Isaiah 53:2.

[whirlingmerc]

That doesn't in any way refute what I wrote.

What we see overall happening in Torah is a gradual revealing of revelation, so the Mosaic Law wasn't in play at the time of Abraham but came into play during the Exodus, and also was mandated by the time Isaiah was written.

If you reread Isaiah, this issue of the Law and the mandate to follow it is paramount.

The Messiah completely kept the law... and the redeemed keeps the spirit of the law...
Interestingly the prophets described man's heart at times as hard as diamonds or stone but God promised to give a heart of flesh and write his commandments on those hearts. A transformation is promised in the new covenant.

Christ is in a sense the fulfillment of the law and in a sense the end of the law

 

[metis]

The Messiah completely kept the law... and the redeemed keeps the spirit of the law...
Interestingly the prophets described man's heart at times as hard as diamonds or stone but God promised to give a heart of flesh and write his commandments on those hearts. A transformation is promised in the new covenant.

Christ is in a sense the fulfillment of the law and in a sense the end of the law

Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”

Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”
7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”
10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”
14:20: “All foods are clean.”

I Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision counts for nothing.”

Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”
5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”
5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”
6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”

Ephesians 2:15: “In his own flesh he abolished the Law with its commands and precepts.”


You can't have it both ways, namely having Jesus following the Law mandated in the Tanakh but then saying it's really not important after all, thus ending it. The Tanakh says the Law is "forever" and "perpetual", much the same being said about the Covenant. Matter of fact, the Tanakh states that any "prophet" who tried to change or end the Law is a "false prophet".

However, there is sort of a way out of this, but I'll stop at this point..

 

[whirlingmerc]

The anti Christ is 'the man of lawlessness'

but it is possible to keep the 'spirit of the law' while the ;letter leads one to a redeemer and one's need for forgiveness

Psalm 119 speaks of a love for the law 'ooooh how I love thy law'

 

[metis]

but it is possible to keep the 'spirit of the law' while the ;letter leads one to a redeemer and one's need for forgiveness

In the Bible, it says that it is God who forgives, and this is covered actually quite well in the Tanakh. If you have a concordance, look up "forgive" and its variations and see for yourself.

BTW, as you'll see, the Temple sacrifices were only part of the way in which God can and will forgive sins.

 

[whirlingmerc]

yes the temple sacrifices point forward to the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world
in fact the law itself has provision for a king, a picture of the coming Messiah King Jesus

I love how Psalm 22, 23, 24 together show the suffering one, the shepherding one and the ruling one side by side

 

[metis]

yes the temple sacrifices point forward to the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world
in fact the law itself has provision for a king, a picture of the coming Messiah King Jesus

I love how Psalm 22, 23, 24 together show the suffering one, the shepherding one and the ruling one side by side

Differing interpretations.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Dear ben,
With respect to your synapsis of the "two anointed ones standing by the Lord are Judah and Israel", how is it that "Lord" means "HaShem", the common name for God, and that "LORD" stands for the proper name, when Psalm 110:1 says "the LORD says to my Lord", that would be like saying God said to God? As there is only one God, are you sure you are getting this right?

As for Zechariah 4:14, since when is God/LORD limited to being "Lord of the whole earth". I thought God was LORD of all of creation, which would include the whole universe.

If My servant David is going to be king over the stick of Ephraim and the stick of Judah, in the land that I gave to Jacob (Ez 37), won't David be the one given the authority over the earth at that time? And who is the "angel of the LORD" (Zech 12:8)? And who is it that the "inhabitants of Jerusalem" will look upon, "whom they have pierced"? Did they pierce the LORD, or the "angel of the LORD" (Zech 12:8)?

As Zech 12:1-8 has already occurred with respect to the 67 and 73 Israeli war, when will the ball drop on "I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech 12:9), seeing as the mourning with respect to "Megiddo" has not yet occurred. (Zech 12:11) & (Zech 14:2).

