With bafflement upon bafflement!

[dybmh]

Yes, but what does the Torah tell us about Tabernacles, or Succot?

They're two different things. The tabernacle is the Mishkan in Hebrew. What it says in the Torah about it is in the later chapters of Exodus. There's a lot there.

Sukkot is in Leviticus 23. Specifically look at verse 34, where the festival itself is mentioned using the same words as found in Zecharia 14:16

Lev 23:34

לדדַּבֵּ֛ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר בַּֽחֲמִשָּׁ֨ה עָשָׂ֜ר י֗וֹם לַחֹ֤דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי֙ הַזֶּ֔ה חַ֧ג הַסֻּכּ֛וֹת שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֖ים לַֽיהֹוָֽה
​

Zech 14:16

טזוְהָיָ֗ה כָּל־הַנּוֹתָר֙ מִכָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֔ם הַבָּאִ֖ים עַל־יְרֽוּשָׁלִָ֑ם וְעָל֞וּ מִדֵּ֧י שָׁנָ֣ה בְשָׁנָ֗ה לְהִֽשְׁתַּחֲו‍ֹת֙ לְמֶ֙לֶךְ֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת וְלָחֹ֖ג אֶת־חַ֥ג הַסֻּכּֽוֹת
​

Also look at verses 41-42

מא וְחַגֹּתֶ֤ם אֹתוֹ֙ חַ֣ג לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֖ים בַּשָּׁנָ֑ה חֻקַּ֤ת עוֹלָם֙ לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם בַּחֹ֥דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֖י תָּחֹ֥גּוּ אֹתֽוֹ

41 And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord for seven days in the year. [It is] an eternal statute throughout your generations [that] you celebrate it in the seventh month.

מב בַּסֻּכֹּ֥ת תֵּֽשְׁב֖וּ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֑ים כָּל־הָֽאֶזְרָח֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יֵֽשְׁב֖וּ בַּסֻּכֹּֽת

42 For a seven day period you shall live in booths. Every resident among the Israelites shall live in booths,
​

Then look at verse 43 which explains why sukkot is observed.

מג לְמַ֘עַן֘ יֵֽדְע֣וּ דֹרֹֽתֵיכֶם֒ כִּ֣י בַסֻּכּ֗וֹת הוֹשַׁ֨בְתִּי֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּהֽוֹצִיאִ֥י אוֹתָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם​

43 in order that your [ensuing] generations should know that I had the children of Israel live in booths when I took them out of the land of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God.
​

That's what the Torah says about Sukkot and the Tabernacle.

Tabernacles was first held in response to God tabernacling amongst the Israelites in the wilderness. The making of booths by lsraelites is an image of what God created for himself. The picture is of God creating his own tabernacle (Christ) followed by the people each having their own tabernacle (in Christ).

Not scriptural,

The tabernacle and its contents were carried from the wilderness into lsrael, and were finally moved from Mount Zion into Solomon's temple on Mount Moriah. This event is beautifully described in Josephus [Antiquities Vll, ch.4, sections 1,2.]

Josephus describes the cloud, the visible presence of God's Spirit, inside the temple.

Josephus is not scripture, and all of this seems irrelevant at this point.

 

[dybmh]

If you read Genesis 1:1, then Revelation 21:1, you will see that Revelation brings to completion the whole plan of God. Even Isaiah prophesies the coming of the new heaven, and the new earth.

That just makes it a fictional spin-off. Is there any reason to believe it is word of God prophecy?

 

[dybmh]

The law was intended to keep lsrael 'hedged' within a form of righteousness until the day that their sin could be washed away.

This isn't scriptural though. "hedged ... until" is imagined. "Eternal statute, eternal covenant" is scriptural.

When the Saviour arrived, offering himself as a sacrifice for sin,

He didn't, though. That's not scriptural.

the Jews had an opportunity to grasp freedom, and be born again of God's righteous Spirit.

The serpent tempted " ... you will be like a god ... " Freedom born again of God's righteousness is no different. The Jews who rejected the temptation did the right thing. Prove me wrong.

By rejecting this offer, the (Torah) Jews have become blind, and guilty of idolatry [Hosea 5:15]

Hosea 5:15 says KJV:

I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.​

Acknowledgeing offense and seeking my face happens super-duper often in Judaism. Tachanun - Wikipedia So, nope that verse isn't in effect at this time.

whilst the message of salvation has been shared with Gentiles across the world. But the time of God's final offer to the Jews is now upon us, l believe. [Hosea 6:1-3]

Nope. Nowhere in these verses is a time limit. You are imagining things.

