it, that states The Gentiles (הגוים) are the servant in that instance...

No, the nations come forward to present testimony accepting what was said 2 verses earlier, that God made everyone. But if you go back and read from verse 1, when God speaks, he is addressing the nation of Israel. So after the nations present their testimony that God is the God of all, God looks at Jacob/Israel and speaks to them as their servant.

As if you read on, you see that:

Isa 43:28 Therefore I will profane the princes of the sanctuary; and I will make Jacob a curse, and Israel an insult.”

Exactly -- you have just confirmed that God is identifying the servant with Jacob/the people. Perfect. Thank you.

Isa 52:10 Yahweh has made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God (Yeshuat Eloheinu).

So? The phrase is unrelated to a person. No one is named. Note that in the English translation you quoted, the words are "the salvation of". Not a person. Next.

Isaiah 53:1 continues the 'Arm of the lord', as does Psalms 98 explaining 'we shall see the Salvation of our God'....

As you know these are the roots of his name Yeshua (salvation), and stating he is an Elohim.

So Jesus is an arm? You have just made the claim that he is a zro'a. I mean, that's the word the text uses and you have decided that that arm points to Jesus. Wait, are you saying that any phrase that uses the word "yeshu'a" (different from the Hebrew name many ascribe to Jesus, Yehoshua, and its textually precedented nickname, Yeishu'a) that refers to Jesus? Brilliant.

Basically we couldn't get more specific, the reference in Isaiah 52:10 thus identifies him by name in a symbolic sense, and that he is the right arm of Yah-Avah.

Do you even read what you write?
You can't get more specific that identifying by name in a symbolic sense? Well, the nation is identified by name in a literal sense. I see that as more specific. Also, your vision of "symbolic" is complete invention as it attempts to tie a word with a name possibly derived from the root of that word which would then apply to ANYONE who had that name. And WTH is "yah avah"?

The 'marred' bit (Isaiah 52:14), if you check the concordance is the word 'blemished', only used elsewhere in Leviticus 22:25 to mean an unclean offering.

Whoever told you this never checked. The word in Isaiah is "mishchat"and in Leviticus, "mashchatam". Other words related to those two are mashcheto (his damage, in Ezekiel), "mashchat" (blemished, in Malachi 1:14 and Proverbs 25:26). All seem etymologially to be connected to mashchit, harm/wound which appears 19 times in the Tanach.

 

[rosends]

Blind faith or did Abraham suspect something? Should we have blind faith or should we try to understand?

Some I see myself, some I see from the new testament. I don't see them all, just glimpses of things that hint at this or that. In the new testament though Jesus opened their minds to the scriptures, and I figure they could see all of the connections and were in awe. Luke 24:45 "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." and the veil between God and man was torn in two.

Blind and absolute faith. God says jump, you say "how high." The talmud actually commends Abraham for this and criticizes Moses for asking for proofs (Sanhedrin 111a).

 

[Kemosloby]

Blind and absolute faith. God says jump, you say "how high." The talmud actually commends Abraham for this and criticizes Moses for asking for proofs (Sanhedrin 111a).

What about God. Do you think God commands Abraham to jump just to see Abraham jump?

 

[rosends]

What about God. Do you think God commands Abraham to jump just to see Abraham jump?

God commands him to give Abraham the chance to ask "how high".

 

[Kemosloby]

God commands him to give Abraham the chance to ask "how high".

lol, ok then

 

[wizanda]

So unless it refers to a ghost

We're dealing with the God of the living, not the dead.... Therefore the spirit of Jacob is still alive.

refute my point that the text explicitly identifies Jacob as the servant, not Jesus.

Again you're encompassing every 'servant' statement as being the same, and the end clause shows why you're being so sloppy....

When you're so anti-something, it is hard to see what is going on, when you ignore the obvious.

But if you go back and read from verse 1, when God speaks, he is addressing the nation of Israel.

It states Israel you won't be forgotten, not that you can suddenly make Israel the servant, when in the same chapter it is saying they're a curse.

The phrase is unrelated to a person.

Doesn't need to be a person, it is metaphoric as Yeshua was Yah-Avah's right arm.

And WTH is "yah avah"?

