Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[101G]

asked and answered, repeatedly. When you learn to read, let me know.

LOL, LOL, LOL, Oh dear.....

cut to the core.... or cut off........ YIKES!

101G

 

[101G]

Thy hands = Your hands

View attachment 75810



You asked a question, I answered honestly and correctly. Regarding Isaiah 8, it's true.

Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.​

And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a trap to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.​

​

The Lord of hosts himself is my dread. That's what Isaiah counsels.

Your answer was incorrect, and dishonest in a desperate act to justify your mistake. you knew there is no command from God to build a third temple. you knew this, and to come up with a lame excuse, that just made it worst, grasping at straws. it was embarrassing to see the use of Holy Scriptures used in that manner. you have no creditability with 101G anymore, not an ounce.

so long, see you, maybe .... you ended for me.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

Your answer was incorrect, and dishonest in a desperate act to justify your mistake. you knew there is no command from God to build a third temple. you knew this, and to come up with a lame excuse, that just made it worst, grasping at straws. it was embarrassing to see the use of Holy Scriptures used in that manner. you have no creditability with 101G anymore, not an ounce.

so long, see you, maybe .... you ended for me.

101G.

Nonsense. This is a fundemental requirement for the Jewish Messiah. Of course it is written. I'm not sure exactly where your comments are coming from. But please know that if you change your mind about what you've said, it's already forgiven. You don't need to say a single thing about it.

Isaiah 2:2-3

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it.​

​

And many people shall go and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for from Zion shall go forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.​

 

[Brian2]

Acts 16:4

4As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey​

​

They delivered decisions reached by the elders of Jerusalem. That means they were preaching Jewish law. If not, then Paul becomes a liar later when he is testifying before the Sanhedrin.

The elders in Jerusalem were the Christian elders in Jerusalem, and the decisions Paul delivered can be seen in Acts 15.

Having the law written on one's heart is a matter of knowing what God wants.

Yes that sounds right.

Of course it does. The Psalm is 7 verses long. Skipping one of the verses is foolish.

It looks like a difference in translation issue. Melchizedek did not make a speech, so what sort of translation is Chabad when it says "speech of Melchizedek".
The Christian translations mean "like Melchizedek".

It DOES matter if a person is counting on it to atone for sin, but it doesn't.

So you would only accept it if Jesus was killed by a Levite High Priest on the altar in the Temple etc? Is that what you are saying?

I'm not going beyond the text. I'm going literally by the text.

If you are going literally by the metaphor of the shearers then you want God to be one of those who was killing Jesus.

 

[Brian2]

I think this is actually a very important point that should be clarified. Several ( many? ) times in the gospels Jesus challenges the Jewish authority and they do not respond. It's natural for people to take this as an inability to answer or a concession. That's not what's happening.

​

Sanhedrin 38​

​

"We learned in a mishna there (Avot 2:14): Rabbi Eliezer says: Be persistent to learn Torah, and know what to respond to the heretic [la’apikoros]. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This was taught only with regard to a gentile heretic, but not with regard to a Jewish heretic, as one should not respond to him. All the more so, if one does respond he will become more heretical. His heresy is assumed to be intentional, and any attempt to rebut it will only cause him to reinforce his position."​

​

They didn't respond because they didn't want to make it worse.

There are times when Jesus is debating with the learned Jews, so I guess they had not read that mishna.

 

[Brian2]

Which part of it doesn't make sense with Israel as the suffering servant?

I know you see the Psalm completely differently and metaphorically. I don't want to argue that, debating weighs me down.

It doesn't mean he was killed.

Then what does cutting short the days of his youth mean?

Nah. That's your desire.

God's firstborn inherits the nations (Psalm 2) and rules them.

Sure it's important in Isa 9. But so is having the government on his shoulders.

So is the prophetic perfect tense. Sitting on David's throne forever makes it a prophecy.

And since Jesus didn't do any of those things...

So the Jews have removed themselves two steps from Jesus. They are not Messianic Psalms AND Jesus did not do them anyway.
But if they are Messianic Psalms then The Son, the firstborn, will do them when He returns from sitting on the right hand of God.

Read Gen 14, everything needed is there. Here's where Abraham ( Abram ) is made into a priest. There's a ritual happening here. Bread and wine... Malchi-tzedek blesses Abraham making him a priest. Then Abraham raises his hand, makes an oath using literally the same language, and accepts it. That's what happens when someone is ordained. The official says, "Repeat after me..." Malchi-tzedek ordains Abraham into the priesthood.

​

And Melchizedek king of Shalem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God.​

And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth;​

And blessed be God the Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he gave him a tenth of all.​

And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.​

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand to the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,​

Now. There is a tithe being passed here, and Galatians?/Hebrews? ( I can't remember ) attempts to flip it around. The NIV goes so far as to change the text, change scripture, to flip-flop who is giving the tithe to whom. That's wrong. Malchi-tzedek is giving a 10th of the bread and wine to Abraham. It's a ritual. This is apparent by looking at the order of who is speaking and who is being spoken to. If you look back a verse Malchi-tzedek speaking to Abraham "He [ Malchi-tzedek ] blessed him [ Abraham ]". Malchi-tzedek first, Abraham second. Then this is consistently followed by "and he [ Malchi-tzedek ] gave him [ Abraham ] a tenth of all."

There is no anointing ceremony except in your imagination. You even left off the last part, why Abraham lifted up his hand to the Lord.
What a stupid thing to do, to bring our bread and wine to Abraham and his troops and then just give them a tenth of it.
And it is not as if the bread and wine was something that Melchizedek had gained from God.
What was gained by Abraham was tithed to the priest of the Most High God.

