When was "the Messiah" first mentioned in scripture?

[Firenze]

The Messiah envisioned by these so called “experts” never materialized. They became false prophets.

The Son of God incarnate as the "son of man" was his own authority. He didn’t rely on the scriptures of Judaism for his authority. The original good news or Gospel was the basis of a new movement. His followers failed to head the warning ️ about adding the old to the new.

Scriptures are just the writings of preachers converted into the “Word of God” by presumptive religious authority for purposes of control. Anything new must be warped to conformity in order to be accepted…….or else they nail you to a tree!

There's nothing "so-called" about the expertise of the OT authors. They are the sole legitimate authority on the attributes of the Messiah - which is how we know that Jesus didn't qualify.

 

[Colt]

There's nothing "so-called" about the expertise of the OT authors. They are the sole legitimate authority on the attributes of the Messiah - which is how we know that Jesus didn't qualify.

I disagree, the so called messianic passages are not clear cut. There has been endless debate within Judaism as to the interpretation of those passages. Quibbling theologians can be quite spiritually blind! The prophets within Judaism weren’t always well received at first!

 

[Firenze]

I disagree, the so called messianic passages are not clear cut. There has been endless debate within Judaism as to the interpretation of those passages. Quibbling theologians can be quite spiritually blind! The prophets within Judaism weren’t always well received at first!

There is no debate in Judaism about a virgin birth being an attribute of the Messiah - nor a crucifixion, or a resurrection, or a birth in Bethlehem, or any divine attributes, or the ridiculous need to have a 2nd coming as if the Messiah was too stupid or incompetent to complete the necessary Messianic achievements in his lifetime. This is what explodes the NT narrative and exposes their fraud.

 

[Colt]

There is no debate in Judaism about a virgin birth being an attribute of the Messiah - nor a crucifixion, or a resurrection, or a birth in Bethlehem, or any divine attributes, or the ridiculous need to have a 2nd coming as if the Messiah was too stupid or incompetent to complete the necessary Messianic achievements in his lifetime. This is what explodes the NT narrative and exposes their fraud.

That’s a straw man argument, prior debates within Judaism about a coming Jewish Messiah didn’t include any of those topics that you are trying to include.

The problem wasn’t the Son of God incarnate who used the title “son of man”, the stumbling block to accepting Jesus and his original Gospel were the erroneous expectations that had developed within Judaism. The assumption and insistence by his Jewish followers that he was their expected Messiah was carried over into the Gentile world which was much more open to Paul’s new religion about Jesus.

Judaism remains stranded in the “exploded” and fraudulent Old Testament narratives that were wildly exaggerated during the revisions of the Babylonian exile period. Their version of an exclusively Jewish Messiah had been MIA for 3500 years!

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.

Judaism remains stranded in the “exploded” and fraudulent Old Testament narratives that were wildly exaggerated during the revisions of the Babylonian exile period. Their version of an exclusively Jewish Messiah had been MIA for 3500 years!

I agree, I'm finding out from some of the post from our Hebrew brothers and sister that they are missing the TRUE meaning of their own Language. for example in Genesis 49:11 "Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ***'s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:"

Binding using the AHLB is a pictograph of a thorn representing a turning, and also the picture of a head. Combined these mean "turn the head". The turning of the head to another direction. One who rules turns the people to his direction. THIS IS CLASSIC NT, FOR THE UNBELIEVER MUST REPENT/TURN FROM THEIR OLD WAY OF THINKING ABOUT GOD.

and the thorn is another classic example of the unbeliever turning to God, for God fore told it again in Isaiah 46:12 "Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness:" Isaiah 46:13 "I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory."

Just as God said by his apostle Paul. Romans 10:3 "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

here in Isaiah 46:12, the term stouthearted or in Layman terms is HARD-HEADED, or STIFF-NECKED. yes, that THORN that need to REPENT, or TURN HEAD.

I will not take anyone's who claim, that their Hebrew understanding is the correct. I will take it with a grain of salt. other words, what they think the meaning of something is in a verse of scripture is incompetence. I will take no stock in what ... "THEY" ... think or say about a verse of scripture.

101G.

 

[Firenze]

That’s a straw man argument, prior debates within Judaism about a coming Jewish Messiah didn’t include any of those topics that you are trying to include.

The problem wasn’t the Son of God incarnate who used the title “son of man”, the stumbling block to accepting Jesus and his original Gospel were the erroneous expectations that had developed within Judaism. The assumption and insistence by his Jewish followers that he was their expected Messiah was carried over into the Gentile world which was much more open to Paul’s new religion about Jesus.