Yah-Avah is the Lord (H3050) To Be (H1933 H1934).

Wait, are you saying that any phrase that uses the word "yeshu'a" (different from the Hebrew name many ascribe to Jesus, Yehoshua, and its textually precedented nickname, Yeishu'a) that refers to Jesus?

Hadn't you already noticed this, since you read the Hebrew?

When they quoted 'He shall be a light unto the Gentiles', it is because it contained his name, and when they said 'he shall be called Yeshua, as he shall save his people'?

Also, your vision of "symbolic" is complete invention

The text has multiple different qualifying points to show the symbolism; if you don't get it, maybe try studying.

The word in Isaiah is "mishchat"and in Leviticus, "mashchatam".

Not plural, and plural.... Thus the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, not plural.

which appears 19 times in the Tanach.

Thank you for being helpful, will check the additional references.

 

[rosends]

We're dealing with the God of the living, not the dead.... Therefore the spirit of Jacob is still alive.

The spirit? Actually the children of Israel, who were still alive. Notice that the text explicitly says that (Isaiah 49:3): And He said to me: "You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified!"

Again you're encompassing every 'servant' statement as being the same, and the end clause shows why you're being so sloppy....

When you're so anti-something, it is hard to see what is going on, when you ignore the obvious.

I don’t know where you get this from. I made a claim that the suffering servant is explicitly used to refer to the nation of Israel in the text. And I showed that. You have twice accused me of talking about “every” servant statement when I have done nothing of the sort. You are so busy imputing ideas that you miss what I have stated explicitly – there is no reason to try and apply the concept of “suffering servant” to an unnamed and absent idea when the text explicitly states what it means and names the object. When you ignore that it makes your counter claims look ridiculous.

It states Israel you won't be forgotten, not that you can suddenly make Israel the servant, when in the same chapter it is saying they're a curse.

No one “suddenly” does anything. The text has made it clear repeatedly and your claim that “servant” refers to the nations means you haven’t been reading. The servant deserves a curse because of its behavior. Various texts also equate the nation with “God’s child” but a disobedient child can be a curse. There is no contradiction. Simply put, no where does the text identify the servant with anyone else.

Doesn't need to be a person, it is metaphoric as Yeshua was Yah-Avah's right arm.

So it is a metaphor which ignores the actual textual statements.

Yah-Avah is the Lord (H3050) To Be (H1933 H1934).

So while you are at it, you will invent words also I guess.

Hadn't you already noticed this, since you read the Hebrew?

Noticed that you confuse a name with a word? Or notice that you ignore all others with that name, or notice that you don’t even get the name right? Because I noticed all 3.

When they quoted 'He shall be a light unto the Gentiles', it is because it contained his name, and when they said 'he shall be called Yeshua, as he shall save his people'?

Um, you DO know that 49:6 was a statement the prophet was making about his OWN calling, and his name was Yeshayahu (the salvation of God). So no Jesus here – the text connects the word “salvation” with the name of the prophet who is chosen to speak at that moment. Why insist it talks about anyone else?

The text has multiple different qualifying points to show the symbolism; if you don't get it, maybe try studying.

Studying? You mean like in the Hebrew to keep proving you wrong. Been there, done that.

Not plural, and plural.... Thus the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, not plural.

Plural and not plural? Your claim was two fold:

“ if you check the concordance is the word 'blemished', only used elsewhere in Leviticus 22:25 to mean an unclean offering”

Not only isn’t it the same form of the word in the 2 sources you cite, but the word appears elsewhere (Proverbs and Malachi). So why not just accept that your claim is wrong instead of shifting to some strange statement about “plural”.

 

[wizanda]

Notice that the text explicitly says that (Isaiah 49:3):

Agreed, it does say Israel is the 'servant' there; then we continue to Isaiah 49:7, where it has 'the man who is despised' as we find referenced in Isaiah 53:3, defined separately to Israel.

Actually the children of Israel, who were still alive.

Quit with the ego, try to understand the text, not how you can make yourself into something...If it specifies Jacob, be grateful it does that.

I don’t know where you get this from.

Because I've shown already that some of the statements are not Israel the people, and because you argue against it, you think that automatically reinstates your original opinion.

Still waiting for you to post a face palm smiley, to see if you actually listen or just argue.

