Isaiah 52-53 ~ Israel or The Messiah? - part 2

rakovsky said:

Are you agnostic and you think Is. 53 is one of the best arguments against Christianity?

Click to expand...

I agreed the case is closed between us.

My status as an agnostic has nothing to do with this thread or the discussion about Isaiah 53.
I never said Isaiah 53 is the best argument against Christianity. Again, you make a false claim against me.
This is ridiculous.

I agreed that the case is closed between us because of all the fallacious statements toward me. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt but, you continue.
We all know the myth of Santa Claus is not real, all the evidence supports this but, am I closed minded to not say, well, he might be real because we never truly know or to keep my mind open to the fact? NO! It’s absurd.

LittleLambofJesus said:

RPK

Click to expand...

I see that you agreed with me on the translation, ‘astonished, startled…’
RPK? HAHA! It might catch on, eh?
If you want to talk about Jesus ‘fulfilling’ everything in the Hebrew Bible then start a thread. We can do it again.
If Jesus started something new without the Hebrew Bible, then we would have different stuff to talk about.
What did you want to do?

peepnklown said:

I agreed the case is closed between us.

My status as an agnostic has nothing to do with this thread or the discussion about Isaiah 53.

Click to expand...

Of course it does. Why debate it if you are agnostic and say that religion is not the place to search for truth, like you did?

What's the point?

peepnklown said:

I agreed that the case is closed between us because of all the fallacious statements toward me. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt but, you continue.
We all know the myth of Santa Claus is not real, all the evidence supports this but, am I closed minded to not say, well, he might be real because we never truly know or to keep my mind open to the fact? NO! It’s absurd.

Click to expand...

So why are you arguing over whether Santa's elves are green skinned or not? Why argue over whether Santa has Turkish companions like the Dutch say? What's the point in debating Is 53 if you don't believe in Judaism or Christianity?

peepnklown said:

I see that you agreed with me on the translation, ‘astonished, startled…’
RPK? HAHA! It might catch on, eh?
If you want to talk about Jesus ‘fulfilling’ everything in the Hebrew Bible then start a thread. We can do it again.
If Jesus started something new without the Hebrew Bible, then we would have different stuff to talk about.
What did you want to do?

Click to expand...

Just what this thread is about.....attempt to prove to Islam and Judaism [yes, even agnostics ehehe] that Isaiah 52 and 53 are talking about Messiah Jesus of the NT.
I gotta take a break for awhile. Takes me about 30 minutes to compose each post........

.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Just what this thread is about.....attempt to prove to Islam and Judaism that Isaiah 52 and 53 are talking about Messiah Jesus of the NT.

Click to expand...

I think this doesn't count with RPK.

I just want you to notice in the KJV:
14 As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Just make sure that you notice that.
Verse 15 says in Hebrew "sprinkle". Different verbs are used in Hebrew between v. 14 astonished and v 15 sprinkle. Let me know if you want more explanation on why v 15 is right in KJV for sprinkle.
Also, I recommend you look at my website.

Peace.

rakovsky said:

I think this doesn't count with RPK.

I just want you to notice in the KJV:
14 As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Just make sure that you notice that.
Verse 15 says in Hebrew "sprinkle". Different verbs are used in Hebrew between v. 14 astonished and v 15 sprinkle. Let me know if you want more explanation on why v 15 is right in KJV for sprinkle.
Also, I recommend you look at my website.

Peace.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I will study on that more as I would have thought "astonish/marvel" was correct.
That would also harmonize with the Christian NT book of Revelation me thinks.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5137&t=KJV
Strong's Number H5137 matches the Hebrew נָזָה (nazah), which occurs 24 times in 22 verses in the Hebrew concordance
נָזָה nâzâh, naw-zaw'; a primitive root; to spirt, i.e. besprinkle (especially in expiation):—sprinkle.

Isa 52:15
So shall he sprinkle H5137 many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him:
for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Isa 63:3
I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; [Rev 14:20]
and their blood shall be sprinkled H5137 upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.

