^ stilly, i.e., somewhere between stupid and silly.
-
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!
Jesus is the real Israel
- Thread starter 74x12
- Start date
Tumah
Veteran Member
You seem to be speaking as though you are saying facts, when it's hard to even understand how what you're saying can be a real opinion. Psalm 89:20-28 is clearly talking about the actual David the son of Jesse. If you continue the passage, you'll see that the Psalm goes on to say that G-d will keep the kingship in David's progeny. If they sin, they'll be punished for it, however, not to the extent that He will ever revoke the covenant of the kingship in David's line.
There is nothing here about the Messiah.
No it isn't. The very Psalm you quoted speaks about it as well in verse 34-38 in reference to the kingship of David's line:
And my kindness I will not annul from him, and I will not lie in my faithfulness.
I will not profane my covenant and the what has gone out from my lips, I shall not change.
One thing I have sworn in My holiness, if to David I will lie
His seed shall be forever, and his chair is like the sun opposite me.
Like the moon, established forever; and as a witness in heaven, trustworthy forever.
You see here "the kindnesses of David that are trustworthy". It means the kindness that G-d promised David and that He is trustworthy for.I will not profane my covenant and the what has gone out from my lips, I shall not change.
One thing I have sworn in My holiness, if to David I will lie
His seed shall be forever, and his chair is like the sun opposite me.
Like the moon, established forever; and as a witness in heaven, trustworthy forever.
You're totally off. The passage is talking about the Word of G-d.
Behold days are coming... and I will send a hunger in the land. Not a hunger for bread and not a thirst for water, but rather to hear the word of G-d.
-Amos 8:11
-Amos 8:11
This passage uses the same metaphor.
Oy, All who are thirsty, go to water. And he that has no money, come, buy (this word is used for bread) and eat. And come buy without money and without price wine and milk.
Why do you weigh money without bread? And your toil without satisfaction? Listen to Me and eat well and you soul will delight in the fatness.
Turn your ears and go to Me; listen and liven your soul. And I will make a covenant with you forever, [like the] kindnesses of David that are trustworthy.
The only thing you got right, is that the name David is derived from the word that means "beloved". Everything else is just baseless opinion.
If you're the type of person who looks for symbolism, you'll find it in any language.
So you are arguing that the previous sentence is made up of two words, "your dead shall live". And then starts a new sentence. That is logical to you.
Yeah, it's called poetic expression. Th word that is being used isn't "body". It's something more like "carcass". It's usually employed to mean a body that died through a method of slaughter that renders it unfit.
The Messiah is not the head of a body. He's an entire person.
G-d tells Moses to tell Pharaoh to let the Jews go because they are His firstborn and they need to go serve Him. Pharaoh refuses and G-d says that he'll slay Pharaoh's firstborn in return.
I don't see any foreshadowing here.
I don't know if you've actually read this passage? The subject in Hosea 13:14 is Ephraim. Ephraim is being used to represent the Northern Kingdom through king Jeroboam who came from the tribe of Ephraim. The start of the passage talks about the guilt of the Northern Kingdom and Jeroboam (1-6), then it alludes to their exile (7-11) and eventual redemption (12-15).
This is kind of crazy really, because you're totally ignoring eras in Jewish history that were prophecied about and eventually materialized in favor of some word games about Jesus or something.
I definitely don't know what you're talking about. And it's not clear to me that you are totally sure either...
The word "repentance" here (נחם), means to change one's mind or regret. Not repentance that one does from a sin (שוב).
This is all false and baseless.
So what you're saying is that your OP was built off baseless re-interpretations and mistranslations?
Augustus
…
74x12
Well-Known Member
The Messiah (called David) is the firstborn from the dead and the head of the resurrected Israel.
David is definitely another name of the Messiah.
- Ezek. 34:23-24 speaks of a coming time when “David” will be the Shepherd.
- Ezek. 37:24-25 goes on to say that David will be their prince forever and is clearly about the Messiah the future head of Israel.
- Hosea 3:5 we find that in the latter days they'll seek “David their king”.
- Amos 9:11 the tabernacle of David will be raised up again.
- Zech. 12:8 the house of David will be as God.
In verse 39 of Psalm 89; you will notice the whole direction of the Psalm shifts. Before verse 39 God was talking about the Messiah that was coming. From verse 39 David complains because these promises of God do not seem true for his present life which was full of troubles.
It's my belief that “But” is an important objection from David here in verse 39.
David's actually right because he(although anointed and the king) is not the person God was speaking of.
This translation says "[like the]" whereas the JPS(and KJV) say "Even" the sure mercies of David. The "Like the" is in brackets because it's not in the Hebrew. It clearly means that the “covenant” is the same as the sure mercies of David.
