Help Translate Messiah in Isaiah 52:14

[rosends]

First it's "David doesn't have a MisHkan."

Then, "MisHkan doesn't have an H."

Or was it Maschiach you meant?

It doesn't matter -- neither has an H.

Because I actually corrected myself on that oversight and it would be my self correction you are taking issue with about H vs Ch. Irrelevant either way, it matters not if I substitute an H with N or Ch with N, it makes the same point which is simply that a normal word play is at hand. That is just the Bible's way.

No, that's your invention. A claim without a source and a reading with no value. Keep making things up. I hear that dalet can be swapped out for samech in a pinch and you end up with D-v-D turning into s-v-s and David is a horse. Well done.

We're I you I would stop. You are just trying too hard and out of your league. Go interpret everything literally like a good goy.

Wow...another swing and a miss. Don't you get tired being wrong all the time?

 

[SethZaddik]

Show me. Or is this another claim that is only supported by information that isn't known. Or did a mystery gentleman tell you this also?

Let me give you a simple example of word play lost in translation.

"My eyes have seen Salvation (Yesha)"

Yesha is the word for Salvation. And the name of the Messiah of David who is named for Joshua/Yeshua or "Jesus" as it has been rendered.

"He said my eyes have seen Jesus."

There is literally no way to determine if he meant to say, "Yeshua" or "Yesha" and neither would have a Greek translator from the Hebrew Gospel, now lost but attested to and quoted from by Jerome (or was it Augustine, I forget) and Clement of Alexandria.

 

[SethZaddik]

It doesn't matter -- neither has an H.

No, that's your invention. A claim without a source and a reading with no value. Keep making things up. I hear that dalet can be swapped out for samech in a pinch and you end up with D-v-D turning into s-v-s and David is a horse. Well done.



Wow...another swing and a miss. Don't you get tired being wrong all the time?

You use words and say nothing, how?

 

[Tumah]

And is that supposed to invalidate my interpretation?

It doesn't. At all. It is honestly not even mine, I got it from a Messianic Jewish website.

Messianic "Jewish" websites are not the best place to learn about Jewish things. They're a great place to learn about Christian things though.

The letter games WERE mine, but they are par for the course in Kabbalistic interpretation.

Which, again, is lost on Fundies to be fair. But I am a big Zohar fan, it's how it's done. One way.

You understand that the Zohar is studied in the most fundamentalist sects of Judaism?

But do keep trying to argue with me, I love when people think that because they are unaware of it something can't be true or that the Bible is not open to interpretation.

What about people who think something is true because they are simply ignorant of the reasons why it can't be true? How do you feel about them?

It is definitely open to interpretation, considered by modern Jews foolish to do otherwise.

What makes you say its "open to interpretation"? Do you think the Quran is open to the Baha'i interpretation of the ayat that lead them to believe in Baha'i?

As the Zohar says, "Every new interpretation creates a new world."

Actually it says "... every new interpretation in Torah, through that person who is toiling in Torah, creates a new heavens". But allow me to quote what it says just a bit lower on that same page:

Come and see. Someone whose way is not in the secrets of the Torah who creates novellae [from things] that he doesn't understand completely as is needed, those novellae go up and go out to that man called 'Man of Reversals, Lying Tongue' into the feminine aspect of the Great Depths. And he (the man) jumps 500 parsecs to accept those novellae. And he takes those novellae to the feminine aspect and makes with them a heaven of emptiness called "desolation".​

 

[rosends]

Let me give you a simple example of word play lost in translation.

"My eyes have seen Salvation (Yesha)"

Yesha is the word for Salvation. And the name of the Messiah of David who is named for Joshua/Yeshua or "Jesus" as it has been rendered.

"He said my eyes have seen Jesus."

There is literally no way to determine if he meant to say, "Yeshua" or "Yesha" and neither would have a Greek translator from the Hebrew Gospel, now lost but attested to and quoted from by Jerome (or was it Augustine, I forget) and Clement of Alexandria.

That's not word play. Names in Hebrew develop often from regular words. The name "menachem" is the same as the Hebrew word for "consolation." People give names SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE they invoke the meaning of the original word. Read the bible and see how most of the names used in Genesis are derived from words. Having someone named after the word for salvation was not unusual any more than having someone named for the word "added on" - Yosef.

 

[SethZaddik]

Another point we disagree on.