===========================================================
Heb 12:24
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant,
and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel
Rev 1:5
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
Rev 7:14
And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”
So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

[URL='https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/rev/19/13/s_1186013']Rev 19:13
He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood,
and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.[/URL]
Rev 14:20
And the winepress was trampled outside the city,
and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses' bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs. [Isaiah 63:3]


...............................................

.

ewq1938 said:

My point is which verse was written first:

2Sa 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

or this:

Eze_18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

In one the son does bear the iniquity of the father but the other says that won't happen. You used Eze 18 to counter what 2 SA says so there is a contradiction that needs to be addressed.

Click to expand...

Well, I don,t have a Point, it was not an attempt to make a big number
out of it or counter anything.
So why did I post it, because it flew into my head at that moment.

So vast and high are His thoughts for us, who can handle it?

LittleLambofJesus said:

Great post and thank you for that info.
I like studying on the Sadducee sect of 1st century Judaism. I think the Pharisees are listed more in the NT than the Sadducees, tho both sect were hated by Jesus and His followers.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7454770/
Why did Sadducees not believe in Resurrection? Acts 23:8

Matthew 3:7
Seeing yet many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism he said to them, prodigy of vipers!
who intimates to ye to be fleeing from being about wrath?

Acts 5:
17 But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy.
18 They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail.…

Paul had a knack for dividing those 2 sects:

Acts 23:7
And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.
8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection -- and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.
9 Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees' party arose and protested, saying, "We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3974

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead or the immortality of the soul, since these doctrines are not mentioned in the law of Moses. Neither did they believe in heaven or hell. They interpreted the law literally and tended to support strict justice as opposed to mercy toward the offender.
Since Jesus supported all these things opposed by the Sadducees, Jesus did not fit within the Sadducean movement.

Being closely associated with the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared from history when the Temple was destroyed in 70 ad..........

..

.

Click to expand...

Nah, "You thank the butler, but it's not his food." (Hehe)

"All comes from the One above."

ewq1938 said:

So, David's son DID pay for his father's sin...do you agree?

Later, God would NOT make a son pay for his father's sin. Agree again?

(hint: Agreeing twice is likely correct)

Click to expand...

Hint,
Keep your head down and leave room for God.

ewq1938 said:

Hint: avoiding something posted shows a weakness in your position.

Click to expand...

Oh, I would not say that.

I don't have a problem with it,
but you have a problem, trying to fit something into something else entirely.

Unless I have missunderstood you completely.

In as much as you are implying that David's son Death is somehow a "shadow Picture"
of the Death of Jesus, you do consider Jesus as God's son?

But if that is the case, what sins has the Father commited that His son should die for them?

ewq1938 said:

I think that is the safest assumption.





All Christians do.





That's cool that you thought that to be clever BUT as I mentioned earlier...God no longer puts the sins of the father on the son. He did with David obviously....but by Ezekiel's time God didn't.

Click to expand...

There is no change in Him at all;
He was alone Before Creation of the World, so is He alone after it was created.

"You that existed Before the Worlds Creation remain exactly the same "You" after it's Creation."

Without any change in His being, nor even in His knowledge.
For by knowing Himself, He knows all created things,
since all derive from Him and are nullified in relation to Him,
one might have supposed that with the Creation of this world
God's knowledge underwent a change,

in as much He could not have possibly known the World beforehand
once the World was created,

God would thus know something that previously He did not.

Thus, by knowing Himself, He knows all created beings that derive their existence from Him.
The prophet Isaiah,
"For as the heavens are higher than the Earth,
so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."

So, He has not changed,
Ezekiel 18:3,
As truly as I live, says the Lord God, you shall no longer use this parable in Israel.

To me it says, simply put,

"Cut it out! stop conning yourselves and others.I have not changed."

Robban said:

Oh, I would not say that.

I don't have a problem with it,
but you have a problem, trying to fit something into something else entirely.

Unless I have missunderstood you completely.

In as much as you are implying that David's son Death is somehow a "shadow Picture"
of the Death of Jesus, you do consider Jesus as God's son?

But if that is the case, what sins has the Father commited that His son should die for them?

Click to expand...

You should really get to know the Son better...........

