Isaiah says God will kill Jesus?

[Ebionite]

God was happy with Jesus and also in pain that his beloved faithful son was hurt.

Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise[דכאו] him; he hath put [him] to grief[החלי]: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of YHWH shall prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:10

From this verse there is the idea of oppression causing grief. It's more suggestive of emotional stress eg at the garden of Gethsemene than of physical injury.

From Strongs:

דכאו: beat to pieces, break in pieces, bruise, contrite, crush, destroy, humble, oppress
החלי: (figuratively) to be weak, sick, afflicted; or (causatively) to grieve, make sick;

The parallel target from Zechariah 13:7 relates to the two fates of Judas - hanging himself vs falling headlong and disembowelling himself.

The devil used the snake possibly to convince her that she was good enough to be like God. However he did it, she thought the serpent was talking to her. She did not know the Devil was using the serpent to communicate with her. Otherwise she might have thought differently and realize she was being used by the deceiver.

There's no mention of any devil in Genesis. The serpent of the garden was described as being crafty or shrewd rather than diabolical.

 

[YoursTrue]

And? So what is it?

Oh brother. Goodbye.

Can you explain righteous?

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not my belief. That is standard scientific taxonomy.

Do you agree with that standard?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise[דכאו] him; he hath put [him] to grief[החלי]: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of YHWH shall prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:10

From this verse there is the idea of oppression causing grief. It's more suggestive of emotional stress eg at the garden of Gethsemene than of physical injury.

From Strongs:

דכאו: beat to pieces, break in pieces, bruise, contrite, crush, destroy, humble, oppress
החלי: (figuratively) to be weak, sick, afflicted; or (causatively) to grieve, make sick;

The parallel target from Zechariah 13:7 relates to the two fates of Judas - hanging himself vs falling headlong and disembowelling himself.


There's no mention of any devil in Genesis. The serpent of the garden was described as being crafty or shrewd rather than diabolical.

No there was not a mention of the devil in that encounter, it was noted later that it was the Devil.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise[דכאו] him; he hath put [him] to grief[החלי]: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of YHWH shall prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:10

From this verse there is the idea of oppression causing grief. It's more suggestive of emotional stress eg at the garden of Gethsemene than of physical injury.

From Strongs:

דכאו: beat to pieces, break in pieces, bruise, contrite, crush, destroy, humble, oppress
החלי: (figuratively) to be weak, sick, afflicted; or (causatively) to grieve, make sick;

The parallel target from Zechariah 13:7 relates to the two fates of Judas - hanging himself vs falling headlong and disembowelling himself.


There's no mention of any devil in Genesis. The serpent of the garden was described as being crafty or shrewd rather than diabolical.

You can go there if you want, but certainly the one that spoke to Eve suggested she would do well if she ate from the tree that GOD told Adam to not eat from.

 

[Ebionite]

No there was not a mention of the devil in that encounter, it was noted later that it was the Devil.

Interpretations made from a later time may draw from assumptions that don't hold true for the original text. For Christianity the usual assumption is that the devil and the adversary are one and the same.

You can go there if you want, but certainly the one that spoke to Eve suggested she would do well if she ate from the tree that GOD told Adam to not eat from.

Technically it wasn't a lie, but it was like telling a child to go and play with a loaded gun.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise[דכאו] him; he hath put [him] to grief[החלי]: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of YHWH shall prosper in his hand.
Isaiah 53:10

From this verse there is the idea of oppression causing grief. It's more suggestive of emotional stress eg at the garden of Gethsemene than of physical injury.

From Strongs:

דכאו: beat to pieces, break in pieces, bruise, contrite, crush, destroy, humble, oppress
החלי: (figuratively) to be weak, sick, afflicted; or (causatively) to grieve, make sick;

The parallel target from Zechariah 13:7 relates to the two fates of Judas - hanging himself vs falling headlong and disembowelling himself.


There's no mention of any devil in Genesis. The serpent of the garden was described as being crafty or shrewd rather than diabolical.

I don't

Interpretations made from a later time may draw from assumptions that don't hold true for the original text. For Christianity the usual assumption is that the devil and the adversary are one and the same.


Technically it wasn't a lie, but it was like telling a child to go and play with a loaded gun.