Yes, I am indeed getting that right. The text in Psalm 110:1 does not say, "The Lord said to my Lord..." but "The Lord said to my lord..." The first Lord was for HaShem and the second for David. Why? Because, that Psalm of David was originally written thus, "The Lord said to me..." Since it was too awkward for the Levites to sing it in the Temple, the Lord said to me, the Psalm was amended into "The Lord said to my lord." But, moved by Christian preconceived notions, the Fathers of the Church capitalized the second lord in order to interpolate Jesus into the text.

Regarding your question about who is it that the inhabitants of Jerusalem will look upon whom they have pierced. To be pierced here is an analogy to loose all freedom which was what happened to the Israel of the Ten Tribes when the Assyrians conquered it in 721 BCE. It is about the fallen of the virgin Israel if you read Amos 5:2. And that happened because HaShem decided to reject Israel as a People so that Judah be confirmed as the only Kingdom of God if you read Psalm 78:67-70. So, since the main reason for the fall of Israel was so that Judah remained alone as God's People, it became as a matter of fact that Israel was pierced for the sins of Judah. Hence, Isaiah said that "Israel was cut off from the Land of the living through the sins of my People aka Judah. (Isaiah 53:8) Isaiah was from Judah.

Last but not least, the part of Zachariah that speaks about Megiddo is a reference to the fight against all the nations that will come against Jerusalem as Ezekiel describes as the war of Go-Magog if you read Ezekiel 38,39. In verse 11 Israel will spend 7 months burying the dead bodies of about two thirds of the armies. That's a horrible piece of scatology in Ezekiel prophecies.

 

[2ndpillar]

Yes, I am indeed getting that right. The text in Psalm 110:1 does not say, "The Lord said to my Lord..." but "The Lord said to my lord..." The first Lord was for HaShem and the second for David. Why? Because, that Psalm of David was originally written thus, "The Lord said to me..." Since it was too awkward for the Levites to sing it in the Temple, the Lord said to me, the Psalm was amended into "The Lord said to my lord." But, moved by Christian preconceived notions, the Fathers of the Church capitalized the second lord in order to interpolate Jesus into the text.

Regarding your question about who is it that the inhabitants of Jerusalem will look upon whom they have pierced. To be pierced here is an analogy to loose all freedom which was what happened to the Israel of the Ten Tribes when the Assyrians conquered it in 721 BCE. It is about the fallen of the virgin Israel if you read Amos 5:2. And that happened because HaShem decided to reject Israel as a People so that Judah be confirmed as the only Kingdom of God if you read Psalm 78:67-70. So, since the main reason for the fall of Israel was so that Judah remained alone as God's People, it became as a matter of fact that Israel was pierced for the sins of Judah. Hence, Isaiah said that "Israel was cut off from the Land of the living through the sins of my People aka Judah. (Isaiah 53:8) Isaiah was from Judah.

Last but not least, the part of Zachariah that speaks about Megiddo is a reference to the fight against all the nations that will come against Jerusalem as Ezekiel describes as the war of Go-Magog if you read Ezekiel 38,39. In verse 11 Israel will spend 7 months burying the dead bodies of about two thirds of the armies. That's a horrible piece of scatology in Ezekiel prophecies.

Dear Ben,
So you say the "Levites", because of their awkwardness, had the "scribes" change the Words of God. That seems a little presumptuous. (Jeremiah 8:8) If Israel was "pierced" and "cut off from the land" and "scattered among the nations" (Jeremiah 31:10), such as sent into the wilderness, such as a scape goat, and such as they carry the sins of Judah, what happens to Judah (Zechariah 13:8-9). Were they a burnt offering? And what happens to the stick of Ephraim, at the end? (Ez 37:16-28) As for Ezekiel 38 & 39, was not Ezekiel talking about two separate wars? Ezekiel 38 was about a "land of unwalled villages.. and "those at rest" (Ez 38:11), which doesn't describe the Nation of Israel that I know about. They have one of the foremost walls, and best trained militaries in the world.

