• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Israel, the Servant of God

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
I'm happy to accept that Paul did not pen all the words written in his name. If one reads the opening verses of Romans 1, it is clear that Paul is an apostle called by Christ, and that it is he who speaks the words that are recorded. It begins 'Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, .....[verse 7] To all that be in Rome, beloved of God...'

Allowing the scribe to anounce himself later [16:22] simply adds to the authenticity of the testimony.

In then suggesting that Paul was a sinner, even after receiving Jesus Christ as his Saviour [1 Timothy 1:15], is clearly an intentional misrepresentation. One only has to read the verse that follows to gain a better understanding
1 Timothy 1:16. 'Howbeit for this cause l obtained mercy , that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.'

In Psalm 89:14 it says, 'Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face'.

God's mercy and truth 'shall go before thy face'. Who do you think is the face of God?

I can pen that X is a daughter of the devil. It does not make it true. As for an intimate of Paul, writing that Paul is an apostle, and of course that being according to Paul, that would make it "untrue" for a self witness is "not true" per Yeshua in John 5:31.

You can say Lord, Lord, and do miracles in my name, but in the end, you are not "saved", and Yeshua will tell you , "I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:22). Well, Paul's message is one of that the Law is obsolete, and you can do what ever I say you can do, such as I am a Gentile to the Gentiles, but a Jew to the Jews. It is a message of appearance and not of substance. And as you quoted, it is justice and judgment that are paramount, which is to say, everyone is judged on their deeds, and not on their false perceptions. (Revelation 20:12).

And if Yeshua was the "Word" made flesh, the "Word of God", how is it you believe in him, if you nail his message to the cross? I think you have some problems with your message, and with the messenger who brought you your doctrine.

Keep in mind that those with the "mark of the beast", will drink from the cup of God's anger (Revelation 14:10). And the "day of the Lord" is "right at the door" (Matthew 24:33). You might want to do a deeper search for "truth", and what "mercy" means in the present context. As for Paul's Lord, when in trouble in Jerusalem, he called on his lord, Caesar, with his cohorts, to save him.
 

clara17

Memorable member
how is it you believe in him, if you nail his message to the cross?

It wasnt his message on the cross, it was his body.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
1. In Jewish understanding, a number of people "ascended" into heaven without dying, so how can there be an ascension without resurrection? For some people, easily.

2. In the biblical text there are people who are resurrected. Elisha brings a boy back to life as does Elijah. There is some resurrection. What does that signify?
That leaves the case of a man dying, being resurrected with an incorruptible body, and then ascending to heaven. That did not happen to Enoch, to Elijah, or to the lad that Elijah restored to life.

In Psalm 16:10 the reference is to the 'Holy One' or 'Faithful One'. This cannot refer to David because he is dead in Sheol, the grave, where he remains to this day. The one who is not abandoned, and who sits at the right hand of God must be 'David my servant' [Psalm 110:1], the one chosen to be Messiah.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
That leaves the case of a man dying, being resurrected with an incorruptible body, and then ascending to heaven. That did not happen to Enoch, to Elijah, or to the lad that Elijah restored to life.
So the combination (resurrection and "ascending to heaven") as done by a specific person is what you hang your hat on because all the component parts have been shown not to be enough. Got it.
In Psalm 16:10 the reference is to the 'Holy One' or 'Faithful One'. This cannot refer to David because he is dead in Sheol, the grave, where he remains to this day. The one who is not abandoned, and who sits at the right hand of God must be 'David my servant' [Psalm 110:1], the one chosen to be Messiah.
Actually, Psalms 16:10, spoken as part of the first person statement of David, reads,
"For You will not abandon me to Sheol,
or let Your faithful one see the Pit."
so it refers to David because he, himself, says it does. Deciding that it doesn't so that you can justify some other reading, but contradicting what the text says is intellectually dishonest.

As a side note, if you assume that the one in 16:10 is not David, but is some figure that you say is at the right hand of God, then you would have to reconcile that with 16:8 which reads, "I am ever mindful of the LORD’s presence; He is at my right hand". So "David my servant" is at the right hand of God, but God is at the right hand of the first-person speaker you identify with "David my servant."
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I can pen that X is a daughter of the devil. It does not make it true. As for an intimate of Paul, writing that Paul is an apostle, and of course that being according to Paul, that would make it "untrue" for a self witness is "not true" per Yeshua in John 5:31.

You can say Lord, Lord, and do miracles in my name, but in the end, you are not "saved", and Yeshua will tell you , "I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:22). Well, Paul's message is one of that the Law is obsolete, and you can do what ever I say you can do, such as I am a Gentile to the Gentiles, but a Jew to the Jews. It is a message of appearance and not of substance. And as you quoted, it is justice and judgment that are paramount, which is to say, everyone is judged on their deeds, and not on their false perceptions. (Revelation 20:12).

And if Yeshua was the "Word" made flesh, the "Word of God", how is it you believe in him, if you nail his message to the cross? I think you have some problems with your message, and with the messenger who brought you your doctrine.

Keep in mind that those with the "mark of the beast", will drink from the cup of God's anger (Revelation 14:10). And the "day of the Lord" is "right at the door" (Matthew 24:33). You might want to do a deeper search for "truth", and what "mercy" means in the present context. As for Paul's Lord, when in trouble in Jerusalem, he called on his lord, Caesar, with his cohorts, to save him.
I think you should look up the word 'mercy', because when you do you will find the book of Psalms contains more uses of the word than any other book in the Bible. The Psalms provide us with David's inner struggles and mindset, and show that God is merciful to those who approach him with a contrite spirit.