 

[PruePhillip]

First point - you cannot be part Jewish. You can have Jewish ancestry but that doesn't make you at all Jewish. While there is sometimes a biological aspect to Jewish identity, it is not exclusive or taken partially.
For the second, the desecration, desolation and exile are all part of the sad prophecy of what was to befall the Jewish people. It is serious punishment and we work, daily to bring it to an end.

When you go, get falafel from Moshikos on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem.

Quote - " get falafel from Moshikos on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem" I'll do that. Going to spend two or three days in Jerusalem.

 

[rosends]

Quote - " get falafel from Moshikos on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem" I'll do that. Going to spend two or three days in Jerusalem.

Great -- I'm not as much a fan of their schwarma (it isn't bad, but their falafel is my favorite). I also ask for a little spice on it. Not too spicy.

Yes, there are other places to see in Jerusalem, depending on what your priorities and agenda are (suggestions available upon request) but whenever i go, I make sure to get Moshikos and, at some point, a cup of fresh squeezed pomegranate juice from a stand, or a Rebar).

 

[PruePhillip]

Great -- I'm not as much a fan of their schwarma (it isn't bad, but their falafel is my favorite). I also ask for a little spice on it. Not too spicy.

Yes, there are other places to see in Jerusalem, depending on what your priorities and agenda are (suggestions available upon request) but whenever i go, I make sure to get Moshikos and, at some point, a cup of fresh squeezed pomegranate juice from a stand, or a Rebar).

So maybe you can tell us - if we get a hire car, can we drive from Galilee (or further north) down through the Jordan Valley to the Gulf of Aquaba?

 

[rosends]

So maybe you can tell us - if we get a hire car, can we drive from Galilee (or further north) down through the Jordan Valley to the Gulf of Aquaba?

I did a quick check of routes from Tzfat to Eilat

Safed to Eilat - 5 ways to travel via train, bus, and plane

The cheapest way to get from Safed to Eilat costs only $21, and the quickest way takes just 6½ hours. Find the travel option that best suits you.

www.rome2rio.com

Safed to Eilat

www.google.com

I don't know how much a Gett would cost but my guess is that it would be rather steep.

 

[PruePhillip]

I did a quick check of routes from Tzfat to Eilat

Safed to Eilat - 5 ways to travel via train, bus, and plane

The cheapest way to get from Safed to Eilat costs only $21, and the quickest way takes just 6½ hours. Find the travel option that best suits you.

www.rome2rio.com

Safed to Eilat

www.google.com

I don't know how much a Gett would cost but my guess is that it would be rather steep.

Thanks. Looks like this dodges one of the most interesting parts - the West Bank.

 

[dybmh]

There are times when Jesus is debating with the learned Jews, so I guess they had not read that mishna.

I'm not sure how learned they were. But, yes, you're right. The Rabbis would have known this, but not common people.

I know you see the Psalm completely differently and metaphorically. I don't want to argue that, debating weighs me down.

I thought we were talking about Isaiah 53. You had said that it didn't make sense for the suffering servant to be the nation Israel. I said it does in context. Then I copied and pasted the entire section, and replaced the servant with Israel, and the whole thing works fine. At least, I think it does. Then I thought you came back and said "if you say so". Which I thought meant that some part of the suffering servant passage doesn't work with Israel the nation. So I'm asking, is there some part of the passage that doesn't work? Here, I'll copy it into a spoiler so you can look at it if you want. Then maybe copy out the part or parts that don't work? Remember, these are the reasons that the Kings of the other nations have "shut there mouths" because "who would have believed" that this whole time the nation was suffering and had bore the sin of the other nations who were persecuting them.

Spoiler

Starting at Chapter 52

13 Behold ISRAEL shall prosper; ISRAEL shall be exalted and lifted up, and ISRAEL shall be very high.
14 As many wondered about ISRAEL, "How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!"
15 So shall ISRAEL cast down many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of ISRAEL, for, what had not been told them they saw, and [at] what they had not heard they gazed.
1 "Who would have believed our report, and to whom was ISRAEL revealed?" [ says the Kings ]
2 "And ISRAEL came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, ISRAEL had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw ISRAEL that ISRAEL had no appearance. Now shall we desire ISRAEL?" [ says the Kings ]
3 "Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held ISRAEL of no account." [ says the Kings ]
4 "Indeed, ISRAEL bore our illnesses, and our pains-ISRAEL carried them, yet we accounted ISRAEL as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed." [ says the Kings ]
5 "But ISRAEL was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon ISRAEL, and with ISRAEL's wound we were healed." [ says the Kings ]
6 "We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted ISRAEL's prayers for the iniquity of all of us." [ says the Kings ]
7 "ISRAEL was oppressed, and ISRAEL was afflicted, yet ISRAEL would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter ISRAEL would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and ISRAEL would not open his mouth." [ says the Kings ]
8 "From imprisonment and from judgment ISRAEL is taken, and ISRAEL's generation who shall tell? For ISRAEL was cut off from the HOLY LAND; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell ISRAEL." [ says the Kings ]
9 "And ISRAEL gave ISRAEL's grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because ISRAEL committed no violence, and there was no deceit in ISRAEL's mouth." [ says the Kings ]
10 "And the Lord wished to crush ISRAEL, THE LORD made ISRAEL ill; if ISRAEL's soul makes itself restitution, ISRAEL shall see children, THE LORD shall prolong ISRAEL's days, and God's purpose shall prosper in ISRAEL's hand." [ says the Kings ]
11 "From the toil of ISRAEL's soul ISRAEL would see, ISRAEL would be satisfied; with ISRAEL's knowledge ISRAEL would vindicate the just for many, and THE MANY's iniquities he would bear." [ says the Kings ]
12 "Therefore, I [ The Kings ] will allot ISRAEL a portion in public, and with the strong ISRAEL shall share plunder, because ISRAEL poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors ISRAEL was counted; and ISRAEL bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors." [ says the Kings ]

Then what does cutting short the days of his youth mean?