 

[rosends]

Because, that Psalm of David was originally written thus, "The Lord said to me..." Since it was too awkward for the Levites to sing it in the Temple, the Lord said to me, the Psalm was amended into "The Lord said to my lord."

Can you cite any historical document as evidence of that textual change?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Can you cite any historical document as evidence of that textual change?

Are you asking if I have any other evidence besides Logic? Can you refute Logic? David wrote that Psalm, not the Levites. The JPS says, "The Lord said to my lord". Now, you tell me, whom was "to my lord" referring to? I don't know if you have noticed, I don't argue with another Jew in order to prevent "hillul HaShem." But you should have thought twice before asking that question of yours above. Historical evidence! Logic does not answer to historical evidences.

 

[rosends]

Are you asking if I have any other evidence besides Logic? Can you refute Logic? David wrote that Psalm, not the Levites. The JPS says, "The Lord said to my lord". Now, you tell me, whom was "to my lord" referring to? I don't know if you have noticed, I don't argue with another Jew in order to prevent "hillul HaShem." But you should have thought twice before asking that question of yours above. Historical evidence! Logic does not answer to historical evidences.

You made a claim that a text was altered. You have no proof. The text reads "לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר נְאֻם יְהֹוָה | לַאדֹנִי שֵׁב לִימִינִי עַד אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ" and you have made the positive claim that it said something different. If you have no proof other than your own opinion you should have thought twice before you claimed that as fact.

The Hebrew says "Of David, a song/psalm: the statement of God to my master, sit at my right until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet."

I can explain the reference to "my master" which has been the basic Jewish understanding for over 1000 years (Rashi explains that it refers to Abraham and cites Gen 23:6, where Abraham is called "my master"). This view is based in the talmud, Nedarim 32b. I can explain the Ibn Ezra's secondary reading, that the "l'david" indicates that this was addressed TO David and he psalm was written by one of David's friends and "my master" refers to David (the Malbim understands it similarly). The Metzudat David and the Torah Temimah both see it as referring to Abraham.

But you still can't prove that any text was changed and your claim to "logic" which is based in invention is not persuasive in the face of a long history of scholars and textual experts.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Dear Ben,
So you say the "Levites", because of their awkwardness, had the "scribes" change the Words of God. That seems a little presumptuous. (Jeremiah 8:8) If Israel was "pierced" and "cut off from the land" and "scattered among the nations" (Jeremiah 31:10), such as sent into the wilderness, such as a scape goat, and such as they carry the sins of Judah, what happens to Judah (Zechariah 13:8-9). Were they a burnt offering? And what happens to the stick of Ephraim, at the end? (Ez 37:16-28) As for Ezekiel 38 & 39, was not Ezekiel talking about two separate wars? Ezekiel 38 was about a "land of unwalled villages.. and "those at rest" (Ez 38:11), which doesn't describe the Nation of Israel that I know about. They have one of the foremost walls, and best trained militaries in the world.

I did not say that the Levites had the Scribes change the Words of God. Probably King David himself decided to change "The Lord said to me" into "The Lord said to my lord." The awkwardness was obviously realized by the whole "kahal" aka the whole congregation that some thing was wrong, as if the Lord said to the Levites.

Israel was pierced when the Ten Tribes were conquered by the Assyrians and their freedom had come to an end. Isaiah who was a Judahite said that Israel had been cut off from the Land of the Living aka the Land of Israel for the sins of Isaiah's People of Judah. (Isaiah 53:8)

The stick of Ephraim is gone. There is only one stick left for the sake of David. (I Kings 11:36) That's when HaShem rejected Israel and confirmed Judah to remain as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. Ezekiel is talking about the great war of Gog-Magog which by the end of it, the House of Israel will spend 7 months to bury the dead. (Ezekiel 39:11,12)

 

[2ndpillar]

I did not say that the Levites had the Scribes change the Words of God. Probably King David himself decided to change "The Lord said to me" into "The Lord said to my lord." The awkwardness was obviously realized by the whole "kahal" aka the whole congregation that some thing was wrong, as if the Lord said to the Levites.

