Exodus 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as EL Shaddai; but by my name Yahweh was not known to them.
El, literally, means god. So not every time we see the term el, does it refer to the high god of the Canaanites. El Shaddai was not a name used for the high god of the Canaanites. It translates to something like G-d Almighty, or something like the god of heaven or the god of ... (what Shaddai means is up for debate).
So what this verse is saying is that they knew G-d, as in they knew the almighty god or the god of ..., but they didn't know his name as Yahweh. This isn't a change from one name to another, but from a title to an actual name.
Isaiah 52:10, speaks of the right arm of the lord, this is continued in Isaiah 53:1 with how is the arm of the lord revealed...
Therefore everything between is within the context i.e the servant is the person spoken about in Isaiah 52:10 Yeshua Elohim.
Okay, but lets acknowledge that you are now expanding on what you previously said. That's fine.
Yeshua means salvation in Hebrew.
Not exactly. Yeshua, an alternative to Yehoshuah, derives from verb to deliver, to rescue. I guess maybe to save. It could translate to something like he saves, but I would argue that is wrong, and instead is only a translation in order to sync up with the Gospel of Matthew. It would be more like, he delivers. So not salvation.
If we take Yehoshuah, which often is used in such arguments to make Yeshua mean salvation, what we have instead is a compound. So it is something like Yeho and shua. Yeho being a reference to the name of G-d, while shua meaning a cry for help, or a saving cry. The name would literally mean something like shout to G-d when in need of help, or G-d is a saving cry.
So no. And really, we have many many accounts of other individuals named Yeshua.
We get contexts, by reading the whole paragraphs within the text, not take one line out...This is what
'strain a gnat gain a camel' means.
Then you should quote the whole paragraph, and not take one line out of context, as you did. By citing one verse, one line, you took it out of context, and are now only trying to put it into a larger context.
The Strongs reference for them words is 'Yeshua Elohim'; yet if we look at the Hebrew grammar, it is Yeshuat Eloheinu which means the 'salvation of our God'.
Do you actually read Hebrew? The Strong's reference is a very poor source to try to decipher the Hebrew. And often, it does basically exactly what I said you were doing. Yeshuat and Yeshua are different. One is a name, the other isn't. They don't mean the same thing. They have a similar root, but they still mean different things. I explained what Yeshua meant above.
It isn't a persons name, it says the "salvation of our God", I'm saying if you knew you came to fulfill that specific prophecy, it would be reassuring that your own name is there within the Hebrew roots.
Then that could pertain to every Yeshua who had ever thought that they were to fulfill a specific prophecy, and seeing that in Isaiah, the suffering servant is identified as Israel, that is a lot of Yeshuas. What you saying is a prophecy for Jesus, was never thought to be a prophecy for Jesus until long after the fact. It was only later reinterpreted after Jesus died.
The full Hebrew version of his name was Yehoshua (Zecheriah 3), that should be translated as Joshua....
The shortened version of his name Yeshua, which has the root YSH are everywhere within the Tanakh.
No on both accounts. Yehoshua was an alternative to Yeshua, or more correctly, Yeshua was the alternative. Both names were used independently of each other though. So we can't be sure that Jesus's name was actually Yehoshua, as it was a separate, but related name.
And the reason why the root of Yeshua is every where in the Tanakh, is because the name is a derivative of the verb meaning to deliver. The root had a different meaning, and thus was used. Not every time the root comes up, does it refer to Jesus or Yeshua.
The same is true with names today. In ancient germanic languages, my name, Dustin, comes from the term brave warrior. However, not every time that the term brave warrior is used does it mean that someone name Dustin is being referred to.
Isa 49:6 Indeed, he says, “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel? I will also give you as a light to the Gentiles, that you may be my salvation (Yeshû‛âh) to the end of the earth.”
Which is why in the New testament, they quote that line (Luke 2:32, Acts 13:47), linking it, and implying it was Yeshua, as they could see the symbolism.
This refers to raising up Israel as well, thus though Jacob (Israel) is sometimes referred to specifically in Isaiah, at other times there are other possibilities.
The problem here is that you continue to think that just because two words are connected, as they look similar, or come from a familiar root, they must be equated. Not at all. That's not how language works.
Yes, Luke quotes that line, but he does so after the fact, after Jesus died. He could see symbolism there, that never existed until they forced it there. Before that, the verse had nothing to do with a Messiah figure. What you're doing is retrojecting a current idea into the past, and that never works. We have to look at what they thought at the time, not what someone later decided was true because it fit their own ideas.
The suffering servant was Israel.
It'd be wrong to do so, Yeshua didn't say he was the Messiah back then; it was said in a future context....
Which is after all the pre-Messanic prophecy has been fulfilled, as the prophets have declared.
Then Jesus is not the messiah. Maybe, if he comes back, he can be the messiah, but as it stands, that future context hasn't occurred, and he doesn't fulfill the basic messianic promise.
We're dealing with real basic stuff, and you're contending the basic points; if we explain how the prophecies interlink as a snare across time, to remove the workers of iniquity...
Not sure how long that would take; yet you can
find it here.
So he hasn't fulfilled the basic messianic promise, and thus he isn't the Messiah. You can do whatever mental gymnastics you want, but it doesn't matter. Jesus failed as the messiah, and that is all we can base it on.
The person who fulfilled Isaiah 53, at the end of it (Isaiah 53:12), is then the person given the guest-list for the Messianic age, 'he shares his inheritance with the strong'.
So to clarify for you, we're not meant to believe Yeshua is the Messiah, it doesn't matter...
It matters, all the other stuff, what he had to say, how he was murdered, what was his teachings within the synoptic gospels, and do we actually follow them.
That's not what Isaiah is saying. You're taking a very later belief, and trying to find views that maybe support it. By doing so, you have to take verses out of context and twist them, which is what you've done.
And at the end, your argument fails as "it doesn't matter."