It's clarified in the rest of the verse. He was covered in shame. The king is knocked down, his youthful vigor has been taken before his time, before he grew old. This is typical of biblical poetry, the second half of the couplet clarifies the first.

God's firstborn inherits the nations (Psalm 2) and rules them.

We were talking about Psalm 89. I said it's your desire that the king in the psalms is killed by the Jews.

So is the prophetic perfect tense. Sitting on David's throne forever makes it a prophecy.

The point is, these prophecies have not ACTUALLY been fulfilled by Jesus. You're welcome to say, "He will when he returns". And I'm welcome to say "I'll believe it when I see it."

Basically it seems like Christians want to exaggerate the level of certainty of Jesus fufilling prophecies. Like I said before, there's only little drips and drops. And Christians have lowered their standards, taking a verse like Isa 9:6 and ignore the part that hasn't happened yet. If that builds your faith in God, I absolutley support it. But any attempt at saying "You don't know your own scriptures, look at all these obvious prophecies fulfilled. You're blind, Isaiah said so." is complete lunacy.

So the Jews have removed themselves two steps from Jesus. They are not Messianic Psalms AND Jesus did not do them anyway.

Jesus didn't do them is 100% correct. Whether or not they're messianic is, I think, debatable. Psalm 110, I do not think it's messianic.

But if they are Messianic Psalms then The Son, the firstborn, will do them when He returns from sitting on the right hand of God.

This is smooshing together concepts again. For example. Psalm 110 is written by King David. Psalm 89 is written by Ethan the Ezrahite. even if Ethan is a prophet, which I don't think he is, it wouldn't make sense to blend together snippets of those two psalms to try to manufacture a hidden prophecy.

There is no anointing ceremony except in your imagination. You even left off the last part, why Abraham lifted up his hand to the Lord.
What a stupid thing to do, to bring our bread and wine to Abraham and his troops and then just give them a tenth of it.
And it is not as if the bread and wine was something that Melchizedek had gained from God.
What was gained by Abraham was tithed to the priest of the Most High God.

1) It's an ordination, not an anointing.
2) Abraham says "I have lifted up my hand to the Lord..." Have lifted up. Past tense. He did it, and was sworn in. Just like you would see in a court of law.
3) The bread and wine was give to "him". Not them. Please go back and read the details. Malchi-tzedek didn't give the bread and wine to Abraham and his troops. Just Abraham.
4) Yes! The bread and wine was given by God! Bread and wine are miracles! They are deeply spiritual. That's why they are used in ritual to this very day! They've always been used in ritual. Long before Judaism was established. Look it up!
5) You need to ask what is gained by being ordained as a priest to the most high God? Seriously?

 

[dybmh]

The elders in Jerusalem were the Christian elders in Jerusalem, and the decisions Paul delivered can be seen in Acts 15.

Oh come on, that's silly. If that was true, then these Christian elders would not have sent Jesus to pilates. Jesus would have anointed as king. The ENTIRE story would be different. You're making things up now.

Yes that sounds right.

If so, then Christians who have accepted this New Covenant, and have the law written on their hearts, but still sin do so willingly and knowingly. They know the rules, know the consequences, and toss those aside? I can't believe that. You said you still sin. You do this knowingly? These have become intentional sins?

It looks like a difference in translation issue. Melchizedek did not make a speech, so what sort of translation is Chabad when it says "speech of Melchizedek".
The Christian translations mean "like Melchizedek".

He did make a speech. He blessed Abraham. Yes, there's a major translation issue. Do you know how many times in the book of Psalms one thing is compared to another? One thing is "like" another thing so so many times. The famous example in Torah, of course, is one you know by heart. Love your neighbor like yourself. "Like" is designated in Hebrew as a prefix with the letter "כ". Every single example I found of "like" in Psalms follows this convention. The word is the Psalm is דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י. That's root "דבר". That is overwhelmingly "speech", specifically it's harsh speaking, like a command. In the form of דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י. It exists in that form 82 times. I spot checked and they are ALL speech/spoken. None of them are comparing "in the manner of". None. The closest example chronologically is Psalms 39:4. And yes, Psalm 34 is written by King David. Psalm 110 and Psalm 39 written by the same author, using the same word, spelled the exact same way, and somehow would not use the "כ", like they did in every other example? no.

​

חַם־לִבִּי בְּקִרְבִּי בַּֽהֲגִיגִי תִבְעַר־אֵשׁ דִּבַּרְתִּי בִּלְשֽׁוֹנִי׃​

My heart was hot within me; while I was musing the fire burned; then I spoke with my tongue,​

I went to the LXX to look it up. Are you familiar? This is a greek translation before Christ, before anyone would have motive to change the translation pushing away Jesus. Before the vowels were added back to the text ( some people complain about this ). The word used there is τάξιν.