Israel was pierced when the Ten Tribes were conquered by the Assyrians and their freedom had come to an end. Isaiah who was a Judahite said that Israel had been cut off from the Land of the Living aka the Land of Israel for the sins of Isaiah's People of Judah. (Isaiah 53:8)

The stick of Ephraim is gone. There is only one stick left for the sake of David. (I Kings 11:36) That's when HaShem rejected Israel and confirmed Judah to remain as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. Ezekiel is talking about the great war of Gog-Magog which by the end of it, the House of Israel will spend 7 months to bury the dead. (Ezekiel 39:11,12)

Dear Ben,
What you say does not make sense. If the "stick of Ephraim is gone", according to you, why do you quote Ez 39:11, with respect to the "house of Israel"? Hosea 5 & 6 is about the "House of Judah"/Jews, and "Ephraim". Not just the Jews. Jeremiah 31 speaks with regard to both the "house of Judah" and the "house of Israel", and addresses "Ephraim" as "My first-born". I am thinking that the enmity between "Judah" and "Israel" still exists (Zech 11:14). Ezekiel 37:11, refers to the "whole house of Israel", not just the "house of Judah". Jeremiah 31:31 refers to the "house of Judah", and the "house of Israel". I am thinking you need to use the lies of the "scribes", which are not the product of king David, the Talmud, and heat your house with all approximately 27,000 pages of them.

As for "O Israel", they had been "scattered among the nations" (Joel 3:2) & Jeremiah 46:27, in which they will be saved "from afar" and will along with "O Jacob", will be corrected properly, and "by no means leave you unpunished" (Jeremiah 46:28) & (Jeremiah 30:11). After "Jerusalem" is "captured" (Zechariah 14:2), the "LORD will go forth and fight against those nations" and then you will see the "stick of Ephraim" united with the "stick of Judah" in the land I gave to Jacob (Ezekiel 37:16-25), and "David My servant shall be their prince forever".

 

[Ben Avraham]

Dear Ben,
What you say does not make sense. If the "stick of Ephraim is gone", according to you, why do you quote Ez 39:11, with respect to the "house of Israel"? Hosea 5 & 6 is about the "House of Judah"/Jews, and "Ephraim". Not just the Jews. Jeremiah 31 speaks with regard to both the "house of Judah" and the "house of Israel", and addresses "Ephraim" as "My first-born". I am thinking that the enmity between "Judah" and "Israel" still exists (Zech 11:14). Ezekiel 37:11, refers to the "whole house of Israel", not just the "house of Judah". Jeremiah 31:31 refers to the "house of Judah", and the "house of Israel". I am thinking you need to use the lies of the "scribes", which are not the product of king David, the Talmud, and heat your house with all approximately 27,000 pages of them.

As for "O Israel", they had been "scattered among the nations" (Joel 3:2) & Jeremiah 46:27, in which they will be saved "from afar" and will along with "O Jacob", will be corrected properly, and "by no means leave you unpunished" (Jeremiah 46:28) & (Jeremiah 30:11). After "Jerusalem" is "captured" (Zechariah 14:2), the "LORD will go forth and fight against those nations" and then you will see the "stick of Ephraim" united with the "stick of Judah" in the land I gave to Jacob (Ezekiel 37:16-25), and "David My servant shall be their prince forever".

Tell me 2ndpillar, are those who compose the actual government of Israel, the stick of Ephraim? Of course not the stick of Ephraim got lost when HaShem rejected the whole Ten Tribes of Israel if you read Psalms 78:67-70. The Land of Israel today is occupied by the New Israel which is composed of the main stem of Judah, about 10% of the Israelites who escaped Assyria, especially Levites when the virgin Israel fell. (Amos 5:2) Just before the proclamation of the modern Jewish State, they got together to decide upon a name, Israel was again chosen as a return to the Israel of before the split between Israel and Judah. (Isaiah 48:1) That's the stick of Judah in the "hand" of HaShem to mean one kingdom only and no longer two according to Ezekiel 37:22. What Jeremiah was referring to in Jeremiah 31:31 as the House of Israel and the House of Judah was the one only House of the time of King David. The stick of Ephraim united with the stick of Judah during those 130 years between the fall of Israel to the Assyrians and the taken over of Judah for 70 years in Babylon. (Isaiah 6:13; 10:21,22) Since then, any one claiming to have been from the stick of Ephraim, can join only through conversion according to Halacha. (Isaiah 56:1-8) Last but not least, the reference to a prince over Israel forever is a reference to any one legally Jewish.