Judaism remains stranded in the “exploded” and fraudulent Old Testament narratives that were wildly exaggerated during the revisions of the Babylonian exile period. Their version of an exclusively Jewish Messiah had been MIA for 3500 years!

That's exactly the point. Judaism did not have any debates about the attributes that the lying NT authors pretended are Messianic - because those 'attributes' didn't exist in the OT.

 

[rosends]

(Smile) ... LOL, Like what, post one scripture at a time.

101G.

OK, I'll start at the beginning

מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע בְּעַרְבִית. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִים לֶאֱכֹל בִּתְרוּמָתָן, עַד סוֹף הָאַשְׁמוּרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד חֲצוֹת. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ בָנָיו מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא קָרִינוּ אֶת שְׁמַע. אָמַר לָהֶם, אִם לֹא עָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, חַיָּבִין אַתֶּם לִקְרוֹת. וְלֹא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. וְכָל הַנֶּאֱכָלִים לְיוֹם אֶחָד, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעֲבֵרָה:

tell me when to post the next one.

 

[101G]

OK, I'll start at the beginning

מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע בְּעַרְבִית. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִים לֶאֱכֹל בִּתְרוּמָתָן, עַד סוֹף הָאַשְׁמוּרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד חֲצוֹת. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ בָנָיו מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא קָרִינוּ אֶת שְׁמַע. אָמַר לָהֶם, אִם לֹא עָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, חַיָּבִין אַתֶּם לִקְרוֹת. וְלֹא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. וְכָל הַנֶּאֱכָלִים לְיוֹם אֶחָד, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעֲבֵרָה:

tell me when to post the next one.

let's try this one instead.... (smile)
ואני אשפוך על בית דוד, ועל יושבי ירושלים, רוח החסד והתחנונים: והם יסתכלו עלי את מי שהם פירקו, והם יתאבלו עליו, כאחד מתאבלים על בנו היחיד, ויהיו במרירות עליו, כאחד שנמצא במרירות על בכורתו

101G.

 

[rosends]

let's try this one instead.... (smile)
ואני אשפוך על בית דוד, ועל יושבי ירושלים, רוח החסד והתחנונים: והם יסתכלו עלי את מי שהם פירקו, והם יתאבלו עליו, כאחד מתאבלים על בנו היחיד, ויהיו במרירות עליו, כאחד שנמצא במרירות על בכורתו

101G.

So you ask me for scripture and I provide it. In response you give a poor Hebrew rendering of a poor translation of the original Hebrew of an unrelated verse. Good job. If you wanted the Hebrew of Zech 12:10 why didn't you just ask?
תנ"ך מנוקד - זכריה פרק יב

 

[Colt]

That's exactly the point. Judaism did not have any debates about the attributes that the lying NT authors pretended are Messianic - because those 'attributes' didn't exist in the OT.

I basically agree with you. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jews who naturally wanted to justify their belief in Jesus as Messiah. They sought to find "proof texts" in the Torah. It's frustrating! We are all tempted to demand perfection in religious writings to hang our faith on when only G-d alone is perfect!

It seems that the virgin birth story came from the Pagan world where such myths in various forms can be found. Apparently, it was believed that divine saviors need to be born of virgins due to the theory that sin is inherited.

I believe that Jesus was conceived the natural way as the first-born child of wed parents in Nazareth. The miracle of miracles is how the Son of God, a celestial being, became the person of Mary's child at conception. Jesus lived an inconspicuous life up until the beginning of his public ministry. Even then he was cryptic and diplomatic regarding questions about his identity.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.

So you ask me for scripture and I provide it. In response you give a poor Hebrew rendering of a poor translation of the original Hebrew of an unrelated verse. Good job. If you wanted the Hebrew of Zech 12:10 why didn't you just ask?
תנ"ך מנוקד - זכריה פרק יב

personal opinion? which I careless about. your rending of the Hebrew is worest. Zech 12:10, no need to ask, I DID, ...... (smile).

now one point at a time. when was God pierced, wounded, bruise, or stab?
the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments have it,
H1856 דָּקַר daqar (daw-kar') v.
1. to stab.
2. (by analogy) to starve.
3. (figuratively) to revile.
[a primitive root]
KJV: pierce, strike (thrust) through, wound.

your answer please.

101G

 

[rosends]

GINOLJC, to all.

personal opinion? which I careless about. your rending of the Hebrew is worest. Zech 12:10, no need to ask, I DID, ...... (smile).

now one point at a time. when was God pierced, wounded, bruise, or stab?
the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments have it,
H1856 דָּקַר daqar (daw-kar') v.
1. to stab.
2. (by analogy) to starve.
3. (figuratively) to revile.
[a primitive root]
KJV: pierce, strike (thrust) through, wound.

your answer please.