Acts 3:22
For Moses indeed toward the fathers saying: 'That a prophet to ye shall be raising up Lord, the God of ye, out of the brothers of ye as Me.
Of Him ye shall be hearing according to all as much as ever He should be speaking toward ye'. [Deut 18]

Matthew 17:5
Still of-Him speaking, behold! a cloud, luminous upon-shadows them and behold! a Voice out of the cloud saying
"this is the Son of Me, the Beloved, in whom I delight, be ye hearing Him!". [Deut 28/Acts 3:22]


Revelation 2:18
And to the messenger of the assembly in Thyatira, write!
Now this is saying the Son of YHWH, the One having the eyes of Him as flame of fire, and the feet of Him as to burnished-brass. [Mark 9:7]


http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/Revelation/rev46.htm
Part 46

THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA

“And by the angel of the church in Thyatira write…” (Rev. 2:18).

The church in Thyatira has a longer message delivered to it from Jesus Christ than any of the seven churches,................

Thyatira means “sweet perfume of sacrifice” and when you study this word it speaks of a perfume that sends forth its fragrance as the result of bruising, crushing, or breaking. As we study the message to the church in Thyatira we see that the primary emphasis is upon the Jezebel spirit in that church and the “great tribulation” into which the Lord will cast her in order to judge, break, and purify her....................

Thyatira is the fourth church, and in her we see the rise of the woman Jezebel. No such lady of that name is known except the wicked wife of Ahab, Israel’s worst king. In the church at Thyatira we find that the spirit of Jezebel was alive and at work in the midst of the Lord’s people!
Some of the believers in the church in Thyatira were in the Jezebel condition!

The name Jezebel sweeps across the pages of the Bible. The typical Jezebel of the Old Testament was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre and Sidon. The name Ethbaal means “with Baal.” Prior to becoming king, Ethbaal was a priest to the goddess Astarte, also known as Ashtoreth or Ishtar. This was the goddess of sensual love and sex.
From her childhood Jezebel was steeped in false religion and government. Jezebel grew up in an atmosphere of position, power, and prestige.......................




.

ewq1938 said:

So, David's son DID pay for his father's sin...do you agree?

Later, God would NOT make a son pay for his father's sin. Agree again?

(hint: Agreeing twice is likely correct)

Click to expand...

We have to define terms. What do we mean "pay for"?

If I walk up and shoot a man in the chest, he has died because of my sin. His death, however, doesn't mean that I'm atoned nor can I use his death as a means to obtain atonement.

The text does say that because of David's actions and the ramifications it could lead to if the child were to live, the child had to die. HaShem would now allow His name to be defamed. The text does not say that HaShem used the child's death as a sacrifice to atone for David. Nathan doesn't say that. David doesn't say that.

You need to present evidence from the text itself that states the child's death was a sin sacrifice if you wish to make the assertion that it was one. Otherwise you have Nathan proclaiming David as forgiven before the death of the child and David saying that the Lord wanted no sacrifice and doesn't mention his son's death as being that sacrifice.

LittleLambofJesus said:

You should really get to know the Son better...........

Acts 3:22
For Moses indeed toward the fathers saying: 'That a prophet to ye shall be raising up Lord, the God of ye, out of the brothers of ye as Me.
Of Him ye shall be hearing according to all as much as ever He should be speaking toward ye'. [Deut 18]



Matthew 17:5
Still of-Him speaking, behold! a cloud, luminous upon-shadows them and behold! a Voice out of the cloud saying
"this is the Son of Me, the Beloved, in whom I delight, be ye hearing Him!". [Deut 28/Acts 3:22]




Revelation 2:18
And to the messenger of the assembly in Thyatira, write!
Now this is saying the Son of YHWH, the One having the eyes of Him as flame of fire, and the feet of Him as to burnished-brass. [Mark 9:7]


http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/Revelation/rev46.htm
Part 46

THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA

“And by the angel of the church in Thyatira write…” (Rev. 2:18).

The church in Thyatira has a longer message delivered to it from Jesus Christ than any of the seven churches,................