It's not relevant h or sh, not actually even ch, M sh ch n /M sh ch, with the only difference being a Yod, for Yeshua, and an Nun for Nun.

Yeshua Ben Nun was a Messiah type that was expected, not a pacifist Rabbi. He was to establish a Kingdom in the style of Yeshua Ben Nun and David in establishing a Kingdom of Judean rule.

This is also why he was not accepted as a or the Messiah. In their eyes he failed miserably and Romans established the dominant Empire that they never knew. The was Hyrcanus briefly but he was actually a King/Messiah/Priest all in one and established independence for the first time in a long time for Judea.

Nevertheless, my above explanation is perfect enigmatic interpretation. Hate it, love it, I might not speak or read Hebrew but the words match minus the Yod and Nun, and I have given the reason, corrected my error that didn't effect the way the words match I just didn't separate the M sh ch properly.

 

[SethZaddik]

Messianic "Jewish" websites are not the best place to learn about Jewish things. They're a great place to learn about Christian things though.


You understand that the Zohar is studied in the most fundamentalist sects of Judaism?


What about people who think something is true because they are simply ignorant of the reasons why it can't be true? How do you feel about them?


What makes you say its "open to interpretation"? Do you think the Quran is open to the Baha'i interpretation of the ayat that lead them to believe in Baha'i?


Actually it says "... every new interpretation in Torah, through that person who is toiling in Torah, creates a new heavens". But allow me to quote what it says just a bit lower on that same page:

Come and see. Someone whose way is not in the secrets of the Torah who creates novellae [from things] that he doesn't understand completely as is needed, those novellae go up and go out to that man called 'Man of Reversals, Lying Tongue' into the feminine aspect of the Great Depths. And he (the man) jumps 500 parsecs to accept those novellae. And he takes those novellae to the feminine aspect and makes with them a heaven of emptiness called "desolation".​

You obviously don't know the difference between fundamentalism and Orthodox Gnosticism, Kabbalah, which is the least "fundamental" aspect of Judaism.

Talmud only Jews who reject the Zohar are fundamentalists. Or Talmud rejectors even.

Kabbalah, Sufism, are Gnostic in nature, just not the kind that hates Yahweh/Allah and the Spiritual non fundamental aspects of their respective religions.

Christianity has no Gnostics because the word is tainted to them but just means knowledge of a Spiritual nature so they have all sort of Catholic orders that are also not fundamentalist and are Spiritual.

Fundamental is bland back to basics no nonsense strict literal and legalistic.

 

[rosends]

It's not relevant h or sh, not actually even ch, M sh ch n /M sh ch, with the only difference being a Yod, for Yeshua, and an Nun for Nun

...

Nevertheless, my above explanation is perfect enigma interpretation. Hate it, love it, I might not speak or read Hebrew but the words match minus the Yod and Nun, and I have given the reason.

No, the Hebrew letters are different. Besides the fact that one has a yod that the other lacks and one has a nun that is missing in the other, the CH sound in each is represented by a different letter (kaf in mishkan and chet in mashiach). So all they share is the first 2 letters which would mean that, as I stated earlier, mashzar, twisted is the same thing as it also shares the first 2 letters.

 

[Tumah]

Let me give you a simple example of word play lost in translation.

"My eyes have seen Salvation (Yesha)"

Yesha is the word for Salvation. And the name of the Messiah of David who is named for Joshua/Yeshua or "Jesus" as it has been rendered.

"He said my eyes have seen Jesus."

There is literally no way to determine if he meant to say, "Yeshua" or "Yesha" and neither would have a Greek translator from the Hebrew Gospel, now lost but attested to and quoted from by Jerome (or was it Augustine, I forget) and Clement of Alexandria.

This is not a good example.
The Hebrew word for salvation is "Yshuah (ישועה)" and sometimes "Yesha' (ישע)" although I'm not sure about the grammatical difference between them.
The Aramaic word for salvation is "Purkana (פורקנא)". Aramaic being what is most often assumed they spoke.
The Hebrew name form of salvation is "Yehoshua (יהושע)".
The Aramaic version is "Yeshua' (ישוע)"

These are all spelled and pronounced differently.