101G

No, not my opinion. Your poor translations. Here's something for you to consider -- in your failed Hebrew, you actually don't have the exact word you then decide to ask about. You have מי שהם פירקו and not
אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֑רוּ which is what is in the original and which involves the word you then lift from Strong's.

Zechariah 12:10 is not about God's being wounded, pierced, bruised or stabbed. That would be silly as God is not a person. If you understood Hebrew grammar you would see that the Hebrew word is "אֵלַ֖י" TO ME, while your bad translation has עלי ON ME, which just points out how the KJV's "upon me" is wrong. You have done nothing but show that you don't know Hebrew and the KJV is wrong.

So your Hebrew material was inaccurate -- that much is self apparent. And you don't understand it enough to comment on it so when you try to address the meaning of a word you can't even see that it isn't a word you wrote initially. (though I do like how you quote a definition from Strong's and then show that in the KJV, a different word is used in the translation -- the KJV, though, is inconsistent in its translation as Zech 12:10 is the only use of that root that the KJV has as "pierced"...one wonders why).

Instead of dancing from one place to another, why not try dealing with what you have already said which has been shown to be in error?

It also appears that your English is really poor as well.

 

[101G]

No, not my opinion. Your poor translations. Here's something for you to consider -- in your failed Hebrew, you actually don't have the exact word you then decide to ask about. You have מי שהם פירקו and not
אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֑רוּ which is what is in the original and which involves the word you then lift from Strong's.

EXCUSE? thought so,

Zechariah 12:10 is not about God's being wounded, pierced, bruised or stabbed. That would be silly as God is not a person. If you understood Hebrew grammar you would see that the Hebrew word is "אֵלַ֖י" TO ME, while your bad translation has עלי ON ME, which just points out how the KJV's "upon me" is wrong. You have done nothing but show that you don't know Hebrew and the KJV is wrong.

Silly, to those who are IGNORANT of God Holy Word. Listen and Learn, God is a Spirit, but he's an ECHAD of himself in Flesh. supportive scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."
his OWN ARM is his "POWER", because "ARM" here is an anthropomorphism for his "POWER". note his, his, his, ... OWN POWER, meaning him, his own power.

now, let's see this ARM/POWER MANIFESTED. yes, right here in your Tanak. listen and LEARN.

Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?"I (HIS ARM IS BEING REVEALED IN FLESH). Isaiah 53:2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." *HE .... HIM? CLASSIC ECHAD OF THE ONE SAME PERSON). Isaiah 53:3 "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not." Isaiah 53:4 "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."Isaiah 53:5 "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

in Zechariah 12:10 the person who was pierced was also revile.
because the definition of pierced is,
H1856 דָּקַר daqar (daw-kar') v.
1. to stab.
2. (by analogy) to starve.
3. (figuratively) to revile.
[a primitive root]
KJV: pierce, strike (thrust) through, wound.

Now definition #3 states this person who was pierced was also reviled.
Another word that is synonyms with revile is Despised. Isaiah 53:3 "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

yes, the same person who was reviled in Zechariah 12:10 is the same person Despised here in Isaiah 53:3.

and also in Zechariah 12:10 the person who was pierced, the KJV can also translate the word as "WOUNDED" which is synonyms with bruise. Isaiah 53:5 "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

again, the person in Zechariah 12:10 is also translated as "Wounded", and "bruised", just as the ARM of God being REVEALED here in Isaiah 53. it's the same PERSON. if not find in your Tanak, anyone who was wounded for our transgressions, and was bruised for our iniquities, and revile/Despised while dying for our sins, and iniquities. PLEASE POST THAT SCRIPTURE.

now, if you're not sure what the ARM of God is ..... Just ask.... (Smile)....lol, lol, and 101G will school you from your Tanak just what an ARM of FLESH, or the POWER of God is in Flesh. ...... YIKES!

101G

 

[rosends]

EXCUSE? thought so,

Um, no. I gave an explanation of why you are wrong, with examples and proofs. English is a real challenge for you, isn't it?

Then you just repost all the errors you have made in posts in the past instead of dealing with anything which I have said. That's cowardly of you, but I expect nothing more or less. Good luck to you. Someday, when you have an actual and original thought, let me know. Also, learn English and Hebrew better so you stop looking so silly.

 

[101G]

Um, no. I gave an explanation of why you are wrong, with examples and proofs. English is a real challenge for you, isn't it?