Now. It can mean "in the manner of", it's 7th definition. But that's never once how it's used in the entire greek translation of Tanach.

So you would only accept it if Jesus was killed by a Levite High Priest on the altar in the Temple etc? Is that what you are saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if the verses are read in isolation, something strange is happening. I'm not sure what that would be. I could guess, but I'm not going to. However, I CAN tell you what it's not. It's not a sacrifice that atones for sin as defined in the Hebrew bible. A person should not depend on it for that. Not based on Torah. If they want to look elsewhere, and they have confidence in that source. Then I wish them all the best as long as they do no harm to themselves or others. This whole idea that there is a magical free-pass for any one to do anything with zero consequences is one of the worst ideas anyone has ever conjured up. And I mean that literally.

If you are going literally by the metaphor of the shearers then you want God to be one of those who was killing Jesus.

No. All I can say is go read the Psalms if you want to understand what I think is going on with this IF, big IF, it's read in isolation out of context.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not sure how learned they were. But, yes, you're right. The Rabbis would have known this, but not common people.

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yohanan seem to have been after Jesus time and their teachings would not be known by the teachers of the Law etc who were disputing with Jesus.
Maybe that teaching came because of the late 1st century intolerance that I hear existed amongst the Jews and which I am told was the reason for the Temple destruction etc.

I thought we were talking about Isaiah 53. You had said that it didn't make sense for the suffering servant to be the nation Israel. I said it does in context. Then I copied and pasted the entire section, and replaced the servant with Israel, and the whole thing works fine. At least, I think it does. Then I thought you came back and said "if you say so". Which I thought meant that some part of the suffering servant passage doesn't work with Israel the nation. So I'm asking, is there some part of the passage that doesn't work? Here, I'll copy it into a spoiler so you can look at it if you want. Then maybe copy out the part or parts that don't work? Remember, these are the reasons that the Kings of the other nations have "shut there mouths" because "who would have believed" that this whole time the nation was suffering and had bore the sin of the other nations who were persecuting them.

Spoiler

Starting at Chapter 52

13 Behold ISRAEL shall prosper; ISRAEL shall be exalted and lifted up, and ISRAEL shall be very high.
14 As many wondered about ISRAEL, "How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!"
15 So shall ISRAEL cast down many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of ISRAEL, for, what had not been told them they saw, and [at] what they had not heard they gazed.
1 "Who would have believed our report, and to whom was ISRAEL revealed?" [ says the Kings ]
2 "And ISRAEL came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, ISRAEL had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw ISRAEL that ISRAEL had no appearance. Now shall we desire ISRAEL?" [ says the Kings ]
3 "Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held ISRAEL of no account." [ says the Kings ]
4 "Indeed, ISRAEL bore our illnesses, and our pains-ISRAEL carried them, yet we accounted ISRAEL as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed." [ says the Kings ]
5 "But ISRAEL was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon ISRAEL, and with ISRAEL's wound we were healed." [ says the Kings ]
6 "We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted ISRAEL's prayers for the iniquity of all of us." [ says the Kings ]
7 "ISRAEL was oppressed, and ISRAEL was afflicted, yet ISRAEL would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter ISRAEL would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and ISRAEL would not open his mouth." [ says the Kings ]
8 "From imprisonment and from judgment ISRAEL is taken, and ISRAEL's generation who shall tell? For ISRAEL was cut off from the HOLY LAND; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell ISRAEL." [ says the Kings ]
9 "And ISRAEL gave ISRAEL's grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because ISRAEL committed no violence, and there was no deceit in ISRAEL's mouth." [ says the Kings ]
10 "And the Lord wished to crush ISRAEL, THE LORD made ISRAEL ill; if ISRAEL's soul makes itself restitution, ISRAEL shall see children, THE LORD shall prolong ISRAEL's days, and God's purpose shall prosper in ISRAEL's hand." [ says the Kings ]
11 "From the toil of ISRAEL's soul ISRAEL would see, ISRAEL would be satisfied; with ISRAEL's knowledge ISRAEL would vindicate the just for many, and THE MANY's iniquities he would bear." [ says the Kings ]
12 "Therefore, I [ The Kings ] will allot ISRAEL a portion in public, and with the strong ISRAEL shall share plunder, because ISRAEL poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors ISRAEL was counted; and ISRAEL bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors." [ says the Kings ]

Verse 4 has been called Messianic by Jews and other parts also. The passage was seen as Messianic it seems till Rashi and his interpretation.
I have highlighted parts what are questionable imo esp if atonement was meant. But of course the current interpretation is not of atonement but of Israel bearing iniquity by suffering under the iniquity of the nations.
Is there anything wrong with what this site says about Isa 52,53?

Who’s the Subject of Isaiah 53? - Jews for Jesus

It’s been a controversial passage within the Jewish community for centuries. Does it speak of the Messiah (and Yeshua)? Or is it about Israel?

jewsforjesus.org

It's clarified in the rest of the verse. He was covered in shame. The king is knocked down, his youthful vigor has been taken before his time, before he grew old. This is typical of biblical poetry, the second half of the couplet clarifies the first.

Thanks for that. I have misunderstood all this time.
It must have been serious for the prophet to wonder how long God's wrath would burn like fire. (verse 46)

We were talking about Psalm 89. I said it's your desire that the king in the psalms is killed by the Jews.

Nevertheless the one in Psalm 89, the Son who is appointed to be the firstborn of God is the one who inherits the nations (as does the Son in Psalm 2)
He is the one sitting on the throne of David. (they both are since they both are the same person, King Messiah.