 

[SethZaddik]

Well look, you've put forward an interpretation that has no basis. If you want someone to accept, you have to provide a basis for it. Both Rosends and I both explained to you how your idea has no basis in Hebrew grammar. So far, what you've been saying is something like "fissure and censure sound the same therefore they are related". It just makes no sense If you have something, say it. Otherwise, how can you be expected to be taken seriously?


I am not familiar with the site nor the Shiloh prophecy and interpretation you're referring to, but I'll say that not everything a Jew says, is a Jewish idea. Just because a Jew said it, doesn't mean his source was Jewish literature.


I see. You are trying to turn the word "Shiloh" into "Islam" to make Islam be a fulfillment of the prophecy. The only two words that are the same are Shalom and Salaam. The other two words are unrelated.

Anyway, it doesn't say that the scepter won't pass from Jacob it says the scepter won't pass from Judah. The Himayarite kingdom was a kingdom of converts. They weren't from the tribe of Judah, so they never had Judah's scepter to begin with.

Judah came from Jacob, he was his son and is Israel the namesake of the Israelites called Judeans.

I am sorry did I type in the name of the nation instead of his son? Hardly makes me wrong or changes a thing though now, huh?

Because the scepter passed away from Judah works as good as if it had said Jacob. Both represent the nation if Israel, which ceased to be called Israel and was Judah or Judea.

But nit picking is not going to do anything to me.

 

[Tumah]

You obviously don't know the difference between fundamentalism and Orthodox Gnosticism, Kabbalah, which is the least "fundamental" aspect of Judaism.

The Zohar is not a text of Gnosticism. I happen to know a bit about Judaism. Perhaps even more than you.

Talmud only Jews who reject the Zohar are fundamentalists. Or Talmud rejectors even.[/quote]
There are very few Jews who accept the Talmud and reject the Zohar.

Kabbalah, Sufism, are Gnostic in nature, just not the kind that hates Yahweh/Allah and the Spiritual non fundamental aspects of their respective religions.

Then you know very little about kabbalah.

Christianity has no Gnostics because the word is tainted to them but just means knowledge of a Spiritual nature so they have all sort of Catholic orders that are also not fundamentalist and are Spiritual.

Fundamental is bland back to basics no nonsense strict literal and legalistic.

Apparently you know very little about kabbalah's place in Judaism - you know - the religion that came up with it.

 

[SethZaddik]

This is not a good example.
The Hebrew word for salvation is "Yshuah (ישועה)" and sometimes "Yesha' (ישע)" although I'm not sure about the grammatical difference between them.
The Aramaic word for salvation is "Purkana (פורקנא)". Aramaic being what is most often assumed they spoke.
The Hebrew name form of salvation is "Yehoshua (יהושע)".
The Aramaic version is "Yeshua' (ישוע)"

These are all spelled and pronounced differently.

No information in this quote invalidates anything I said in any way and is pure desperation.

Plain and simple.

 

[Tumah]

Judah came from Jacob, he was his son and is Israel the namesake of the Israelites called Judeans.

I am sorry did I type in the name of the nation instead of his son? Hardly makes me wrong or changes a thing though now, huh?

Because the scepter passed away from Judah works as good as if it had said Jacob. Both represent the nation if Israel, which ceased to be called Israel and was Judah or Judea.

But not picking is not going to do anything to me.

Are you aware that the context of the verse you're quoting is Jacob blessing his son Judah? He's giving blessings to all his sons and this verse is part of the blessings that Judah gets. Its not a blessing to the whole nation as he calls Judah by name just as he does by each of the other tribes' blessings.

 

[Tumah]

No information in this quote invalidates anything I said in any way and is pure desperation.

Plain and simple.

It sure does. You're trying to explain that the statement was a double entendre based on the two meanings of the word "Yesha": salvation and Jesus. I explained to you that the word Yesha has one meaning and the Hebrew or Aramaic word for Jesus is something else.

 

[SethZaddik]

The Zohar is not a text of Gnosticism. I happen to know a bit about Judaism. Perhaps even more than you.

Talmud only Jews who reject the Zohar are fundamentalists. Or Talmud rejectors even.

There are very few Jews who accept the Talmud and reject the Zohar.


Then you know very little about kabbalah.


Apparently you know very little about kabbalah's place in Judaism - you know - the religion that came up with it.[/QUOTE]
What are you a mime now?

You are not right because you say you are and Kabbalah and Sufism are Gnostic, the opposite of fundamental.