I don't disagree about the Word of God. But, the implications of this covenant called the sure mercies of David are eternal life through the resurrection. In other words if they listen to the Word then they'll be given the sure mercies of David. I never said otherwise. The sure mercies of David are going to be extended to them and they'll have eternal life through “David”. (That is the David the Messiah)
I do not consider what I said baseless opinion whatsoever. Let's go over what I said:
First I claimed that the sure mercies of David are a promise of endless life. This is proven because first of all it says “your soul shall live” and we realize that God is not talking about only this current life, but God means eternal life. Secondly, it says it is an “everlasting” covenant. Therefore if God makes an everlasting covenant with you then you must live forever in order for Him to keep His Word.
Secondly, I claimed you must be joined with “David” to get the covenant. I logically came to this conclusion because of the fact that the “everlasting covenant” is called the “sure mercies of David”. So, therefore we must be with this “David” if we want this covenant.
Hebrew is probably just as symbolic if not more so. English was made symbolic on purpose by people, but some of it also seems beyond human and divine to me. The world is ruled by secret power and hidden knowledge.
I used that translation because it translated the “body” as literally singular tense unlike many other translations which are not so exact. I do not care whether the "my" is capitalized or not. The point is about the “body” or “carcass” if you will.
Carcass is a good translation. Body is also fine. I like carcass better really.
Just a poetic expression? Then explain why in Daniel 7:13 Daniel sees someone like the Son of man(singular tense) but later on in verse 27; the angel interprets this as “the people of the saints of the Most High” which is plural. It's obvious that there is one body comprised of many people. This is spiritually discerned. The Messiah the "Son of man" is the head of the body.
Like I said, it's spiritually discerned. He is one person and the head of the body of all those resurrected. Because He is firstborn as Psalm 89 says. Even you know what I mean if I were to say the “head of so and so corporation is ...” This word “head” is connected with the Messiah the future “head” of both Judah and Israel in Hosea 1:11.
Foreshadowing is throughout the Torah; however it's spiritually understood. But, you cannot explain why both David and Israel are the firstborn of God as it says in Psalm 89:28 and Exodus 4:22-23. This is only explained when we understand that David = Messiah and Messiah = Israel. Then the apparent contradiction is explained. Israel and David are names of the Messiah. Just as Immanuel, and Abi-ad, Sar-shalom etc. Btw, David is again connected with the term “firstborn” in Zech. 12:10.
It is about Ephraim; the metaphor(if you will) is that Ephraim has died and must be resurrected. But, verse 14 is also literally valid as speaking of the actual resurrection; because God will be true in everything.
If you're ransomed from the grave then there must be payment given. If payment is given then show from your understanding how God pays for the resurrection.
I never said otherwise. I believe God is saying here that He will not change His mind when He decides to destroy death. This "repentance" will be "hid" from God. What could possibly hide this from God? Let me know what you think.
So:
1. there is a ransom
2. Something ensures that God will not change His mind. To me it is obvious that the blood of the sacrifice hides their sins so that God will not regret redeeming them from the grave. As it says in Isaiah 53:8 He was cut off out of the land of living for the transgression of my people. And in Isaiah 52:15 we see He sprinkles many nations (with blood as Moses sprinkled the people).
You're only thinking of this present time. Of what seed are those resurrected in the coming world?
The fact is in Isaiah 49:3 God says ‘Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’ This cannot be about the Hebrew nation because in verse 5 we find that whoever this Israel is was formed in the womb to bring Jacob back to Him(God). So, this Israel was formed to bring the Hebrew nation back to God. Therefore, Isaiah 49 cannot be talking about the Hebrew nation. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. It's clearly about the Messiah the eternal Israel.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe this verse about Jesus says so:
Isa. 49:3 and he said unto me, Thou art my servant; Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Jesus is God so He is not stealing what already belongs to Him.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe God rules is in effect in agreement with God contends. When God contends He rules and Jacob found that out the hard way.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I do not disagree that the Messiah, as the son of David, is sometimes called by David's name. That doesn't mean that all the times the name David is mentioned, the reference is to the Messiah.
From verse 20-38, the Psalmist is describing G-d's promises to David. From verse 39-46 the Psalmist complains that despite the promises, G-d seems to have treated David to trouble. Verses 47-53 has the Psalmist pleading with G-d to remember and realize His promises to David.
Ethan, but whatever.
It's my translation. I put it in brackets because as you said it's not in the Hebrew. There's actually nothing in the Hebrew. The literal translation is "and I will cut it / for you / covenant / eternal / kindnesses / David / the trustworthies". So there's no "like the" and no "even".
The interpretation that I'm presenting is that the verse is comparing the covenant that G-d will make with the nation, to the covenant that G-d had already made with David. G-d's covenant with David was described using these very same terms in Psalm 89 and the verse here is making a comparison to that covenant.