Simply put, no where does the text identify the servant with anyone else.

Isaiah 20:3 (Isaiah) - Isaiah 22:20 (Eliakim the son of Hilkiah) - Isaiah 37:5 (servants of king Hezekiah) - Isaiah 37:35 (David) - Isaiah 41:8 (Jacob)

We've got to be specific, and unfortunately claiming Israel is the servant all the way through, isn't being.

So it is a metaphor which ignores the actual textual statements.

Nope it is slightly more than that, Yeshua was physically seen, and offered people salvation; just as the text implied...It is just lack of comprehension that could cause it to be misunderstood.

So while you are at it, you will invent words also I guess.

Posted the Strongs reference numbers to show where they come from; it is my choice to spell it like that, so it is clearer.

Noticed that you confuse a name with a word?

Guess you're missing half the metaphors in the Tanakh, if you don't realize even place names are symbolism.

Or notice that you ignore all others with that name

Zechariah 3 is about Yehoshua by name; yet we were talking about Isaiah 53, where you were confused about where it referenced him by name.

notice that you don’t even get the name right?

Semitic languages have root consonants; think how Yeshua would have read it, and see his name referenced, then try applying that logic.

Why insist it talks about anyone else?

The New Testament quotes it because of them reasons.

You mean like in the Hebrew to keep proving you wrong.

Sorry, yet so far you haven't; instead I'm embarrassed for you, at how argumentative you are, without really noticing how flawed many of your arguments are.

So why not just accept that your claim is wrong

I've looked up all the other references, surprising how many times 'to anoint' is spelled exactly the same in Hebrew.

The claim wasn't wrong, the Strongs references only lists them two usages of that word, the others tho spelled the same have different contexts.

shifting to some strange statement about “plural”.

It was hardly strange, in Leviticus it is referring to plural usage of different animals having a blemish, and therefore being unclean...

Then when we come to Isaiah 53, it is stating that the whole idea of turning him into a sin sacrifice was unclean before it was ever thought of....

Yet because you're so busy being confrontational, you don't even realize i was trying to help you against Christianity.

 

[rosends]

àQuit with the ego, try to understand the text, not how you can make yourself into something...If it specifies Jacob, be grateful it does that.

It also specifies Israel. Not Jesus. Deal with it.

Because I've shown already that some of the statements are not Israel the people, and because you argue against it, you think that automatically reinstates your original opinion.

Not Israel the people because you want the God to be talking to a dead Jacob. Yeah, I forgot that you were advocating talking to ghosts. And when the text says “Israel” it doesn’t mean “my people Israel” but just Jacob after his name change. Brilliant.

Still waiting for you to post a face palm smiley, to see if you actually listen or just argue.

A single face palm just won’t do it.

Isaiah 20:3 (Isaiah) - Isaiah 22:20 (Eliakim the son of Hilkiah) - Isaiah 37:5 (servants of king Hezekiah) - Isaiah 37:35 (David) - Isaiah 41:8 (Jacob)

Ah, good you are learning how to refer to text. You have just pointed out a vital lesson – the text refers to others when it specifies others. Now, next step, knowing that the text, when it wants to explain who a servant is, names that servant, why would anyone believe that when NO servant is name, the text refers to Jesus instead of to the named servant in surrounding verses? By showing that the text uses names, you have made my case stronger. Thank you for that.

We've got to be specific, and unfortunately claiming Israel is the servant all the way through, isn't being.

Good thing I never said “all the way through”.

Nope it is slightly more than that, Yeshua was physically seen, and offered people salvation; just as the text implied...It is just lack of comprehension that could cause it to be misunderstood.

I don’t know when you think Jesus was seen. It certainly wasn’t in Isaiah’s day, when he spoke of the suffering servant, the children of Israel. Your claim that the text implies that is an error on your part – a wishful read.

Posted the Strongs reference numbers to show where they come from; it is my choice to spell it like that, so it is clearer.