Then you just repost all the errors you have made in posts in the past instead of dealing with anything which I have said. That's cowardly of you, but I expect nothing more or less. Good luck to you. Someday, when you have an actual and original thought, let me know. Also, learn English and Hebrew better so you stop looking so silly.

so that means you cannot find any scripture in YOUR bible that states who was wounded for our transgression, and bruised for our iniquities. LOL, LOL, LOL. oh how IGNORANT can one be. well 101G will give you the answer again. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

GOD, himself in FLESH, let's see it in your bible the Tanak. an "ARM of FLESH"

Scripture, When Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came against Judah, Hezekiah then king, had a talk with God about the invasion. afterward he encourages the people. 2 Chronicles 32:7 "Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him:" 2 Chronicles 32:8 "With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah."

an ARM of FLESH was the "POWER" Sennacherib, king of Assyria, meaning his ARMY... Fighting men. well God is ONE, and his ARM of FLESH, (see Isaiah 63:5, and Isaiah 53) is he HIMSELH Shared in flesh..... an ARMY of "ONE". God in the ECHAD in Flesh. this is just too easy.

the Christ, Shiloh is God himself shared in Flesh..... YIKES!

the Christ, the Shiloh to Come is the "POWER" of GOD. his "OWN" ARM in Flesh

rosends, you had no clue this was in your bible, did you? .... NO, lol, lol, how Ignorant.

now let's see it in the NT. 1 Corinthians 1:24 "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

yes, Christ is the POWER/ARM of God in Flesh.

he brought salvation unto himself by his, his, his, own ARM..... see how IGNORANT U are of the Scriptures.

U didn't have a clue that this was a revealing of the Christ as the "ARM of GOD" in Flesh ... in your bible.... (smile). lol, lol, lol. Oh dear.

yes, School is in session......

101G.

 

[rosends]

so that means you cannot find any scripture in YOUR bible that states who was wounded for our transgression,

Let's try and break this down for you:
1. You asked me for scripture. I provided it.
2. you then, instead of dealing with what I posted, you then posted something irrelevant of your own
3. You posted a poor translation of a poor translation and I pointed out your error
4. You then changed what you wanted to talk about

Now you say I can't find scripture to state who was wounded -- but you never asked me for that. If you want that, I'll have to point out some details you seem not to know:

A. The speaker (the first person of "our transgressions") is non-Jewish kings. Start with the phrase

Kings shall be silenced because of him,
For they shall see what has not been told them,
Shall behold what they never have heard.”​

Which then continues directly into

“Who can believe what we have heard?
Upon whom has the arm of the LORD--a been revealed?​

B. The speaker, the non-Jewish king who speaks in the first person talks about how the nation of Israel (the servant, explicitly equated repeatedly with the nation of Israel)

Isaiah 41:8

But, you Israel, are My servant; Jacob, whom I have chosen; seed of Abraham, My friend.
​

suffered (was wounded) because of the king's (and the non-Jewish people's) transgressions but now has been raised up. This is all explicit in the text. It isn't talking about God being punished for anyone's actions. That's silly. I'm sure you won't understand this because it requires actually reading the text, but whatever.

Just take a look at what the text actually says (note the first person, the kings, speaking of the one who suffers via God because of the kings' sins):

We accounted him plagued,
Smitten and afflicted by God;​

But he was wounded because of our sins,
Crushed because of our iniquities.​

and bruised for our iniquities. LOL, LOL, LOL. oh how IGNORANT can one be. well 101G will give you the answer again. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

63:5 is part of the prophet's explanation of what will happen when God defeats Edom.

Here is a better translation:

So My own arm wrought the triumph,
And My own rage was My aid.
​

GOD, himself in FLESH, let's see it in your bible the Tanak. an "ARM of FLESH"

Are you now making the claim that when the text uses human-anatomical or other physical references to God, they are meant to be literal? So the finger of God is a literal finger? His "back" is actually a "back"? If that's your position, then go worship a human figure.

Echad means one. If you think God is in flesh, then you have fun with your idolatry and man-worship.

You clearly are unable to read the bible in Hebrew and struggle with the English and have been led around by others' mistakes. So, so sad.

You still have no clue that the text says something very different from what you erroneous websites insist. Sad that you can't think for yourself and see any of this. Good luck to you.

 

[101G]

Echad means one.

I really didn't know how Ignorant U really was. ECHAD is "ONE" in designation of TIME, PLACE, ORDER, or RANK. and that ORDER is in Ordinal "First", and Ordinal "Last. the First and the Last which is the same one person, and not a compound unity... nor three separate persons. but one person in diversity of himself, oe in Layman's terms the "EQUAL SHARE" of himself in flesh.