The point is, these prophecies have not ACTUALLY been fulfilled by Jesus. You're welcome to say, "He will when he returns". And I'm welcome to say "I'll believe it when I see it."

Basically it seems like Christians want to exaggerate the level of certainty of Jesus fufilling prophecies. Like I said before, there's only little drips and drops. And Christians have lowered their standards, taking a verse like Isa 9:6 and ignore the part that hasn't happened yet. If that builds your faith in God, I absolutley support it. But any attempt at saying "You don't know your own scriptures, look at all these obvious prophecies fulfilled. You're blind, Isaiah said so." is complete lunacy.

So the one who sits on the throne of David forever is not the King Messiah and you are happy to ignore that part of the passage for the sake of it not being Messianic.
Nevertheless there is the passage which shows Isaiah appointed to close the ears and eyes of the Jews and Jesus said something similar and there are other passages.
Jer 5:21“Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear.

Isa 43:5 Do not be afraid, for I am with you;
I will bring your children from the east
and gather you from the west.
6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’
and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’
Bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the ends of the earth—
7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.”
8 Lead out those who have eyes but are blind,
who have ears but are deaf.

(this last one sounds like what will happen in the last days)

I don't want to say this to ridicule you. This is not my Word, this is from God. I would guess that it is not what you said,,,,, "complete lunacy".

This is smooshing together concepts again. For example. Psalm 110 is written by King David. Psalm 89 is written by Ethan the Ezrahite. even if Ethan is a prophet, which I don't think he is, it wouldn't make sense to blend together snippets of those two psalms to try to manufacture a hidden prophecy.

It does not matter who wrote them, they are from God and the one in Psalm 2 is God's Son who inherits the nations and rules them and the one in Psalm 89 calls God his Father and is appointed to be God's firstborn (the heir) and is higher than earthly Kings and a few other similarities I'm sure. But you're the Jew so you know your scriptures and which ones are Messianic.

1) It's an ordination, not an anointing.
2) Abraham says "I have lifted up my hand to the Lord..." Have lifted up. Past tense. He did it, and was sworn in. Just like you would see in a court of law.
3) The bread and wine was give to "him". Not them. Please go back and read the details. Malchi-tzedek didn't give the bread and wine to Abraham and his troops. Just Abraham.
4) Yes! The bread and wine was given by God! Bread and wine are miracles! They are deeply spiritual. That's why they are used in ritual to this very day! They've always been used in ritual. Long before Judaism was established. Look it up!
5) You need to ask what is gained by being ordained as a priest to the most high God? Seriously?

Genesis 14:17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

There are a couple of places that look ambiguous, however, Abrham had (past tense) lifted up his hand and promised God something. (see verse 22,23)
That is not Abraham repeating anything Melchizedek said and is not part of an ordination ceremony imo
If you think that Psalm 110 is a decree for Abraham then there still is no part of a speech of Melchizedek which indicates ordination.
The bread and wine are interesting but I don't know why Melchizedek would tithe them to Abraham. To me it looks like Abraham tithed the goods and Melchizedek said to keep the goods but then Abraham said that he had promised God not only to take from Melchizedek what was rightly his, Abraham's. So Abraham Tithed and took also what belonged to his fighters.
But as I said the bread and wine is interesting in a Jesus connection as Jesus also gave us bread and wine to remember His death and the New Covenant in His name.

 

[101G]

But as I said the bread and wine is interesting in a Jesus connection as Jesus also gave us bread and wine to remember His death and the New Covenant in His name.

Jesus is the bread that come down from heaven, and his Blood is for the New covenant,

101G

 

[101G]

AS the Topic states, "Isaiah 53 and Human Sin". which is on point. Sin is the bondage that held God people. not any physical oppression by the Romans. no, what held God people captive was their own individual sins. even if the Roman army was defeated, they would still DIE. what God did was delivered them from DEATH and DESTRUCTION of SIN. for if one even DIE physically he or her will be given ETERNAL life for ever more. this is the deliverance that God did, not from temporal freedom, but ETERNAL FREEDOM. John 8:36 "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."

sacrificing at a temple want make you free. yes "ye are gods", but as the very next verse in the Psalms says it all, Psalms 82:7 "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."

what a shame, gain the whole world, yet lose your soul. .... for what? worldly FREEDOM? and yet die.
101G.

 

[Brian2]

Oh come on, that's silly. If that was true, then these Christian elders would not have sent Jesus to pilates. Jesus would have anointed as king. The ENTIRE story would be different. You're making things up now.

Acts 15 is some time after the death of Jesus. It is after the Christian Church is established and is spreading outside Jerusalem and Israel. Some Jewish Christians want the Gentile believers to have to be circumcised and obey the Law and the question is brought to the Christian leaders and elders in Jerusalem and Acts 15 is about that and gives the decision of what is known as the Council of Jerusalem.

If so, then Christians who have accepted this New Covenant, and have the law written on their hearts, but still sin do so willingly and knowingly. They know the rules, know the consequences, and toss those aside? I can't believe that. You said you still sin. You do this knowingly? These have become intentional sins?

Are you saying that you only sin accidentally?
Having the Holy Spirit as a guide is partly to teach us the ways of God so that we are gradually changed to become more like Jesus. It does not happen straight away but we remain in the New Covenant and with God's forgiveness and He knows us and whether we are sincere or not.

