Judaism vs Christianity: Second Coming of Messiah

[Brian2]

Which should be proof enough that it isn't about one Jew, as God already came out clearly against vicarious and human sacrifice. Of course, if you read from before 53 (the chapter breaks are artificial and a late addition) you would understand WHO is speaking and why that person's assessment and point of view taints you reading)

How does the identity of the one speaking change the identity of the Servant?

No, there are rabbis who were of the opinion that certain ideas within 53 can be seen as ALSO messianic in their hints. And can you show me one who says that 53 points to vicarious sin atonement?

I have seen quotes and it looks as if the Rabbis are identifying the servant as the Messiah.

Well, he didn't mention Jesus and did mention that the character in the verse saw his children. Jesus had children?

Yes the life of Jesus is given to those and they become children of God through Jesus.

Being of the line of Aaron.

Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High and was not a Levite.

Saul was punished because of his behavior with Agag. Because of it, he was killed and lost the monarchy. David was not killed in battle and the monarchy stayed with his family.

The incident below happened before Agag.
1Sam 13:12 I thought, ‘Now the Philistines will descend upon me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the LORD.’ So I felt compelled to offer the burnt offering.” 13“You have acted foolishly,” Samuel declared. “You have not kept the command that the LORD your God gave you; if you had, the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. 14But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought a man after His own heart and appointed him ruler over His people, because you have not kept the command of the LORD.”…

Abraham's offering of Isaac had nothing to do with firstborns so you have totally confused things. The ram in the bush didn't represent anything of the sort, and because of the ram, you have proof that Isaac wasn't sacrificed so any connection to Isaac is lost.

Isaac was Abraham's firstborn even if not born first. He was the one God appointed firstborn.
God does not really want human sacrifice and so stopped Abraham from killing Isaac but the connection is still there.

No, what you said was "in that time Abraham thought of Isaac as dead," but he didn't.

I told you what I meant.

No, it was a literal saving of Isaac from being killed. You have to invent and impute an emotion in order for this to work. Totally unfounded.

I don't think I invented any emotion.

In that case, it is clearer that Abraham expected that Isaac would NOT be killed because God promised him already that through Isaac a nation would be started, so he had faith the God wasn't lying. He therefore never would have thought of Isaac as dead.

I had made up a story about what Abraham thought and now you are making up one except it is not a good one because if Abraham believed God then he believed that God wanted him to sacrifice Isaac.

Yes, but the descriptors in 9:6 connect to other descriptions in other places (chck out Chron 30-32 among others). Nothing in this connects to anyone named Jesus.

What makes it Messianic is that the child will reign of the throne of David forever.
What connects it to Jesus is Isa 9:1 and because the child relates to the child of Isa 7:14.

Because there wasn't and this is what makes someone a messiah.

Oil is symbolic of the anointing with God's Spirit for a job.
But actually Jesus had been anointed with the oil of joy. (Ps 45:7)

Show me.

Numbers 11:17.

This doesn't make someone a messiah

No I guess not, but it is part of that way that Jesus is a prophet like Moses. (Deut 18:15)

Actually forbidden under jewish law -- 2 different tribes, by design.

God is not under Jewish law.

"He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest seated on his throne, and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.”"
you need a better translation

I don't think that there are going to be 2 sitting on the one throne. Are you now saying that even if a King cannot be a Priest, a Priest can be a King?
The meaning is clear. There is a King on the throne and a Priest on the throne and it is the same person.
See Zechariah 6:9-13. Joshua the priest would get a crown.
This relates to what Jesus did. He sacrificed Himself as a priest in the order of Melchizedek and went to heaven (Daniel 7:13,14) and received a crown and now is building the Temple of God, His Church in which He and His Father dwell.

 

[rosends]

How does the identity of the one speaking change the identity of the Servant?

Because a foreign king is not one who speaks conclusively about God's plan.

I have seen quotes and it looks as if the Rabbis are identifying the servant as the Messiah.

So you have not provided me with what I asked.

Yes the life of Jesus is given to those and they become children of God through Jesus.

Theological statement. Useless.

Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High and was not a Levite.

And Yitro was a "priest" and wasn't even a Jew! Maybe your understanding of "priest" is wrong...

The incident below happened before Agag.
1Sam 13:12 I thought, ‘Now the Philistines will descend upon me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the LORD.’ So I felt compelled to offer the burnt offering.” 13“You have acted foolishly,” Samuel declared. “You have not kept the command that the LORD your God gave you; if you had, the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. 14But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought a man after His own heart and appointed him ruler over His people, because you have not kept the command of the LORD.”…

He wasn't punished for making a sacrifice. He was allowed to. He was punished for making a sacrifice that he had been told Samuel was going to make and he didn't listen to the order to wait. What's the problem?