“yachid” is an absolute one. as the scripture states, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD", U still haven't HEARD.
the scripture said God is ...... One ....... LISTEN, "LORD". the problem or where some, not all Jews or Hebrews fail at is God is ONE LORD, (STOP, AND THINK). and the same one God is "Lord" in Flesh". that's the problem, because one has not ....... "HEARD". hear, hear, O Israel, but U are not hearing. Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

My "Lord" is the same God who is LORD, per Deuteronomy 6:4, but only shared in flesh.

You clearly are unable to read the bible in Hebrew and struggle with the English and have been led around by others' mistakes. So, so sad.

LOL, LOL, LOL, John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

I really didn't know how IGNORANT and misleading some jews and hebrews, (not all), were in their own language.

101G.

 

[rosends]

I really didn't know how Ignorant U really was. ECHAD is "ONE" in designation of TIME, PLACE, ORDER, or RANK. and that ORDER is in Ordinal "First", and Ordinal "Last. the First and the Last which is the same one person, and not a compound unity... nor three separate persons. but one person in diversity of himself, oe in Layman's terms the "EQUAL SHARE" of himself in flesh.

So now you trot out the exact same cut/paste job you had on another thread and which I deflated by explaining that in Hebrew, echad is both ordinal and cardinal depending on its use and whether it introduces a context (it is only ordinal when used in the phrase "THE DAY echad OF ____". As this linguistic construct is not in the statement of God's identity in Deut, it is NOT an ordinal in that context. Pretty straightforward but since you can't read Hebrew. have trouble with English and can't think for yourself, this will be lost on you, yet again.

"Yachid" means "singular," "only" or "alone" or even "unique". It is a different Hebrew word. Since you don't know Hebrew, this is, likewise, lost on you.

Psalm 110 uses a variety of different words making it clear that the placeholder for God's name and the address to a human master are distinct. But since you can't read Hebrew and don't understand English, well, again, swing and a miss for you.

And quoting gospels to make any point at all? Just plain ridiculous.

I sense the following problems:
1. you lack an understanding of Hebrew
2. you have trouble with communicating in English
3. you fall back on prewritten cut/paste segments and don't respond to anything in a thoughtful manner
4. you don't want to engage and learn, just spew the same errors without new comment
5. you don't read and consider what others post - you see this as a platform for the same mistakes
6. you mistake colors and capitals for proof and dismiss whatever you don't like as
a. "opinion" even when it is supported by text
b. "excuse" even when it is an on-point refutation
c. not inspired by some holy inspiration you claim you have

it just makes any thread with you predictable and limited to a very childish level because you can't think and respond like an adult.

 

[Colt]

Qumran's dual Messianism
Livius.org


Qumran's two Messiahs

"The Dead Sea scrolls were part of a library, a simple fact that is easy to ignore. But it means that there is not one, single messianology to be found in the texts from Qumran. Instead, we must accept that there are several theories about the Messiah. In the War scroll the Messiah is a prophet and takes no part in the war between the "children of light" against the "children of darkness" (see above), although the Messiah can be identified with the "prince of the community". In other texts, the Messiah is a war leader (e.g., 4QFlorilegium and 4Q458). These are clearly conflicting messianologies."

Qumran's dual Messianism - Livius

 

[RabbiO]

No, not my opinion. Your poor translations. Here's something for you to consider -- in your failed Hebrew, you actually don't have the exact word you then decide to ask about. You have מי שהם פירקו and not
אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֑רוּ which is what is in the original and which involves the word you then lift from Strong's.

Zechariah 12:10 is not about God's being wounded, pierced, bruised or stabbed. That would be silly as God is not a person. If you understood Hebrew grammar you would see that the Hebrew word is "אֵלַ֖י" TO ME, while your bad translation has עלי ON ME, which just points out how the KJV's "upon me" is wrong. You have done nothing but show that you don't know Hebrew and the KJV is wrong.

So your Hebrew material was inaccurate -- that much is self apparent. And you don't understand it enough to comment on it so when you try to address the meaning of a word you can't even see that it isn't a word you wrote initially. (though I do like how you quote a definition from Strong's and then show that in the KJV, a different word is used in the translation -- the KJV, though, is inconsistent in its translation as Zech 12:10 is the only use of that root that the KJV has as "pierced"...one wonders why).

Instead of dancing from one place to another, why not try dealing with what you have already said which has been shown to be in error?

It also appears that your English is really poor as well.