In other words, the slide into idolatry is defined by a rejection of God's salvation.

Without something sciptural defining it this way, one is still left with the simple truth: rejection is not worship. In fact rejection of false gods and false prophets prevents idolatry. Rejection of Jesus was good.

if God offers to make himself known, and people reject the offer, they are, in effect preferring a state of ignorance.

A lot of people claim to be a vessel for God's knowledge. The test, as you know, is with scripture. One only needs to look at the Book of John to see that Jesus was not preaching Judaism and is starting a new religion. One must eat his flesh and drink his blood for eternal life? That's not Tanach. That's not from God. It's from something else.

How can you claim to worship God in Spirit and truth if you don't know the Saviour?

Asked and answered! The book of Psalms shows how to worship God without a savior.

 

[dybmh]

I'll add a third scripture for your consideration. Psalm 22. To me, this speaks about the crucifixion of Jesus in a very intimate manner.

And now, we've finally come full circle. Psalm 22. The source of the original insult: "You have to be blind not to see Christ in it".

Who do you think it refers to? I can guess that you will say David, or maybe another unknown lsraelite.

Well. David is the speaker. The psalm is a prayer for salvation. So at least the concept is there. Even if I accept the KJV translation, there's only maybe 3 verses or 4 which point to the crucifixion. If you want to claim those verses for Christianity, I guess that's fine. But still, it's just a few verses. That's not enough to build a religion on.

Can we add another name to the list of idols? Christ, once again, being replaced by a temporal figure who does not have the power to save?

The "power to save" is NOT given to a temporal figure. You are imagining that. The "power to save" is from YHVH in the psalm, not the speaker. So even if it's read as David speaking, or some other person who is suffering and struggling. All credit and glory and salvation are rendered to YHVH. No idols. So that's another false allegation.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No one is sitting in the psalm. "Sitting" is an interpretation that is being added to it. It's not scriptural. It's a fail.

Psalm 110:1. 'The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until l make thine enemies thy footstool'.

In scripture, the application of the Hebrew 'yamin', and the Greek 'dexios' is interesting.

In Exodus 15:6, it says, 'Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hast dashed in pieces the enemy'.

Psalm 17:7. 'Shew thy marvellous loving-kindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them'.

Psalm 48:10. 'According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness'.

Psalm 80:17. 'Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself'.

Psalm 118:16. 'The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly'.

Can you not see that the right hand of the LORD is the Lord, the Anointed One of God? This is the LORD's strength, His righteousness, His Redeemer, His Saviour, His Son, come to earth!

 

[Redemptionsong]

The "power to save" is NOT given to a temporal figure. You are imagining that. The "power to save" is from YHVH in the psalm, not the speaker. So even if it's read as David speaking, or some other person who is suffering and struggling. All credit and glory and salvation are rendered to YHVH. No idols. So that's another false allegation.

No, the power to save is not given to a temporal figure! Christ is not a temporal figure like Abraham, lsaac, Jacob, Moses, David or lsaiah.

The Lord is a man born of God, and living by God's Holy Spirit! The Lord, as mediator, dies and is resurrected. He is raised to glory, and is given dominion and a kingdom!

 

[dybmh]

No one is sitting in the psalm. "Sitting" is an interpretation that is being added to it. It's not scriptural. It's a fail.

Psalm 110:1. 'The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until l make thine enemies thy footstool'.

and yet, no one sits, God doesn't move, there is no throne in the verse. The allegation that Jews put Abraham on God's throne is vainity and nothingness.

In scripture, the application of the Hebrew 'yamin', and the Greek 'dexios' is interesting.

Cool! Thanks for looking those up!

In Exodus 15:6, it says, 'Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hast dashed in pieces the enemy'.

Psalm 17:7. 'Shew thy marvellous loving-kindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them'.

Psalm 48:10. 'According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness'.

Psalm 80:17. 'Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself'.

Psalm 118:16. 'The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly'.

Each of these verses describe attributes of God. The right hand saves. It's true.

Can you not see that the right hand of the LORD is the Lord, the Anointed One of God?