Isaac was Abraham's firstborn even if not born first. He was the one God appointed firstborn.

So you have decided.

God does not really want human sacrifice and so stopped Abraham from killing Isaac but the connection is still there.

So you want to make a connection between an actual human sacrifice (which God really does want) and a non human-sacrifice because God does NOT want it. Got it.

I told you what I meant.

Yes. That you contradicted yoruself.

I don't think I invented any emotion.

So show me textually. You have imputed thoughts of Isaac's actually being dead, and of Abraham's understanding something as a symbolic resurrection. Neither is in the text. They are creations of yours.

I had made up a story about what Abraham thought and now you are making up one except it is not a good one because if Abraham believed God then he believed that God wanted him to sacrifice Isaac.

So you admit you made up a story. That's a good start. Now show me where I made one up. There is textual evidence to show that Abraham thought God would NOT let Isaac be sacrificed so I didn't make that up.

What makes it Messianic is that the child will reign of the throne of David forever.

No. What makes something messianic is that the messianic prophecies will be fulfilled.

What connects it to Jesus is Isa 9:1 and because the child relates to the child of Isa 7:14.

Your understanding of 7:14 relies on a crazy mistranslation. This is old news.

Oil is symbolic of the anointing with God's Spirit for a job.

No, it is an essential part of it.

But actually Jesus had been anointed with the oil of joy. (Ps 45:7)

No, he wasn't because the oil of joy you refer to is the actual oil used to anoint kings.

Numbers 11:17.

This says nothing of anointing. Are you sure you have the right verse?

No I guess not, but it is part of that way that Jesus is a prophet like Moses. (Deut 18:15)

Except he wasn't and he knew it -- first, he did stuff which, according to 18:22 proves him false, and, according to his own theology he subscribed to the understanding that the era of prophecy had ended 300 years before he was born.

God is not under Jewish law.

The laws of the Jewish people, as set up by God are. They aren't changed capriciously because you want them to be.

I don't think that there are going to be 2 sitting on the one throne. Are you now saying that even if a King cannot be a Priest, a Priest can be a King?

No, I never said that.

The meaning is clear. There is a King on the throne and a Priest on the throne and it is the same person.

No, if you read the Hebrew you would see that there is the word "AND" between the two roles indicating 2 people on 2 thrones.

 

[Harel13]

People don't get married and have children in heaven.

They don't?

Why do you see the servant as literally Israel but do not see the places where Israel is said to die and get buried as literal?

In fact, I do not see the servant as "literally" Israel. The servant, in a straightforward, plain sense, would not refer to a mass that consists of multiple entities. The servant here, is, of course, referred to in the singular. I do, however, consider the servant to be a metaphorical representation of Israel because within the context of all of Isaiah, Israel is referred to as a singular servant multiple times. Because I can comfortably view the singular servant as a metaphor, I am also comfortable in interpreting other parts of the text metaphorically.

 

[Brian2]

They don't?

In fact, I do not see the servant as "literally" Israel. The servant, in a straightforward, plain sense, would not refer to a mass that consists of multiple entities. The servant here, is, of course, referred to in the singular. I do, however, consider the servant to be a metaphorical representation of Israel because within the context of all of Isaiah, Israel is referred to as a singular servant multiple times. Because I can comfortably view the singular servant as a metaphor, I am also comfortable in interpreting other parts of the text metaphorically.

Personally I think it is great how God can make prophecies with more than one possible meaning.

 

[Harel13]

Personally I think it is great how God can make prophecies with more than one possible meaning.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about? Pulling an "everything means anything" card is not an explanation as to why one section of the chapter has a plain, literal meaning in your view while another part of the same chapter is entirely metaphorical and should not be taken plainly.

 

[Brian2]

What does this have to do with what we're talking about? Pulling an "everything means anything" card is not an explanation as to why one section of the chapter has a plain, literal meaning in your view while another part of the same chapter is entirely metaphorical and should not be taken plainly.

When I think about it a bit I also see Israel as a metaphor for the Messiah and when I go through the chapter I see the various things said as metaphors for what Jesus did. However it is plain what it means in relation to Jesus and that includes the part about the children.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When I think about it a bit I also see Israel as a metaphor for the Messiah and when I go through the chapter I see the various things said as metaphors for what Jesus did. However it is plain what it means in relation to Jesus and that includes the part about the children.