He did make a speech. He blessed Abraham. Yes, there's a major translation issue. Do you know how many times in the book of Psalms one thing is compared to another? One thing is "like" another thing so so many times. The famous example in Torah, of course, is one you know by heart. Love your neighbor like yourself. "Like" is designated in Hebrew as a prefix with the letter "כ". Every single example I found of "like" in Psalms follows this convention. The word is the Psalm is דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י. That's root "דבר". That is overwhelmingly "speech", specifically it's harsh speaking, like a command. In the form of דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י. It exists in that form 82 times. I spot checked and they are ALL speech/spoken. None of them are comparing "in the manner of". None. The closest example chronologically is Psalms 39:4. And yes, Psalm 34 is written by King David. Psalm 110 and Psalm 39 written by the same author, using the same word, spelled the exact same way, and somehow would not use the "כ", like they did in every other example? no.

​

חַם־לִבִּי בְּקִרְבִּי בַּֽהֲגִיגִי תִבְעַר־אֵשׁ דִּבַּרְתִּי בִּלְשֽׁוֹנִי׃​

My heart was hot within me; while I was musing the fire burned; then I spoke with my tongue,​

I have "dibra" at Psalm 110:4. This is translated: cause, sake, intent, order, estate, end, regard.
It occurs 7 times (Job 5:8, Psalm 110:4, Eccl 3:18, 7:14, 8:2, Dan 2:30, 4:17)

I went to the LXX to look it up. Are you familiar? This is a greek translation before Christ, before anyone would have motive to change the translation pushing away Jesus. Before the vowels were added back to the text ( some people complain about this ). The word used there is τάξιν.

View attachment 75855

View attachment 75856

Now. It can mean "in the manner of", it's 7th definition. But that's never once how it's used in the entire greek translation of Tanach.

The Septuagint word is used in the New Testament too and means arrangement, disposition, series, proper order, rank, quality, character. It has nothing to do with speech. It is used about Melchizedek with the meaning rank, quality character. This can be seen below in Heb 7:11 where it is used twice to indicate the rank and quality of Melchizedek priesthood above Aaronic priesthood. The Aaronic one was not promised to be forever and did not include Kingship in the office.
Heb 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if the verses are read in isolation, something strange is happening. I'm not sure what that would be. I could guess, but I'm not going to. However, I CAN tell you what it's not. It's not a sacrifice that atones for sin as defined in the Hebrew bible. A person should not depend on it for that. Not based on Torah. If they want to look elsewhere, and they have confidence in that source. Then I wish them all the best as long as they do no harm to themselves or others. This whole idea that there is a magical free-pass for any one to do anything with zero consequences is one of the worst ideas anyone has ever conjured up. And I mean that literally.

Yet according to Christians and to many ancient Jewish Rabbis Isa 53 is about atonement.
But it is a big mistake to think that there is a magical free pass for anyone to do anything with zero consequences. That is like me saying that the atonement sacrifices in the Law are a magical pass so that people can do what they want with zero consequences.
God is not fooled if people do that. He judges the Jews who did that and judges Christians who do a similar sort of thing.
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

No. All I can say is go read the Psalms if you want to understand what I think is going on with this IF, big IF, it's read in isolation out of context.

Not only are you reading it and making God one of the shearers (killers) of Jesus but you are reading it as if Jesus is accusing God of something.

 

[dybmh]

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yohanan seem to have been after Jesus time and their teachings would not be known by the teachers of the Law etc who were disputing with Jesus.
Maybe that teaching came because of the late 1st century intolerance that I hear existed amongst the Jews and which I am told was the reason for the Temple destruction etc.

This is an oral tradition which was compiled and written after Jesus but was taught teacher to student since it was given at Sinai.

Verse 4 has been called Messianic by Jews and other parts also. The passage was seen as Messianic it seems till Rashi and his interpretation.
I have highlighted parts what are questionable imo esp if atonement was meant. But of course the current interpretation is not of atonement but of Israel bearing iniquity by suffering under the iniquity of the nations.
Is there anything wrong with what this site says about Isa 52,53?

Who’s the Subject of Isaiah 53? - Jews for Jesus

It’s been a controversial passage within the Jewish community for centuries. Does it speak of the Messiah (and Yeshua)? Or is it about Israel?

jewsforjesus.org

First, which parts have you highlighted which are questionable? I don't see that? ( and just to be clear, I'm asking about which parts of Isa 52-53 do not work with Israel as the servant? )

Second, the issue is not that Isa 53 can't be messianic, the issue is it can't be Jesus because of verse 7.

Third, you asked if there's anything wrong with the J4J analysis. The answer is yes. There's two types of lies. There's lying by omission, and there's literal false words. The article contains both. Perhaps unintentional, which wouldn't make them lies, but there's problems none the less. There is truth in there, but it's mixed with untruth, and they're not giving you all the info you need to make an informed judgement.

Thanks for that. I have misunderstood all this time.
It must have been serious for the prophet to wonder how long God's wrath would burn like fire. (verse 46)

Yup! Super serious.

Nevertheless the one in Psalm 89, the Son who is appointed to be the firstborn of God is the one who inherits the nations (as does the Son in Psalm 2)
He is the one sitting on the throne of David. (they both are since they both are the same person, King Messiah.

Unless it's happening at the end of days, I'm not sure why it's relevant.

So the one who sits on the throne of David forever is not the King Messiah and you are happy to ignore that part of the passage for the sake of it not being Messianic.

All aspects of the prophecy are important in order for it to be fulfilled. Here, let me give you an example.