I don't know what world you live in but apparently facts mean little to you and your opinion is your version of fact.

The notion of Gnostic being an adjective to describe Kabbalah and Sufism is widely agreed upon and much discussed one.

Sophia=Shekhina, an upper and lower of each exist respectively and the other Sophia is Achemoth, from "Chochmah" a Sefira on the Tree of Life.

You think I just read books and don't learn or something? What do you know about the Zohar? Ihya ulum al-din, Pistis-Sophia or Nag Hammadi?

I actually have these books and with the exception of much of the Zohar, 15 books, and Ihya, 40 books and 3000 pages, I have read all Gnostic literature that is associated with Christianity in the first 4 centuries. Literally in the case of Christian Gnosticism. And I read the others daily and a lot of Apocrypha.

And have read enough Zohar to know the Zohar has strikingly similar concepts and is anti fundamental too.

 

[SethZaddik]

It sure does. You're trying to explain that the statement was a double entendre based on the two meanings of the word "Yesha": salvation and Jesus. I explained to you that the word Yesha has one meaning and the Hebrew or Aramaic word for Jesus is something else.

I explained myself already, you are not damaging my arguments or interpretations. I can only state that because you say nothing of substance ever.

You just assume you know things that are completely fallacious to be actual facts regarding the Kabbalah and Sufism and what exactly Gnosticism means you are not on point with at all or in agreement with the majority of scholars and academics and practicers of these practices.

Regarding my allegorical and enigmatic interpretation, it's one thing to not like it, another to nit pick about errors in transliteration that don't effect the similarities in the words I am using, I just seperated the letters wrong as explained already.

Or ignore that I am saying what Yesha means, salvation, correctly, and make up a lame argument about a different language and gripe about nothing to achieve nothing.

Yesha still begins with Yod, like I said, the other difference is still the Nun, which works perfectly because YeshUa or Yesha still begin with Yod and is the son of Nun.

Those are facts. You can argue with interpretation, not facts.

 

[Tumah]

What are you a mime now?

Did you mean a mimic?

You are not right because you say you are and Kabbalah and Sufism are Gnostic, the opposite of fundamental.

Kabbalah may share some ideas with Gnosticism, but it isn't Gnostic. That's without a question. All the major Jewish kabbalists were also the biggest fundamentalists. The Zohar is constantly exhorting its students to study and practice Jewish Law - not just correctly, but extra carefully.

I don't know what world you live in but apparently facts mean little to you and your opinion is your version of fact.

Ironic.

The notion of Gnostic being an adjective to describe Kabbalah and Sufism is widely agreed upon and much discussed one.

Great.

Sophia=Shekhina, an upper and lower of each exist respectively and the other Sophia is Achemoth, from "Chochmah" a Sefira on the Tree of Life.

There is an upper and lower Shekhina in kabbalistic thought in Binah and Malchus respectively. But both are feminine aspects. Chochmah is a masculine aspect. Both Sophia and Chochmah mean wisdom. In Gnostic tradition Sophia is a feminine aspect. Do you see the problem?

You think I just read books and don't learn or something?

No, I didn't think you read books at all. But now that you tell me you do, I think you read books and assume everything you read is true because it says it in your books.

What do you know about the Zohar?

Well, I'm not a kabbalist. But I know some bits a pieces since its often quoted in other works on Jewish Law and ethics. Judging from what you've said until now, that's more than you know.

Ihya ulum al-din!

I'm not sure what you're thinking...

 

[SethZaddik]

Rabbi Ishmael said to Rabbi Shimon, "David dwelt in a dwelling called "Mishchin" and is the dwelling of the "Maschiach" who will be from David and dwells in David until the King Mashiach comes.

Why does David dwell in the Mishchin? Because other than the Yod(I's sound, letter, is Yod) and the Nun, they are the same. The Mashiach will be like David and from David but named after Yeshua bar Nun. With this prophecy the Messiah can dwell in the Messiah until the Messiah is readied for by the world and Zedek(Righteousness) for if it was a time of great sin that brought about the Messiah he surely would have come twice, three times even.

I wrote this but it is a perfect example of how the Zohar interprets scripture which is not in a fundamental ie literal method, it is considered folly to only read the Torah literally.

Fundamentalism thrives on a narrow literal and one meaning only, literal, method of interpretation and would not be fundamental otherwise.