There is a huge problem with Christians thinking that everything is a symbol or shadow of the messiah. It's like you see Jesus on every page when he is clearly not there.

 

[rosends]

There is a huge problem with Christians thinking that everything is a symbol or shadow of the messiah. It's like you see Jesus on every page when he is clearly not there.

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The problem is the selectivity of seeing those shadows. If "Israel" is a symbol in one spot, is it in every other spot, and if not, who chooses when? It seems like it is a symbol when it can be said to work as a symbol but when it can't, it simply isn't. That's self-serving as an interpretive tool.

 

[Brian2]

There is a huge problem with Christians thinking that everything is a symbol or shadow of the messiah. It's like you see Jesus on every page when he is clearly not there.

Yes it is obviously a bit problem we have.

 

[Brian2]

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The problem is the selectivity of seeing those shadows. If "Israel" is a symbol in one spot, is it in every other spot, and if not, who chooses when? It seems like it is a symbol when it can be said to work as a symbol but when it can't, it simply isn't. That's self-serving as an interpretive tool.

Yes when it works it is good, and it does with David and Israel, both of whom are called sons of God, Israel being the firstborn. Jesus is the Firstborn of God in the New Testament and it seems that the Messiah, the one who will inherit the nations and rule over them is also the Son of God in the Hebrew scriptures. (eg Psalm 2)
Jesus is also a lot like Moses who is a type of the Messiah and Joshua the priest is also.
The Messiah is in the view of Christians, Prophet, Priest and King. He will sit on the throne of David forever and will rule as King in God's Kingdom over everything.
There are plenty of scriptures about the one who will rule and judge and sit on the throne of David. It is a bit of a mystery for Christians that these are not seen as Messianic by the Jews.
It's not really a mystery.

 

[Brian2]

Because a foreign king is not one who speaks conclusively about God's plan.

The Kings understand it however. (Isa 52:15)

So you have not provided me with what I asked.

I don't know if I have seen a quote that specifically makes the servant a vicarious sin atonement. I did say that the quotes are identifying the servant as the Messiah however. It is what is in the chapter that makes this Messiah a vicarious sin atonement.

Theological statement. Useless.

It does not say that the children are biological children. Is God our biological Father?

And Yitro was a "priest" and wasn't even a Jew! Maybe your understanding of "priest" is wrong...

Maybe it is wrong, but Melchizedek is said to be a priest of God Most High in the scriptures and a priest in Psalm 110

He wasn't punished for making a sacrifice. He was allowed to. He was punished for making a sacrifice that he had been told Samuel was going to make and he didn't listen to the order to wait. What's the problem?

Maybe I have it wrong.

So you have decided.

God seems to have a habit of choosing a son who was not the first born to be His firstborn, the one He chooses, eg David, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, Israel as not the first of the nations.

So you want to make a connection between an actual human sacrifice (which God really does want) and a non human-sacrifice because God does NOT want it. Got it.

So you admit you made up a story. That's a good start. Now show me where I made one up. There is textual evidence to show that Abraham thought God would NOT let Isaac be sacrificed so I didn't make that up.

Thinking and hoping that God would not let Isaac be sacrificed is not the same as knowing. For all Abraham knew, the sacrifice would go ahead and it got to that point before God stopped Abraham and then God said that He knew something about Abraham.

 

[Brian2]

No. What makes something messianic is that the messianic prophecies will be fulfilled.

So in your mind it seems that the one to rule on the throne of David forever is not going to be the Messiah.
Does that mean that Hezekiah will do that? No, even if you are happy to consider David as a possible candidate.
Yes the Messianic prophecies will be fulfilled, so?

Your understanding of 7:14 relies on a crazy mistranslation. This is old news.

The Septuagint translated alma as virgin, I guess someone back then thought alma could mean virgin. Maybe he saw the connection between Isa 7:14 and Isa 9 and realised that the Isa 7:14, as Mighty God and Father of Eternity and Emmanuel was going to be a special child, worthy of "virgin", especially when Hezekiah was not that good that he will sit on the throne of David forever.
When it comes to translation I am told that alma can mean and has meant virgin at times in the Hebrew scriptures.

No, it is an essential part of it.

How do you know that? Plenty of people have been prophets etc in scripture with no mention of anointing.

No, he wasn't because the oil of joy you refer to is the actual oil used to anoint kings.

The Psalm 45 also seems to have references that go beyond the King back in history. Christians use it as referring to the Messiah who weds His bride the Church.