Thyatira means “sweet perfume of sacrifice” and when you study this word it speaks of a perfume that sends forth its fragrance as the result of bruising, crushing, or breaking. As we study the message to the church in Thyatira we see that the primary emphasis is upon the Jezebel spirit in that church and the “great tribulation” into which the Lord will cast her in order to judge, break, and purify her....................

Thyatira is the fourth church, and in her we see the rise of the woman Jezebel. No such lady of that name is known except the wicked wife of Ahab, Israel’s worst king. In the church at Thyatira we find that the spirit of Jezebel was alive and at work in the midst of the Lord’s people!
Some of the believers in the church in Thyatira were in the Jezebel condition!

The name Jezebel sweeps across the pages of the Bible. The typical Jezebel of the Old Testament was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre and Sidon. The name Ethbaal means “with Baal.” Prior to becoming king, Ethbaal was a priest to the goddess Astarte, also known as Ashtoreth or Ishtar. This was the goddess of sensual love and sex.
From her childhood Jezebel was steeped in false religion and government. Jezebel grew up in an atmosphere of position, power, and prestige.......................




.

Click to expand...

Well LloJ,

Your post rang a bell, I remembered I had a booklet by Karl Ramstrand,
so looked for it, found it, it is called, "The seven Churches".

Funny how pentecostal churches at least in Sweden are called,
"Smyrna" or "Filadelfia", they say that it is because those two churches
recieved the most positive messages.


Haha, it is clear when they start a new Church they are not going to call it,

"Church of Laodikeia" or what?

Ramstrand writes the Church of Thyatira represents the the Roman Catholic Church,
as a harlot that harlots with the World Powers.

But what do I know,
it seems the book of revelation is like the book of Daniel,
there are as many interpretations as readers.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Isaiah 52 and 53 are talking about Messiah Jesus of the NT.

Click to expand...

LLoJ, this fits flawlessly with the new path I wanted to take.
Let’s assume Isaiah 52 – Isaiah 53 is talking about the Messiah, how do you think Jesus fits?
Are you able to go verse by verse and show how Jesus fits?

LittleLambofJesus said:

Very interesting. I will study on that more as I would have thought "astonish/marvel" was correct. That would also harmonize with the Christian NT book of Revelation me thinks.

Click to expand...

LLoJ, this is the problem with most Christian apologist when it comes to the Hebrew. They think using Strong’s Lexicon makes them proficient on biblical Hebrew. It doesn’t work this way.

The root verb נזה (NUN-ZAyin-HEH) can take on any of the meanings (to) shake, (to) drip and (to) sprinkle.
It’s used 24 times in the Hebrew Bible.
In 23 of its usages a substance that was or to be sprinkled is clearly specified in the passage except for Isaiah 52:15.

For example, Isaiah 63:3, what was sprinkled? Blood!
For example, 2 Kings 9:33, what was sprinkled? Blood!
For example, Exodus 29:21, what was sprinkled? Blood and Oil!
For example, Leviticus 4:6, what was sprinkled? Blood!
For example, Numbers 19:21, what was sprinkled? Water!
This is true for all 23 examples except Isaiah 52:12.

Isaiah 52:12, there is no mention of what will be sprinkled or where and how this sprinkling will be done.
So, nothing is being dripped or sprinkled in this verse.
So, we have (to) shake left. What would cause those who are present to shake or tremble, maybe fear, like the response to being startled or surprised?
Does the context support this? Yes. The nations of the world (gentiles), especially their kings will be speechless. ‘Who would believe what we have heard?’ They don’t believe what they have heard; they are startled or surprised by this information.
Also, יַזֶּה , is a verb in the hif'IL stem, an active connective form of the pa'AL/QAL stem in Hebrew grammar.
So what does this mean? It means, it reveals a consequence caused by the action of an external agent, thus something cause them (to) shake.
Again, what would cause the nations of the world (gentiles) to shake? What is the context of the verses?
Isaiah (God’s prophet) assures his people that those who had such visions of them (the nations of the world thinking God was against Israel and not with them) will be stunned when they see that Israel is the one who is exalted in the end.

Sidenote, the Septuagint, ‘so will many nations marvel at him.’