The Devil working through the serpent is, as it is said, crafty.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to understant that HaSatan, the adversary, is not the same in Judaism as it is in your faith. There are two general approaches by Jews. The first is to see Satan as simply a metaphor for our own yetzer hara, inclination to evil. The second view is that he is an angel with an awful job, but he is basically God's employee. In Judaism, angels have no free will and so there was never any angel rebellion.

You say two. Not three approaches?

 

[YoursTrue]

Interpretations made from a later time may draw from assumptions that don't hold true for the original text. For Christianity the usual assumption is that the devil and the adversary are one and the same.


Technically it wasn't a lie, but it was like telling a child to go and play with a loaded gun.

It was not an assumption. The devil in the guise of a serpent (using the serpent) told her that she would not die. That was a lie. And naysayers want to say oh no she didn't die that day. But in essence she began the dying process with no return the day she disobeyed God. He caused her to die the day she ate from that tree. It's like the death penalty with no reverse was imposed on her that day.

 

[Ebionite]

It was not an assumption.

So what's the basis for your claim?

The devil in the guise of a serpent (using the serpent) told her that she would not die.

No, the serpent told Eve that she would not surely die, i.e. that there was a possibility that she would live.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You say two. Not three approaches?

Those are the two approaches that I am aware of.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you agree with that standard?

Why wouldn't I, since it is the consensus of the experts?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Can you explain righteous?

The dividing line between the righteous and the wicked, is that the rightous repent when they sin, and the wicked do not.

Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falleth seven times, and riseth up again, But the wicked stumble under adversity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why wouldn't I, since it is the consensus of the experts?

OK, I was just wondering. I believe what Genesis says. It puts animals in a different category than Adam and Eve. But it's your belief that you think the "consensus of experts" to be correct. I do not because I believe the Bible, but I do hope you have a good day and I await the foretold future.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what's the basis for your claim?


No, the serpent told Eve that she would not surely die, i.e. that there was a possibility that she would live.

It depends what translation you're using, and really there is no argument because the serpent told her she would not die, what you are saying as to interpretation doesn't make sense and not all translations say that she would not surely die. Anyway, I wish you well, hope things go well for you. I continue looking forward to God's promise of everlasting life in wonderful conditions. Take care.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK, I was just wondering. I believe what Genesis says. It puts animals in a different category than Adam and Eve. But it's your belief that you think the "consensus of experts" to be correct. I do not because I believe the Bible, but I do hope you have a good day and I await the foretold future.

It is logical to appeal to authority when the experts are in agreement. Thus in the case of whether humans are animals, where we do have a consensus, it is irrational to believe otherwise.

And BTW I know plenty of Christians who would agree that humans are a type of animal, even with Genesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is logical to appeal to authority when the experts are in agreement. Thus in the case of whether humans are animals, where we do have a consensus, it is irrational to believe otherwise.

And BTW I know plenty of Christians who would agree that humans are a type of animal, even with Genesis.

I'm sure you know many who call themselves Christian who would agree that humans are a type of animal. There are those who call themselves Jewish or Christian who do not believe the accounts in Genesis either.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is logical to appeal to authority when the experts are in agreement. Thus in the case of whether humans are animals, where we do have a consensus, it is irrational to believe otherwise.

And BTW I know plenty of Christians who would agree that humans are a type of animal, even with Genesis.

Meantime, we die. And many believe this is the outcome of what is considered evolution. Perhaps you believe that also. I no longer do. I believe the Bible, not always what religious leaders or people may claim, or what scientists presume or conjecture what happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is logical to appeal to authority when the experts are in agreement. Thus in the case of whether humans are animals, where we do have a consensus, it is irrational to believe otherwise.

And BTW I know plenty of Christians who would agree that humans are a type of animal, even with Genesis.

So? You probably believe that the account in Exodus of Moses and Pharaoh and the Jews and Egyptians is not accurate and true, many say it's a myth. That proves nothing to me now. I look forward to the fulfillment of the prophecies. Have a good one and I hope the best for you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm sure you know many who call themselves Christian who would agree that humans are a type of animal. There are those who call themselves Jewish or Christian who do not believe the accounts in Genesis either.

Right. Like me. I know that Genesis 1 is a creation myth. I have no need to force it to be history or science.