Judgment and vengeance is not what Jesus Christ came to offer.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
So the combination (resurrection and "ascending to heaven") as done by a specific person is what you hang your hat on because all the component parts have been shown not to be enough. Got it.

Actually, Psalms 16:10, spoken as part of the first person statement of David, reads,
"For You will not abandon me to Sheol,
or let Your faithful one see the Pit."
so it refers to David because he, himself, says it does. Deciding that it doesn't so that you can justify some other reading, but contradicting what the text says is intellectually dishonest.

As a side note, if you assume that the one in 16:10 is not David, but is some figure that you say is at the right hand of God, then you would have to reconcile that with 16:8 which reads, "I am ever mindful of the LORD’s presence; He is at my right hand". So "David my servant" is at the right hand of God, but God is at the right hand of the first-person speaker you identify with "David my servant."
To have God at one's right hand means that he is acting as one's strength. To be at God's right hand means that you ARE God's strength. So, who is God's 'STRENGTH' ?

It can only be the Messiah of God.
 

clara17

Memorable member
So the combination (resurrection and "ascending to heaven") as done by a specific person is what you hang your hat on because all the component parts have been shown not to be enough. Got it.

Actually, Psalms 16:10, spoken as part of the first person statement of David, reads,
"For You will not abandon me to Sheol,
or let Your faithful one see the Pit."
so it refers to David because he, himself, says it does. Deciding that it doesn't so that you can justify some other reading, but contradicting what the text says is intellectually dishonest.

As a side note, if you assume that the one in 16:10 is not David, but is some figure that you say is at the right hand of God, then you would have to reconcile that with 16:8 which reads, "I am ever mindful of the LORD’s presence; He is at my right hand". So "David my servant" is at the right hand of God, but God is at the right hand of the first-person speaker you identify with "David my servant."

There are dozens of cases in the Old Testament of a name being used to represent the descendants of that name, Canaan, Ham, Jacob, Judah, David etc.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
To have God at one's right hand means that he is acting as one's strength. To be at God's right hand means that you ARE God's strength. So, who is God's 'STRENGTH' ?

It can only be the Messiah of God.
cute invention. Since one text says "sit to my right" (שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י) and the other says "because from my right" (כִּ֥י מִֽ֝ימִינִ֗י) and you say they both apply to the same character, you do have to make something up I guess.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
There are dozens of cases in the Old Testament of a name being used to represent the descendants of that name, Canaan, Ham, Jacob, Judah, David etc.
Well, it does when it, contextually, says it does, not when it is talking in first person and is written by the person in question.
 

clara17

Memorable member
Well, it does when it, contextually, says it does, not when it is talking in first person and is written by the person in question.

I dont know if you linked to Ps 16:10 or the system did it automatically
but the link shows Holy One capitalized not lowercase faithful one.
Religious Forums

What translation are you reading that has "faithful one"?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I dont know if you linked to Ps 16:10 or the system did it automatically
but the link shows Holy One capitalized not lowercase faithful one.
Religious Forums

What translation are you reading that has "faithful one"?
I did not link to anything so that was the system's doing. I used this

כִּ֤י ׀ לֹא־תַעֲזֹ֣ב נַפְשִׁ֣י לִשְׁא֑וֹל לֹֽא־תִתֵּ֥ן חֲ֝סִידְךָ֗ לִרְא֥וֹת שָֽׁחַת׃
For You will not abandon me to Sheol,
or let Your faithful one see the Pit.

Available on sefaria.org

Or you can use this one which has "pious one"
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16237#v10
 

clara17

Memorable member
I did not link to anything so that was the system's doing. I used this

כִּ֤י ׀ לֹא־תַעֲזֹ֣ב נַפְשִׁ֣י לִשְׁא֑וֹל לֹֽא־תִתֵּ֥ן חֲ֝סִידְךָ֗ לִרְא֥וֹת שָֽׁחַת׃
For You will not abandon me to Sheol,
or let Your faithful one see the Pit.

Available on sefaria.org

Or you can use this one which has "pious one"
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16237#v10


Im not familiar with this text/translation. What is the origin?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Im not familiar with this text/translation. What is the origin?
The text is in Hebrew. The two translations are the JPS 1985 and the Judaica Press available on chabad.org.

The Hebrew word is chasid'cha. Holy one would be "kodshecha". Different root and word.
 

clara17

Memorable member
The text is in Hebrew. The two translations are the JPS 1985 and the Judaica Press available on chabad.org.

The Hebrew word is chasid'cha. Holy one would be "kodshecha". Different root and word.

I think the translations are going to be so different there would be no point in debating with someone who uses the kjv/masoretic version. They are different books entirely.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I think the translations are going to be so different there would be no point in debating with someone who uses the kjv/masoretic version. They are different books entirely.
The Jewish version uses the Masoretic Text, it just translates it right - unlike the Authorised Version (KJV).
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Its tough to say.
Modern Hebrew is nothing like the original that the text was written in.
Who says that I am discussing modern Hebrew? Biblical Hebrew has been studied and taught in Jewish contexts for a long, long time. It just so happens, I started learning it almost 50 years ago. My modern Hebrew skills are no where near as good.

Unless you also think that because modern English is not the same as Shakespearean English, we can't study Shakespeare...
 
Top