 

[2ndpillar]

Tell me 2ndpillar, are those who compose the actual government of Israel, the stick of Ephraim? Of course not the stick of Ephraim got lost when HaShem rejected the whole Ten Tribes of Israel if you read Psalms 78:67-70. The Land of Israel today is occupied by the New Israel which is composed of the main stem of Judah, about 10% of the Israelites who escaped Assyria, especially Levites when the virgin Israel fell. (Amos 5:2) Just before the proclamation of the modern Jewish State, they got together to decide upon a name, Israel was again chosen as a return to the Israel of before the split between Israel and Judah. (Isaiah 48:1) That's the stick of Judah in the "hand" of HaShem to mean one kingdom only and no longer two according to Ezekiel 37:22. What Jeremiah was referring to in Jeremiah 31:31 as the House of Israel and the House of Judah was the one only House of the time of King David. The stick of Ephraim united with the stick of Judah during those 130 years between the fall of Israel to the Assyrians and the taken over of Judah for 70 years in Babylon. (Isaiah 6:13; 10:21,22) Since then, any one claiming to have been from the stick of Ephraim, can join only through conversion according to Halacha. (Isaiah 56:1-8) Last but not least, the reference to a prince over Israel forever is a reference to any one legally Jewish.

Dear Ben,
Nice try. The "whole house of Israel" (Ez 37:11) is to be brought to life, not just Judah. It is Israel who remains scattered among the nations (Joel 3:2) It was Judah and Jerusalem who were restored. (Joel 3:1) It is Ephraim and the house of Judah who will "both acknowledge their guilt", and will be revived after "two days" (Hosea 5:15 - Hosea 6:2). And according to my understanding, one is a Jew if their mother is a Jew, kind of up is down and down is up. You are the the son of David if your mother is called "Mary". I think you are a son of David if your father is David. As for Isaiah 56: 1-8, that is for the "foreigner". While Ephraim is scattered among the nations, he remains Ephraim. Isaiah 56:1-8, would be something that Judah would do well to emulate. The Jewish state was called "Israel" to bring about the fulfillment of Psalms 83. All was done for "My name's sake" and has nothing to do with any righteousness of Judah. (Ez 39:7) The "valley of Jehoshaphat" is coming (Joel 3:2) & (Zech 14:2), when the nations will be gathered for judgment. The survivors of Ephraim/Israel, who is as the sands of the sea" (Is 10:22), is not gathered from the nations until that is completed. The remnant of Jacob will be among the nations like a "lion among flocks of sheep" (Micah 5:7-8), and although they will be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant will return. That has not happened. Judah will fight in Jerusalem with the "LORD" (Zech 14:14), and Ephraim will be among the nations.