Well, that's an incorrect scriptural substitution. In Psalm 110, "my lord" is "at the right hand". NOT is the right hand. There is no morphing, blending, compounding of a God in Psalm 110. Using your translation. "Sit at my right hand" is NOT "You are my right hand" or "my lord is my right hand". That is a different scripture you are composing on your own.

 

[dybmh]

No, the power to save is not given to a temporal figure! Christ is not a temporal figure like Abraham, lsaac, Jacob, Moses, David or lsaiah.

You should be saying: "Yes, the power to save is not given to a temporal figure!" Because that's exactly what I said. We agree! Jewish people do not do this. It's not a consequence of our interpretations. Whoever told you that we do, is misinformed or lying.

The "power to save" is NOT given to a temporal figure.

The Lord is a man born of God, and living by God's Holy Spirit!

not scriptural

The Lord, as mediator, dies and is resurrected.

not scriptural

He is raised to glory, and is given dominion and a kingdom!

not scriptural

 

[Redemptionsong]

and yet, no one sits, God doesn't move, there is no throne in the verse. The allegation that Jews put Abraham on God's throne is vainity and nothingness.


Cool! Thanks for looking those up!

Each of these verses describe attributes of God. The right hand saves. It's true.

Well, that's an incorrect scriptural substitution. In Psalm 110, "my lord" is "at the right hand". NOT is the right hand. There is no morphing, blending, compounding of a God in Psalm 110. Using your translation. "Sit at my right hand" is NOT "You are my right hand" or "my lord is my right hand". That is a different scripture you are composing on your own.

Ok. I accept that to 'sit at my right hand' is not the same as being 'thy right hand'.

But let's look at Psalm 80:17. It says, Let thy right hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself'.

If God's right hand is God's strength, then Psalm 80:17 is telling us that a very specific person is given that spiritual strength. This same person, called 'the son of man' is made strong by God for his own purposes.

Which man do you think he is talking about? Is this not the man upon whom the Spirit of God rests?

 

[Redemptionsong]

You should be saying: "Yes, the power to save is not given to a temporal figure!" Because that's exactly what I said. We agree! Jewish people do not do this. It's not a consequence of our interpretations. Whoever told you that we do, is misinformed or lying.

​

not scriptural

not scriptural

not scriptural

Daniel 7:13,14 is scripture, is it not?

It's not me turning the words 'like the son of man' into a nation of people!

 

[dybmh]

Ok. I accept that to 'sit at my right hand' is not the same as being 'thy right hand'.

Thank you

But let's look at Psalm 80:17. It says, Let thy right hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself'.

OK. Great one!

If God's right hand is God's strength, then Psalm 80:17 is telling us that a very specific person is given that spiritual strength. This same person, called 'the son of man' is made strong by God for his own purposes.

Which man do you think he is talking about? Is this not the man upon whom the Spirit of God rests?

OK, let's talk about it.

The Son of Man is a facinating concept; thank you for raising it.

We know that the words "son of man" could mean various things. The most common occurence ( almost 100 times ) is as the title given to Ezekiel by God. So, the son of man could be a prophet. That's one possibility.

Removing those we are left with these occurences. I'll put it in a spoiler in case other readers aren't interested in the details.

Spoiler: Son-of-man occurences in Tanach

Numbers 23:19

יט לֹ֣א אִ֥ישׁ אֵל֙ וִֽיכַזֵּ֔ב וּבֶן־אָדָ֖ם וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם הַה֤וּא אָמַר֙ וְלֹ֣א יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה וְדִבֶּ֖ר וְלֹ֥א יְקִימֶֽנָּה

God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a son-of-man that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?

Here, the "son-of-man" means "human being". It's taking a negative connotation. So that's a possibility.​

Isaiah 51:12

יב אָֽנֹכִ֧י אָֽנֹכִ֛י ה֖וּא מְנַֽחֶמְכֶ֑ם מִי־אַ֚תְּ וַתִּֽירְאִי֙ מֵֽאֱנ֣וֹשׁ יָמ֔וּת וּמִבֶּן־אָדָ֖ם חָצִ֥יר יִנָּתֵֽן​

I, yea I am He Who consoles you; who are you that you fear man who will die and the son of man, who shall be made grass?