You posted the Strong’s reference to 1934, hava, which is spelled h-v-a (the a is not in the 4 letter name) and cite Strog’s contention that “hava” means “be” (or some version of it). Problems – h-v-a only appears textually as an Aramaic word meaning “was”. Strongs solves this by equating h-v-a with h-v-h but then brings up textual instances which are not hava. The example of Gen 27 is actually h-v-h pronounced “heveh”. Nechemia 6:6 is “hoveh”. Job 37:6 is hevey. Can you show me an actual instance of the word hava (h-v-h or h-v-a) meaning what you claim? I’d love to see it.

Zechariah 3

is about Yehoshua by name; yet we were talking about Isaiah 53, where you were confused about where it referenced him by name.

There were plenty of people named Yehoshua (it appears 218 times). I notice a glaring absence of that name in Isaiah. So there is no reference “by name” there. It must be tough for you to have to keep making new claims when the other ones are shown to be false.

Semitic languages have root consonants; think how Yeshua would have read it, and see his name referenced, then try applying that logic.

Possibly as “Yehoshu’a” or its nickname, Yeyshu’a. One of us here knows Hebrew and studies the texts in the original. Think about that before you try to tell me about Semitic languages.

The New Testament quotes it because of them reasons.

Oh, because you HAVE to. Got it. The Christian bible quotes it as the basis of a separate theology so it is authoritative. Uh huh.

I've looked up all the other references, surprising how many times 'to anoint' is spelled exactly the same in Hebrew.

Different roots. M-sh-ch is a different root from sh-ch-t. Would you then equate a root meaning "destroy" with one meaning "anoint" because of shared letters? Do "turn" and "train" mean the same thing? They share letters. You know what’s amazing? That “trouble” and “terrible” share so many letters and overlap in meaning but are unrelated. Semitic languages and all that

The claim wasn't wrong, the Strongs references only lists them two usages of that word, the others tho spelled the same have different contexts.

“Different contexts”? No, they all refer to blemishes. The claim was that the words are not used elsewhere. I showed that they are.

It was hardly strange, in Leviticus it is referring to plural usage of different animals having a blemish, and therefore being unclean...

Then when we come to Isaiah 53, it is stating that the whole idea of turning him into a sin sacrifice was unclean before it was ever thought of....

Can you show me where in Isaiah 53 there is mention of a sin sacrifice? The word sacrifice is absent as is any discussion of the sacrificial process. You must be reading this in to the text because you have to to justify your theology. That’s a shame. The word in Leviticus is "their blemishes" (plural possessive noun) and in Isaiah, it is an adjective. The issue of number is irrelevant.

 

[wizanda]

It also specifies Israel. Not Jesus. Deal with it.

LoL, what do you think this is WWE wrestling.

 

[wizanda]

Not Israel the people because you want the God to be talking to a dead Jacob.

So do you not believe in Gilgul (reincarnation) or that the Saints are raised up to God, to be as Elohim?

why would anyone believe that when NO servant is name, the text refers to Jesus instead of to the named servant in surrounding verses?

This is your own lack of comprehension, Isaiah 52:10 states Yeshua is the right arm of Yah-Avah.

Good thing I never said “all the way through”.

Simply put, no where does the text identify the servant with anyone else.

I don’t know when you think Jesus was seen.

Yeshua was seen precisely as the text stated throughout the Tanakh, just before the 2nd temple destruction, diaspora, Abomination of Desolation, etc.

Different roots. They share letters.

Personally using Esword, which still has the Hebrew texts searchable with out vowel points, so can see how the language was originally written...

Wasn't saying anything was conclusive, just found it interesting.

Can you show me an actual instance of the word hava (h-v-h or h-v-a) meaning what you claim?

hvh is the full root of the word; and don't like the English when people are pronouncing Yah, havvah, as they've gone into a word meaning destruction (H1942)...

Thus I'm spelling it in English that way, to define it separately.

It must be tough for you to have to keep making new claims when the other ones are shown to be false.

You've not really shown things false, you're just missing what is going on, and assuming it is some normal battle.

I notice a glaring absence of that name in Isaiah.

Because you're not aware that most of the 18 usages of Yeshuah/Yeshuat within Isaiah, are metaphors for the Salvation of Yah-Avah being made physically manifest.

You're looking for a person, which shows you're still on the wrong page.

One of us here knows Hebrew and studies the texts in the original.

True, I'm only learning the alphabet at the moment...