This says nothing of anointing. Are you sure you have the right verse?

I was using it to show that Moses (and indeed others who would be doing God's work) received the Spirit of God.

Except he wasn't and he knew it -- first, he did stuff which, according to 18:22 proves him false, and, according to his own theology he subscribed to the understanding that the era of prophecy had ended 300 years before he was born.

You seem to be saying that Jesus spoke things that did not come to pass.
God can bring prophets into being at any time he wants. If there had been no prophets for 300 years that does not mean that Jesus and John the Baptist were not prophets.
In the gospels it says that the High Priest made a prophecy.

The laws of the Jewish people, as set up by God are. They aren't changed capriciously because you want them to be.

God is not under the law and the God who gave the Law can change the Law especially when a new Covenant is enacted by God. Nothing capricious there.

No, if you read the Hebrew you would see that there is the word "AND" between the two roles indicating 2 people on 2 thrones.

I have seen a number of translations of Zechariah 6:13, here is one.
Zech 6:13 And he shall build the Temple of the Lord, and he shall bear glory. And he shall sit and rule on his throne, and the priest shall be on his throne. And a counsel of peace shall be between them [both].

The thing about the prophecy is that the priest who is sitting on the throne is Joshua, and he is ruling as Kings and he is wearing a number of crowns. Here are some other translations.

Zech 6:13It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’
Zech 6:13Yes, He will build the temple of the LORD; He will be clothed in splendor and will sit on His throne and rule. And He will be a priest on His throne, and there will be peaceful counsel between the two.’
Zech 6:13Yes, he will build the LORD’s temple; he will bear royal splendor and will sit on his throne and rule. There will be a priest on his throne, and there will be peaceful counsel between the two of them.

The Messiah is both Priest and King and sits on the one throne, just like Joshua.

 

[rosends]

The Kings understand it however. (Isa 52:15)

Why would you assume that? And if so, then you understand the first person and exactly what story is being told. But I get the sense you don't.

I don't know if I have seen a quote that specifically makes the servant a vicarious sin atonement. I did say that the quotes are identifying the servant as the Messiah however. It is what is in the chapter that makes this Messiah a vicarious sin atonement.

Except that's not how this works. You made a claim about something and now say you don't have any evidence of that. Instead, you say that the conclusions YOU draw can be imputed to them despite the fact that they don't say what you claimed. Since you misunderstand the context your conclusion is wrong and that's why you haven't found any quotes that support your conclusion.

It does not say that the children are biological children. Is God our biological Father?

I'm not sure why you say this. Your claim was "the life of Jesus is given to those and they become children of God through Jesus." And yet God has already said that the Children of Israel are his children (Ex 4:22 and Hos 11:1) so your statement is just an expression of your theology and is meaningless to me.

Maybe it is wrong, but Melchizedek is said to be a priest of God Most High in the scriptures and a priest in Psalm 110

No, it says he is a kohen. Yitro was also a kohen. Maybe the Hebrew word doesn't mean what you think.

God seems to have a habit of choosing a son who was not the first born to be His firstborn, the one He chooses, eg David, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, Israel as not the first of the nations.

Maybe the concept of "first born" (the b'chor) is not what you understand it to be either.

Thinking and hoping that God would not let Isaac be sacrificed is not the same as knowing. For all Abraham knew, the sacrifice would go ahead and it got to that point before God stopped Abraham and then God said that He knew something about Abraham.

Actually, there is textual evidence that, on some level, Abraham knew.

 

[rosends]

So in your mind it seems that the one to rule on the throne of David forever is not going to be the Messiah.

No, by definition the proper king who rules is the messiah under Jewish law -- you DO know what a messiah is, right?

Does that mean that Hezekiah will do that? No, even if you are happy to consider David as a possible candidate.

Hezekiah was a prophesied messiah, yes. He ruled, yes.

Yes the Messianic prophecies will be fulfilled, so?

That shows that they haven't been yet so the promised messiah has not come. Great! Thanks for admitting that.

The Septuagint translated alma as virgin, I guess someone back then thought alma could mean virgin.

Yeah, or wanted it to and ignored the Hebrew. That has been debunked so many times it is painful.

Maybe he saw the connection between Isa 7:14 and Isa 9 and realised that the Isa 7:14, as Mighty God and Father of Eternity and Emmanuel was going to be a special child, worthy of "virgin", especially when Hezekiah was not that good that he will sit on the throne of David forever.