Books like Zohar might be accepted by Orthodox Judaism but not fundamentalist Judaism.

Same goes for Sufism, widely accepted but not by fundamentalists.

It is why Fundamental Christianity frowns upon... everything including and especially, "Gnosticism" because it has a negative connotation in Christianity. Sufis proclaim themselves Gnostics because Mohammed PBUH stressed knowledge or "gnosis" in Greek.

Book 1 of Ihya ulum al-din is the Book of Knowledge, Gnosis.

It's Sufi literature and means the same kind of knowledge as Gnosis would mean, religous spiritually scientific knowledge.

Fundamentalism hates the direct experience with God notion and thrives on mediation and frowns upon meditative practices and spiritual ecstatics.

 

[SethZaddik]

Did you mean a mimic?


Kabbalah may share some ideas with Gnosticism, but it isn't Gnostic. That's without a question. All the major Jewish kabbalists were also the biggest fundamentalists. The Zohar is constantly exhorting its students to study and practice Jewish Law - not just correctly, but extra carefully.


Ironic.


Great.


There is an upper and lower Shekhina in kabbalistic thought in Binah and Malchus respectively. But both are feminine aspects. Chochmah is a masculine aspect. Both Sophia and Chochmah mean wisdom. In Gnostic tradition Sophia is a feminine aspect. Do you see the problem?


No, I didn't think you read books at all. But now that you tell me you do, I think you read books and assume everything you read is true because it says it in your books.


Well, I'm not a kabbalist. But I know some bits a pieces since its often quoted in other works on Jewish Law and ethics. Judging from what you've said until now, that's more than you know.


I'm not sure what you're thinking...

That is not a surprise.

"Bits and pieces" of knowledge is not a lot. Definitely not enough to debate with someone who owns and reads the actual literature that is the basis of Kabbalah.

Yet you assert absurdities as fact, ignore the things you wrong about (definition of Mishchin) scrutinize pointless details in a vain attempt to debunk an admitted enigmatic interpretation of scripture and accused me of at least 5 mistakes I didn't make, didn't notice the ones I did make effected nothing and stress points I was not focused on.

The scholars and academics and practitioners of Spiritual or Gnostic practices that admit they are a form of Gnosticism and you assert they are fundamentalist, the opposite of what they are.

Good grief!

 

[SethZaddik]

Rabbi Ishmael said to Rabbi Shimon, "David dwelt in a dwelling called "Mishchin" and is the dwelling of the "Maschiach" who will be from David and dwells in David until the King Mashiach comes.

Why does David dwell in the Mishchin? Because other than the Yod(I's sound, letter, is Yod) and the Nun, they are the same. The Mashiach will be like David and from David but named after Yeshua bar Nun. With this prophecy the Messiah can dwell in the Messiah until the Messiah is readied for by the world and Zedek(Righteousness) for if it was a time of great sin that brought about the Messiah he surely would have come twice, three times even.

I wrote this but it is a perfect example of how the Zohar interprets scripture which is not in a fundamental ie literal method, it is considered folly to only read the Torah literally.

Fundamentalism thrives on a narrow literal and one meaning only, literal, method of interpretation and would not be fundamental otherwise.

Books like Zohar might be accepted by Orthodox Judaism but not fundamentalist Judaism.

Same goes for Sufism, widely accepted but not by fundamentalists.

It is why Fundamental Christianity frowns upon... everything including and especially, "Gnosticism" because it has a negative connotation in Christianity. Sufis proclaim themselves Gnostics because Mohammed PBUH stressed knowledge or "gnosis" in Greek.

Book 1 of Ihya ulum al-din is the Book of Knowledge, Gnosis.

It's Sufi literature and means the same kind of knowledge as Gnosis would mean, religous spiritually scientific knowledge.

Fundamentalism hates the direct experience with God notion and thrives on mediation and frowns upon meditative practices and spiritual ecstatics.

Yes, it is, by definition, Gnostic.

It strives to know God directly.

That is the definition of "Gnostic."

You obviously associate the term with the extinct sects of ante Nicene days, obviously you don't pay attention to scholarship or academia or you would know it has an expanded definition from its Greek circa 350AD "heresy."

It is used to refer to both Kabbalah and Sufism by the respective practitioners to describe their practices. Gnosis in Kabbalah is Da'ath.