I predict that you will go to sleep, wake up, eat breakfast of eggs and toast. Am I prophet if I get the first 3 correct but fail at the end? If you have pancakes, did you fulfill the prophecy?

Nevertheless there is the passage which shows Isaiah appointed to close the ears and eyes of the Jews and Jesus said something similar and there are other passages.
Jer 5:21“Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear.

Isa 43:5 Do not be afraid, for I am with you;
I will bring your children from the east
and gather you from the west.
6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’
and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’
Bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the ends of the earth—
7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.”
8 Lead out those who have eyes but are blind,
who have ears but are deaf.

(this last one sounds like what will happen in the last days)

I don't want to say this to ridicule you. This is not my Word, this is from God. I would guess that it is not what you said,,,,, "complete lunacy".

It's lunacy because that was then, and this is now. So much has changed since then. Can you find any Jews who are worshipping idols? There are a few, but they're the fringiest of the fringe. The prophets were talking about the entire nation falling apart, and we are not doing those things anymore.

It's lunacy because we are talking about Hebrew prophecy, and the Christian always look at less and is seeing less, and the Jewish eyes are always looking at more and seeing more. Jewish eyes are open, Christian eyes are squinting reading through their eyelashes at blurry words. The best example of this is Zech 12:10 where all that matters is the word "pierced" and the word "mourn" and the word "firstborn", and the Christian eyes are closed to every single other detail including that this hasn't happened yet. So someone comes to me, with their eyes mostly closed and says, "you're blind BECAUSE you're reading the rest of the words in the verse, and on the page, and in the chapter, and int he book" THAT is lunacy. "You're blind, because you won't close your eyes like me" is insane.

It does not matter who wrote them, they are from God and the one in Psalm 2 is God's Son who inherits the nations and rules them and the one in Psalm 89 calls God his Father and is appointed to be God's firstborn (the heir) and is higher than earthly Kings and a few other similarities I'm sure. But you're the Jew so you know your scriptures and which ones are Messianic.

Of course it matters who wrote them. Listen to what you;re saying. It matters because Psalm 89 wasn't written by a prophet. If the author isn't a prophet then it's poetry not prophecy. It's not "from God". Elevating something to word of God status without just cause is obviously a problem.

Genesis 14:17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Thank you for quoting the verses so that I can read what you're reading. Sincerely.

There are a couple of places that look ambiguous, however, Abrham had (past tense) lifted up his hand and promised God something. (see verse 22,23)
That is not Abraham repeating anything Melchizedek said and is not part of an ordination ceremony imo

I disagree that it's not an ordination. He has received a blessing, and has raised his hand and sworn on the same god with the same title with the same words. There's an exchange of bread and wine in a specific amount. This is a ritual.

If you think that Psalm 110 is a decree for Abraham then there still is no part of a speech of Melchizedek which indicates ordination.

By the speech of Malchi-tzedek, is literally by the words of Malchi-tzedek.

The bread and wine are interesting but I don't know why Melchizedek would tithe them to Abraham.

Because he just did them a solid favor by conquering those other kings. 4 kings had all massed against Sodom. Abraham swooped in and saved the day.

To me it looks like Abraham tithed the goods

Where? What goods? Verse 20 is where the tithe is given and accepted. Then verse 21 comes next where there is a dispute about the spoils.

and Melchizedek said to keep the goods but then Abraham said that he had promised God not only to take from Melchizedek what was rightly his, Abraham's.

Oooooh. I think see the problem. Malchi-tzedek is not the king of Sodom. They're two different people. Malchi-tzedek is the king of Salem. Bera is the King of Sodom. Malchi-tzedek of Salem gives the tithe to Abraham in verse 20. Then Bera of Sodom negotiates about the spoils in verse 21. Take a look at the beginning of the chapter to confirm.

 

[dybmh]

Acts 15 is some time after the death of Jesus. It is after the Christian Church is established and is spreading outside Jerusalem and Israel. Some Jewish Christians want the Gentile believers to have to be circumcised and obey the Law and the question is brought to the Christian leaders and elders in Jerusalem and Acts 15 is about that and gives the decision of what is known as the Council of Jerusalem.

I looked it up, The Council spoke of a different law for Gentiles. Different. And then in Acts 16 a Jewish boy was circumcised showing that there is a different law for Jew and non-Jew. Then, in Acts 22 Paul says:

​

Then Paul declared, “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but raised in this city. I was educated at the feet of Gamaliel in strict conformity to the law of our fathers. I am just as zealous for God as any of you here today.​

​

He claims to be zealous for the strict conformity of the law of the Sanhedrin. Is Paul lying?

Are you saying that you only sin accidentally?

Pretty much. In order to knowingly sin, a person needs to know the rules completely, know the consequences fully. I don't know all the rules completely, nor do I know their actual consequences. I have an idea, based on what's written in the Torah and Tanach but I don't *know* it. Knowing is whole different level, especially if it is written on the heart.

So, this covenant written in Jeremiah wasn't given to you or any non-Jew, and it seems like you don't know what it means, and it certainly hasn't happened yet.

Having the Holy Spirit as a guide is partly to teach us the ways of God so that we are gradually changed to become more like Jesus. It does not happen straight away but we remain in the New Covenant and with God's forgiveness and He knows us and whether we are sincere or not.

See? You're not even talking about what's written in Jeremiah. You're talking about the Christian Holy Spirit. If you simply stick to the Christian bible, it all makes sense. Going backwards makes no sense.