The Christian bible quotes it as the basis of a separate theology so it is authoritative.

Yeshua isn't a separate theology; Christianity is tho...The usage by them, was based on a first century understanding of the Tanakh.

You must be reading this in to the text because you have to to justify your theology.

It isn't my theology, this is your book; I'm just trying to understand it based on what is there.

Can you show me where in Isaiah 53 there is mention of a sin sacrifice?

Isaiah 53:10 (H817 אשׁם) - 'âshâm is to make atonement for sin...

Thus i call it a sin sacrifice; yet really don't see that much difference between sin or guilt sacrifices.

 

[rosends]

So do you not believe in Gilgul (reincarnation) or that the Saints are raised up to God, to be as Elohim?

Those are two separate questions. The mystical idea of gilgul has nothing to do with being “raise up to God to be as” anything.

This is your own lack of comprehension, Isaiah 52:10 states Yeshua is the right arm of Yah-Avah.

No, Isaiah 52:10 simply says that God reveals his arm and through it shows how he will save. No mention of a person, unless you think that any time a word with a root FROM WHICH a name was made is used, that is a direct reference to that name. And that’s a bizarre way to think.

Yeshua was seen precisely as the text stated throughout the Tanakh, just before the 2nd temple destruction, diaspora, Abomination of Desolation, etc.

In other words, only in your imagination, as he is not mentioned in any of those texts.

hvh is the full root of the word; and don't like the English when people are pronouncing Yah, havvah, as they've gone into a word meaning destruction (H1942)...

Thus I'm spelling it in English that way, to define it separately.

So you are claiming to spell a word which is a root but which never appears as a word, and to do it, you remove the initial sound. Makes perfect sense.

You've not really shown things false, you're just missing what is going on, and assuming it is some normal battle.

Sure I have, in 2 languages. You assume that your imagination is a valid defense.

Because you're not aware that most of the 18 usages of Yeshuah/Yeshuat within Isaiah, are metaphors for the Salvation of Yah-Avah being made physically manifest.

Oh, they are metaphors with a meaning specific to that which YOU understand. That’s actually fascinating. And wrong in any context other than the self-fulfilling one you need to endorse and substantiate. So good luck with that.

True, I'm only learning the alphabet at the moment...

And yet you are making claims about the language without being able to understand it?

Yeshua isn't a separate theology; Christianity is tho...The usage by them, was based on a first century understanding of the Tanakh.

No, Jesus comes from a separate text and a separate belief system which was rejected by the first century understanding of Tanach.

It isn't my theology, this is your book; I'm just trying to understand it based on what is there.

By insisting on “metaphors” and symbolism which you can only impute as informed by outside theology.

Isaiah 53:10

(H817 אשׁם) - 'âshâm is to make atonement for sin...

Thus i call it a sin sacrifice; yet really don't see that much difference between sin or guilt sacrifices.

A korban Asham is a guilt offering. The word asham means “was obligated due to sin”, “destruction” (or “destroyed”), “punished because of sin”, “liable to penalty” or “obligated to give a sacrifice” [as ASHEM], “sin of misappropriation”, “gift to the priest as part of restitution for sin”.

In Isaiah, it is used to refer to restitution (“if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand”).

No mention of a sacrifice and if you don’t know the difference between a korban chatat and a korban asham, you shouldn’t be making claims.

In case you don't understand the difference between the use of a word to refer to an idea and a use of the word in another context to refer to a sacrifice, I suggest that you look in Gen 41:9.

 

[wizanda]

Those are two separate questions.

Yes, that is why it asked do you believe in either of them?

No mention of a person

When we realize it isn't a person that the Tanakh implies, it is Yah-Avah in person who shall do these things...Yeshua/Yah-Avah is son of the Most High (Elyon).

he is not mentioned in any of those texts.

The prophets interact as one book, when we realize this, it shows that something outside of time interlinked it all.

Thus if you start to understand how one jigsaw piece fits into the puzzle, you can build up the edges to see the whole picture...

Chucking jigsaw pieces away, as they don't match what some wanted the picture to look like, only leads to confusion.