Maybe he needed to make a connection to support an external agenda and picked verses and you are buying into his invention.

When it comes to translation I am told that alma can mean and has meant virgin at times in the Hebrew scriptures.

Then you have been told wrong. Here is some discussion https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/82019/the-biblical-hebrew-word-almah

How do you know that? Plenty of people have been prophets etc in scripture with no mention of anointing.

And that's exactly why they were prophets and no messiahs. Thank you.

The Psalm 45 also seems to have references that go beyond the King back in history. Christians use it as referring to the Messiah who weds His bride the Church.

And who cares how Christians use it? They clearly are misusing texts all over the place.

I was using it to show that Moses (and indeed others who would be doing God's work) received the Spirit of God.

Which has nothing to do with a claim of being a messiah, which is what you called Moses.

You seem to be saying that Jesus spoke things that did not come to pass.

Among other problems.

God can bring prophets into being at any time he wants. If there had been no prophets for 300 years that does not mean that Jesus and John the Baptist were not prophets.

But Jesus accepted the position that he did not live in the era of prophecy. So he knew he wasn't one.

In the gospels it says that the High Priest made a prophecy.

I'm sure th gospels say all sorts of funny stuff.

God is not under the law and the God who gave the Law can change the Law especially when a new Covenant is enacted by God. Nothing capricious there.

Your vision of God is quite human and changeable. Good luck with that.

I have seen a number of translations of Zechariah 6:13, here is one....

The Messiah is both Priest and King and sits on the one throne, just like Joshua.

So you have seen translations that support that there are 2 but you have decided that there has to be 1. And even though I can show you the Hebrew which supports that there are 2, you will insist in believing that there is 1 person. OK. I can't force you to change.

 

[Harel13]

However it is plain what it means in relation to Jesus and that includes the part about the children.

Again, according to your view, one part is literal and the other is metaphorical. Why?

 

[Brian2]

Again, according to your view, one part is literal and the other is metaphorical. Why?

Is metaphor also necessarily figurative?

 

[Harel13]

Is metaphor also necessarily figurative?

They are considered synonymous. Why, what distinction do you see between the two?

 

[Brian2]

No, by definition the proper king who rules is the messiah under Jewish law -- you DO know what a messiah is, right?

I did not know that the proper king who rules is the Messiah. I guess the Messiah is the anointed one and so a king would be anointed, and a priest is also anointed, was a priest also a messiah.

Hezekiah was a prophesied messiah, yes. He ruled, yes.

He is not the one who rules forever on the throne of David. He is not The Messiah.

That shows that they haven't been yet so the promised messiah has not come. Great! Thanks for admitting that.

Of course that is the case in your eyes when you do not acknowledge what Christians see as Messianic prophecies.

Maybe he needed to make a connection to support an external agenda and picked verses and you are buying into his invention.

If you think Christians re wrote the Septuagint then what can I say about it without proof.

Then you have been told wrong. Here is some discussion https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/82019/the-biblical-hebrew-word-almah

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/82019/the-biblical-hebrew-word-almah
So an alma can be a virgin and the Septuagint translates it thus at Isa 7:14 and Matthew, who probably read the Septuagint, also knew that Mary had been a virgin.

And that's exactly why they were prophets and no messiahs. Thank you.

I suppose if you want The Messiah to have been anointed as King with oil and in a prescribed manner then probably none of the candidates are in that boat and these days I would say none will be.

And who cares how Christians use it? They clearly are misusing texts all over the place.

Psalm 45:17 I will perpetuate your memory through all generations;
therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.
With a verse like this one it is no wonder Christians have seen the Psalm as having meaning beyond a wedding song for any old King.

Which has nothing to do with a claim of being a messiah, which is what you called Moses.

I don't think I said that Moses was a messiah. If anything I said he had been anointed with the Spirit of God.
Cyrus was a messiah and was not anointed,,,,,,,,,,,,,he was chosen by God as Moses was, for a task of saving Israel, just as Moses was. In that respect Moses was a messiah even if not anointed with oil.

But Jesus accepted the position that he did not live in the era of prophecy. So he knew he wasn't one.

I don't think it was Jesus who came up with that arbitrary rule or thought that about Himself or John the Baptist. The gospels tells us Jesus saw Himself as a prophet.

Your vision of God is quite human and changeable. Good luck with that.

God does not change and that is why love is still the basis of what God wants of us. Rules change in different circumstances, God does not.
You have 613 rules and a Christians has love as the command in the New Covenant.
Love trumps any rule but in the Old Covenant the Jews are under the rules.