The problem as should be clear, is that the "sure mercies of David" is a reference to the Davidic covenant ie. that G-d would keep the kingship in David's family as described in Psalm 89. A person not of David's family can't receive this covenant because that would contradict the covenant.
And this claim has already been defeated as above.
This is not a good proof. "Your soul shall live" is described as an effect of "listen". The covenant G-d makes is a consequence of having "incline[d] your ear" and "listen[ing]". The "your soul shall live" is in the wrong place to be a consequence of the covenant.
How do we realize this?
Uh. Seriously? Gen. 17:6? 17:13? Ex. 31:16? It just means that the covenant will be in effect for the nation, eternally.
Yes, I understand that you claimed this. The problem is that this claim is faulty as explained above.
My practice has been to ignore the tin-hat arguments.
But your reasoning for doing so is theological, rather than what the text may have meant to convey. There are many examples throughout Jewish Scriptures of singular nouns used to mean a collective. So the correct way is to explain why that shouldn't be the case here.
The phrase "son of man" means "person" in Hebrew. It doesn't mean that it's one body comprised of many people. It means that the verse is using the Messiah as a representative for a collective, namely, the nation he leads. This is very common in the Books of the prophets. For instance, Isaiah 28 refers to the Israelite kingdom as "Ephraim" which is literally a reference to Jeroboam's royal line, him being from the tribe of Ephraim. It doesn't mean that Jeroboam is the head of the body. It means that if someone would have a vision of Jeroboam doing something, we'd interpret that as referring to the entire Northern Kingdom. That's all that's happening in Daniel 7.
However, Daniel 7 has nothing to do with Hosea 13. Hosea 13, like Isaiah 28 is talking about the people of the Northern Kingdom.
This phrase has no meaning to me.
Except that we've already explained how Psalm 89 isn't about the Messiah and neither is Hosea 13. Your building constructs out of air.
You keep using this word "spiritually" and every time you use it, it seems to mean "despite the evidence against, I'm right because my mind tells me that I am." Which is kind of ridiculous.
That's absurd. Firstborn is a entitlement designation. G-d isn't saying that the nation of Israel or David had become the first to break through their mothers' wombs. Among the nations, Israel has the greatest entitlements and among individuals, David has the greatest entitlements. That's all it's saying. David isn't the Messiah and the Messiah isn't Israel. And Israel isn't Jeroboam and Jeroboam isn't a table. These are all separate principles.
Btw. not a single word in these two sentences is accurate.
The thing about a metaphors is that they're not literally true. "G-d will be true in everything" is not a valid argument unless you prove that every possible interpretation of every single verse must happen. Which is ridiculous. Did Abraham literally pick up every item he owned and handed it to Isaac per Gen. 25:5? Do the ships of Tarshish need to literally wait per Isa. 23:1?
In reality, what you've done is applied some theological principle your religion taught you, to the verse, because of similar wording in your principle and the verse. Rather than deriving from the verse, what it is attempting to convey. You've completely ignored the context of the verse and the inappropriateness of applying that principle here.
Well, I do it by disagreeing with your initial given. The word you are translating as "ransom" doesn't mean "to redeem with money". It means "to redeem". Money is simply the way that most redemption happen, ie: a kidnapping ransom. See Psalm 55:19 (18 in Christian Bibles) where the same word is used.
You're right, except you're also wrong. This verse isn't saying anything about destroying death. It's a metaphor talking about G-d redeeming the Northern Kingdom and like you say, not regretting or changing his mind once He does so. It's not saying that something will be literally hid from His eyes, it's a metaphorical way of saying that He won't regret what He'll do.
So:
1. There is no ransom.
2. What G-d won't change his mind from, is saving the 10 tribes. G-d's decision is what ensures what He will do.
Can we get a little context for this question.
No, it's Isaiah. That passage is about Isaiah. G-d calls him after the name of the entire nation. He's been designated since before birth, to give prophecy to the Jews and the following prophecy is one that will lighten the burden of the exile for the Jews because it speaks about the hope of the Redemption.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Tumah, you're an Orthodox Jew. To let you know I have an answer coming for you. But I just want to say I think we're wasting our time. I would first have to prove to you that Jesus is the Messiah and then go from there on this topic. But, I don't think that would work anyway. I kind of intended this debate to be for Christians vs. Christians. But, not many Christians have shown interest or challenged me. Still, I intend to answer you soon. I know I did not put this in same faith debates.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Might make a 2 state solution pretty difficult to achieve
I believe everyone accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior makes a one state possible. At present those with an Islamic background are insisting on a one state solution that does not include Jews.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you ought to say why it is stupid and silly.
I believe it is not a messianic prophecy for two reasons. 1. Jacob is nowhere else suggested to be the Messaih 2. Ruling as God is not the same thing as God ruling as is the case with Jesus.