So you are claiming to spell a word

In English; not in Hebrew...The sound travels, as it should Yah-h▼▲h-Avah.

they are metaphors with a meaning specific

As saying, as we start to understand all the prophecies in the Tanakh, they make the most Amazing Work I've ever seen in a text created over thousands of years in-between.

Yet if someone is in a constant state of denial, that it all interlinks; then they will only see errors, as that is what they're looking for.

And yet you are making claims about the language without being able to understand it?

Not really started teaching Hebrew grammar; pointed out that Yeshua is a symbolic reference throughout the Tanakh, that any child can see, as it is all pictures.

Plus wasn't making any claims about language, having a discussion about ideas.

Jesus comes from a separate text and a separate belief system which was rejected by the first century understanding of Tanach.

The 3 shepherds were cut off, the flock was slaughtered (Zechariah 11), the people no longer with guidance, and when someone comes along with a spot light, the reaction is to shout, "turn out that bright light".

The Ebionites accepted Yeshua, as Zechariah 11:11 referenced with the Poor Ones....Yet the Rabbis have been blinded (Zechariah 12:4).

Christianity on the other hand is a totally different kettle of fish, that tho established by the Pharisees John, and Paul; it has defiled what Yeshua taught, and created a horn of abomination (as expected).

By insisting on “metaphors” and symbolism which you can only impute as informed by outside theology.

It helps explain a religion by what it believes, not by going to outside sources.

No mention of a sacrifice

As we've already discussed the 'blemish' is mentioned because of sacrificial laws (Isaiah 52:14), 'he was wounded for our transgressions' (Isaiah 53:5), 'he shall bear our iniquities' (Isaiah 53:11), 'laid on him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6), 'he was cut off from the land of the living, for the transgression of our people' (Isaiah 53:8), etc....

 

[rosends]

Yes, that is why it asked do you believe in either of them?

So, “sort of” to the first and “no” to the second.

When we realize it isn't a person that the Tanakh implies, it is Yah-Avah in person who shall do these things...Yeshua/Yah-Avah is son of the Most High (Elyon).

There’s your logical leap. God says he will do it himself. Then you introduce this other Jesus character and equate him with God. But there is nothing driving that. No person means no person.

The prophets interact as one book, when we realize this, it shows that something outside of time interlinked it all.

Yes, God. Not a person.

Thus if you start to understand how one jigsaw piece fits into the puzzle, you can build up the edges to see the whole picture...

Chucking jigsaw pieces away, as they don't match what some wanted the picture to look like, only leads to confusion.

And starting with a picture you intend to see so you twist the pieces to make the picture you want leads to being misled.

In English; not in Hebrew...The sound travels, as it should Yah-h▼▲h-Avah.

Except that in Hebrew, the H at the end of the first word has no vowel so it is not pronounced. Therefore, it would not replace the initial sound in the second word. Your spelling it “Avah” is in error. Even the invented word has to follow the rules of Hebrew pronunciation.

Not really started teaching Hebrew grammar; pointed out that Yeshua is a symbolic reference throughout the Tanakh, that any child can see, as it is all pictures.

Plus wasn't making any claims about language, having a discussion about ideas.

You didn’t teach any grammar for a language you don’t know. You claimed that other things were symbolic referring to Jesus, not that Jesus was symbolic, and then made claims about content that was wrong.

The Ebionites accepted Yeshua, as Zechariah 11:11 referenced with the Poor Ones....Yet the Rabbis have been blinded (Zechariah 12:4).

I find that the heart of funniness. The word Ebionites comes from the Hebrew word “evyon” but the poor ones in Zech 11 are called aniyim. Not evyonim. The words mean different things but you connect them because of an English word. Then you decide that 12:4 has horses representing the “Rabbis” when, in fact, 12 speaks of the non-Judah people who have besieged and infiltrated. Judah (that is, the Jews…the Rabbis) have their eyes OPENED. So good job completely misreading the text.

As we've already discussed the 'blemish' is mentioned because of sacrificial laws (Isaiah 52:14),

No, we did not discuss that. You have made an unsubstantiated claim about the use of a word and the meaning of the sword. I showed you that you were wrong. Now you are insisting that Isaiah has anything to do with sacrificial laws when it doesn’t. No mention of sacrifice. Just the use of a word which appears a number of times not related to sacrifices.[/QUOTE]