So you have seen translations that support that there are 2 but you have decided that there has to be 1. And even though I can show you the Hebrew which supports that there are 2, you will insist in believing that there is 1 person. OK. I can't force you to change.

Zech 6:13 And he shall build the Temple of the Lord, and he shall bear glory. And he shall sit and rule on his throne, and the priest shall be on his throne. And a counsel of peace shall be between them [both].
Zech 6:13It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’
Zech 6:13Yes, He will build the temple of the LORD; He will be clothed in splendor and will sit on His throne and rule. And He will be a priest on His throne, and there will be peaceful counsel between the two.’
Zech 6:13Yes, he will build the LORD’s temple; he will bear royal splendor and will sit on his throne and rule. There will be a priest on his throne, and there will be peaceful counsel between the two of them.

None of these translations that I gave say that there will be 2 people. Even the Jewish one, the first, would mean that 2 people are sitting on the one throne. What it means is that there will be both a King and a Priest on the one throne,,,,,,,,,,and the Jewish translation supports that.
In the case of Joshua the Priest and King were both Joshua, who was a Priest but was given crowns to rule as King.

 

[rosends]

He is not the one who rules forever on the throne of David. He is not The Messiah.

Are you citing 9:6? There is no mention that the person spoken about will rule forever:
"To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this." To those who think it means that one person will be eternal, the commentators explain that the phrase in Hebrew does not mean that (and then at least one of the commentators points out that if one were to take the words incorrectly as non-Jews are wont to do, it would actually undermine a central idea of other religions...)

Of course that is the case in your eyes when you do not acknowledge what Christians see as Messianic prophecies.

Yes, in the eyes of a Jew to whom the text was given, those are not what Chrsitians (who see the text from the outside) think they are.

If you think Christians re wrote the Septuagint then what can I say about it without proof.

Well, you need to be abit more precise about which section you are calling teh "Septuagint." Here is a write up which explains that the translation of the 5 books was subject to revision, and the books beyond were never free from Chrsitian influence even in their creation.

So an alma can be a virgin and the Septuagint translates it thus at Isa 7:14 and Matthew, who probably read the Septuagint, also knew that Mary had been a virgin.

No, the citation I provided showed that the only ones who think that alma means virgin are Christians -- so the Sept is definitvely wrong.

I suppose if you want The Messiah to have been anointed as King with oil and in a prescribed manner then probably none of the candidates are in that boat and these days I would say none will be.

Well, one will be. The fact that none is now, and none was in the year 1 CE is exactly the point.

Psalm 45:17 I will perpetuate your memory through all generations;
therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.
With a verse like this one it is no wonder Christians have seen the Psalm as having meaning beyond a wedding song for any old King.

I'm not sure why this means anything other than what it says, talking to a singular (and mortal) king:
"Your sons will succeed your ancestors;
you will appoint them princes throughout the land.
I commemorate your fame for all generations,
so peoples will praise you forever and ever."

I don't think I said that Moses was a messiah. If anything I said he had been anointed with the Spirit of God.

In post 209 you wrote, "just as we see Moses as a type of the Messiah the prophet"

Cyrus was a messiah and was not anointed,,,,,,,,,,,,,he was chosen by God as Moses was, for a task of saving Israel, just as Moses was. In that respect Moses was a messiah even if not anointed with oil.

Except for one problem -- though there was no oil, God explicitly said Cyrus was "anointed". Can you show me where God said the same of Moses?

I don't think it was Jesus who came up with that arbitrary rule or thought that about Himself or John the Baptist. The gospels tells us Jesus saw Himself as a prophet.

Then he went against his own teaching about the particular religious authority of his day. He said to his followers to follow the teachings of a group that taught he wasn't a prophet. So either he misled his followers, or he contradicted his own advice.

God does not change and that is why love is still the basis of what God wants of us. Rules change in different circumstances, God does not.

So God says that his law is perfect and then he changes it. Got it.

None of these translations that I gave say that there will be 2 people. Even the Jewish one, the first, would mean that 2 people are sitting on the one throne.

What? The priest will be on HIS throne -- the throne that belongs to the priest. Two people, two thrones. Basic English.

There were 2 offices, stemming from 2 tribes and they were separate. While there was a time in Jewish history when the two were merged, that led to disaster. Your verse explicitly says 2 people. It explicitly notes 2 thrones "and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them." How can that be if there is only 1 person?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is metaphor also necessarily figurative?

Yes. Metaphor is a tpe of figurative language.