I have "dibra" at Psalm 110:4. This is translated: cause, sake, intent, order, estate, end, regard.
It occurs 7 times (Job 5:8, Psalm 110:4, Eccl 3:18, 7:14, 8:2, Dan 2:30, 4:17)

Wow. It's like one of the most common words in the entire Tanach and you only found 7 occurances. Something's wrong with your search. And I already showed you Psalms 39:4. It's the exact same word, the exact same spelling, but somehow your search skipped that one? Something's definitely wrong.

But let's look at these examples:

Job 5:8

I would seek God, and to God would I commit my cause;​

​

It's not "in the manner of".

Eccl 3:18

​

I said in my heart concerning the sons of men, that God is testing them, that they might see that they are but beasts.​

​

It's not "in the manner of".

Eccl. 7:14

In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider; God has made the one as well as the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.​

It's not "in the manner of".

Eccl 8:2

I keep the king’s commandment, and in the manner of an oath of God.​

You got one! Hmmm... "... in the manner of an oath ... " It's a "king's commandment". That's the context. Are you seeing the similarity to Psalm 110:4? Let's look at it in the LXX:



It's pretty weird. In Psalms 110:4 they are able to convey the idea with a single word coming from "I order / I arrange". Here they need to use several words. Hmmmmmmm. At least it has something to do with speaking. And it has something to do with a command. That part is consistent. Let's keep going.

Daniel 2:30

But as for me, this mystery is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but in order that the meaning shall be made known to the king, and that you might know the thoughts of your heart.​

It's not "in the manner of".

Daniel 4:17 ( 4:14 in the Hebrew bible )

This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will will, and sets up over it the lowliest of men.​

It's not "in the manner of". AND it is a decree.

​

OK! So there is 1 example, where maybe its "in the manner of". BUT! It's "in the manner of an oath" a command made by a King. And there's many many verses where the word is used as speaking, or spoken word. And the closest example is in Psalms. The same author using the same word. In order to make any sort of connection we need to go to a different author a different book. Let's look at the two verses together.

Psalms 110:4

נִשְׁבַּע יְהֹוָה וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם אַתָּֽה־כֹהֵן לְעוֹלָם עַל־דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק׃​

The Lord has sworn, and will not change his mind, You are a priest for ever, עַל־דִּבְרָתִי of Melchizedek.​

Eccl 8:2

​

אֲנִי פִּי־מֶלֶךְ שְׁמוֹר וְעַל דִּבְרַת שְׁבוּעַת אֱלֹהִֽים׃​

​

I keep the king’s commandment, and עַל דִּבְרַת of an oath of God.​

I mean... I guess it could be "in the manner of". But it also could be "by decree". The context in both verses is a divine command. "The Lord has sworn..." "... an oath of God." Technically literally, the word/phrase in Psalm 110 is "al-deevratee". The vowels are different in Eccl. You can kind of see that if you zoom in. The "ee" at the end means "my". You can see this plenty of times in Isaiah as the term "my servant". Anyway, if we put all that together, the verse would be, more accurately: "The Lord has sworn, and will not change his mind, You are a priest for ever, by my decree, of Melchizedek." Which would mean, it's the Lord that ordained the priest, whomever that is.

Either way, "in the manner of" has virtually no support at all in the Hebrew bible. And there is so much more support for some sort of "command/order".

The Septuagint word is used in the New Testament too and means arrangement, disposition, series, proper order, rank, quality, character. It has nothing to do with speech. It is used about Melchizedek with the meaning rank, quality character. This can be seen below in Heb 7:11 where it is used twice to indicate the rank and quality of Melchizedek priesthood above Aaronic priesthood. The Aaronic one was not promised to be forever and did not include Kingship in the office.

First of all, it's not used at all in Gospels excluding one time in Luke where it is a military division / arrangement. Not "in the manner of". Second, the only times it's used other than that is by the author of Hebrews where they are changing the defintion of the word based on an idea that Malchi-tzedek is somehow immortal. It's a ridiculous idea.

Heb 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

Because they do different things.

Yet according to Christians and to many ancient Jewish Rabbis Isa 53 is about atonement.

Not atonement. Intercession is not atonement. Different concepts are being smooshed.

But it is a big mistake to think that there is a magical free pass for anyone to do anything with zero consequences. That is like me saying that the atonement sacrifices in the Law are a magical pass so that people can do what they want with zero consequences.

Agreed! Then whatever Jesus did was not a once and for all sacrifice for sin.

Not only are you reading it and making God one of the shearers (killers) of Jesus but you are reading it as if Jesus is accusing God of something.

Not at all. I recommend reading Psalms. The whole book. In order. Repeatedly. And ideally from a good Jewish translation.

I love-love this one. It's spendy, but totally worth it if a person is doing Psalms daily with the intention to do the whole book. I've done it multiple times myself, doing 5 a day is easy.

https://a.co/d/ewRseZl <<< it's an amazon link

 

[101G]

In understanding Isaiah 53, the KEY verse is verse 1. Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?"


John 12:37 "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:" John 12:38 "That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" (this was referring to the Lord Jesus). John 12:39 "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again," John 12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." John 12:41 "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him."

when did Isaiah see his, THE "Lord" Jesus glory? Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple." Isaiah 6:2 "Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." Isaiah 6:3 "And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Isaiah 6:4 "And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke." Isaiah 6:5 "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." Isaiah 6:6 "Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:"

John made it clear that it was the Lord Jesus who Isaiah spoke of in Isaiah chapter 53. this is clear as day.

101G.