Ezekiel 39:7
"My holy name I will make known in the midst of My people Israel; and I will not let My holy name be profaned anymore. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Dear Ben, Nice try. The "whole house of Israel" (Ez 37:11) is to be brought to life, not just Judah. It is Israel who remains scattered among the nations (Joel 3:2) It was Judah and Jerusalem who were restored. (Joel 3:1) It is Ephraim and the house of Judah who will "both acknowledge their guilt", and will be revived after "two days" (Hosea 5:15 - Hosea 6:2). And according to my understanding, one is a Jew if their mother is a Jew, kind of up is down and down is up. You are the the son of David if your mother is called "Mary". I think you are a son of David if your father is David. As for Isaiah 56: 1-8, that is for the "foreigner". While Ephraim is scattered among the nations, he remains Ephraim. Isaiah 56:1-8, would be something that Judah would do well to emulate. The Jewish state was called "Israel" to bring about the fulfillment of Psalms 83. All was done for "My name's sake" and has nothing to do with any righteousness of Judah. (Ez 39:7) The "valley of Jehoshaphat" is coming (Joel 3:2) & (Zech 14:2), when the nations will be gathered for judgment. The survivors of Ephraim/Israel, who is as the sands of the sea" (Is 10:22), is not gathered from the nations until that is completed. The remnant of Jacob will be among the nations like a "lion among flocks of sheep" (Micah 5:7-8), and although they will be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant will return. That has not happened. Judah will fight in Jerusalem with the "LORD" (Zech 14:14), and Ephraim will be among the nations. Ezekiel 39:7 "My holy name I will make known in the midst of My people Israel; and I will not let My holy name be profaned anymore. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.

No 2ndpillar, you are mistaken. You would be right to discuss this point if you were discussing it with another Christian, not with a Jew. What would be brought to life to join together with Judah already happened if you read "War of the Jews" by Josephus and Isaiah 6:13 who mentioned 10%. Probably Josephus learned from Isaiah to also mention 10% of Ephraim that repented and returned to join Judah in the South. (Ezekiel 37:22) The one is a Jew if his mother is Jewish or through conversion according to Halacha aka Jewish law. But to be the son of Mary would not make of a Jew son of David. He has only to be very rich and no less charitable. Now, legally, or according to the law of Tribal inheritance, one had to be from the Tribe of Judah to draw him or herself into the nomination of "son of David." Now, thanks to the NT, Jesus lost that chance to be from the Tribe of Judah. (Mat. 1:18) He had to be a biological son of Joseph because this was the one from the Tribe of Judah. In that case, Jesus never lost his Jewish identity because of his mother; but he became a Jew without a Tribe in Israel which became abhorrent even to talk about; unless he was a convert.

 

[2ndpillar]

No 2ndpillar, you are mistaken. You would be right to discuss this point if you were discussing it with another Christian, not with a Jew. What would be brought to life to join together with Judah already happened if you read "War of the Jews" by Josephus and Isaiah 6:13 who mentioned 10%. Probably Josephus learned from Isaiah to also mention 10% of Ephraim that repented and returned to join Judah in the South. (Ezekiel 37:22) The one is a Jew if his mother is Jewish or through conversion according to Halacha aka Jewish law. But to be the son of Mary would not make of a Jew son of David. He has only to be very rich and no less charitable. Now, legally, or according to the law of Tribal inheritance, one had to be from the Tribe of Judah to draw him or herself into the nomination of "son of David." Now, thanks to the NT, Jesus lost that chance to be from the Tribe of Judah. (Mat. 1:18) He had to be a biological son of Joseph because this was the one from the Tribe of Judah. In that case, Jesus never lost his Jewish identity because of his mother; but he became a Jew without a Tribe in Israel which became abhorrent even to talk about; unless he was a convert.

Dear ben,
And since when is a woman eligible to be a son of David other than in the minds of Jews? Historians such as your Josephus, will say, but who can know who the father is? You can only know who the mother is. Maybe true for an adulterous nation, but a little lame. The historians will blame the Gentiles, such as the Romans, for the discrepancies. But then again, if the son has a Roman father, how is he a son of David?

As for Isaiah 6, it is about all of Israel, which includes the house of Judah, in that they "keep on listening and do not perceive", and this will go on until they "repent and be healed" (Is 6:10), which follows "the land is utterly destroyed" (Is 6:11). Your 10% was not limited to the house of Israel, and what was, will be again (Ecclesiastes 1:9). As for Ephraim and the house of Judah acknowledging their guilt (Hosea 5:15), and them both being raised "up on the third day" (Hosea 6:2), it hasn't happened. And the "nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood" (Jeremiah 16:19), it hasn't happened.