Here again, son of man, is a human being who is impermanent. negative connotation​

Jeremiah 49:18

יח כְּֽמַהְפֵּכַ֞ת סְדֹ֧ם וַֽעֲמֹרָ֛ה וּשְׁכֵנֶ֖יהָ אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֑ה לֹֽא־יֵשֵׁ֥ב שָׁם֙ אִ֔ישׁ וְלֹֽא־יָג֥וּר בָּ֖הּ בֶּן־אָדָֽם​

Like the overturning of Sodom and Gemorrah and her neighbors, said the Lord, no man shall dwell there, and no son-of-man shall sojourn there.

Son-of-man = Human being, neutral​

Jeremiah 49:33

לג וְהָֽיְתָ֨ה חָצ֜וֹר לִמְע֥וֹן תַּנִּ֛ים שְׁמָמָ֖ה עַד־עוֹלָ֑ם לֹֽא־יֵשֵׁ֥ב שָׁם֙ אִ֔ישׁ וְלֹֽא־יָג֥וּר בָּ֖הּ בֶּן־אָדָֽם​

And Hazor shall become a habitat of jackals, desolate to eternity; neither shall any man dwell there nor shall any son-of-man sojourn therein.

Son-of-man = human being, neutral​

Jeremiah 50:40

מ כְּמַהְפֵּכַ֨ת אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־סְדֹ֧ם וְאֶת־עֲמֹרָ֛ה וְאֶת־שְׁכֵנֶ֖יהָ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֑ה לֹֽא־יֵשֵׁ֥ב שָׁם֙ אִ֔ישׁ וְלֹֽא־יָג֥וּר בָּ֖הּ בֶּן־אָדָֽם​

Like God's overturning Sodom and Gemorrah and her neighbors, says the Lord, no man shall dwell there, and no son-of-man shall sojourn therein.​

Son-of-man - human being, neutral​

Jeremiah 51:43

מג הָי֚וּ עָרֶ֙יהָ֙ לְשַׁמָּ֔ה אֶ֖רֶץ צִיָּ֣ה וַֽעֲרָבָ֑ה אֶ֗רֶץ לֹֽא־יֵשֵׁ֚ב בָּהֵן֙ כָּל־אִ֔ישׁ וְלֹֽא־יַֽעֲבֹ֥ר בָּהֵ֖ן בֶּן־אָדָֽם​

Her cities became desolate, a dry land and a desert, a land where no man dwells, neither does any son-of-man pass through them.​

Son-of-man = human being, neutral​

Psalms 8:5-6

ה מָֽה־אֱ֖נוֹשׁ כִּֽי־תִזְכְּרֶ֑נּוּ וּבֶן־אָ֜דָ֗ם כִּ֣י תִפְקְדֶֽנּוּ
ו וַתְּחַסְּרֵ֣הוּ מְ֖עַט מֵֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים וְכָב֖וֹד וְהָדָ֣ר תְּעַטְּרֵֽהוּ

What is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him?
Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty.​

Son-of-man = human being, neutral​

Psalms 80:17 ( 80:18 in the Jewish Bible )

יח תְּֽהִי־יָֽ֖דְךָ עַל־אִ֣ישׁ יְמִינֶ֑ךָ עַל־בֶּן־אָ֜דָ֗ם אִמַּ֥צְתָּ לָּֽךְ​

May Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You strengthened for Yourself.

Son of man = ???, positive connotation​

Psalms 144:3

ג יְהֹוָ֗ה מָה־אָ֖דָם וַתֵּֽדָעֵ֑הוּ בֶּן־אֱ֜נ֗וֹשׁ וַֽתְּחַשְּׁבֵֽהוּ​

O Lord, what is man that You should know him, the son of man, that You should consider him?

Son-of-man = human being , neutral
Hebrew variant​

Psalms 146:3

ג אַל־תִּבְטְח֥וּ בִנְדִיבִ֑ים בְּבֶן־אָדָ֓ם | שֶׁ֚אֵ֖ין ל֥וֹ תְשׁוּעָֽה​

Do not trust in princes, in the son of man, who has no salvation.

Son-of-man = human being, negative connotation, a prince who cannot be trusted​

Job 25:6

ו אַף כִּֽי־אֱנ֣וֹשׁ רִמָּ֑ה וּבֶן־אָ֜דָ֗ם תּֽוֹלֵעָֽה​

How much less, man, who is a worm, and the son of man, who is a maggot!"

Son-of-man = human being, negative connotation, a maggot​

Job 35:8

ח לְאִֽישׁ־כָּמ֥וֹךָ רִשְׁעֶ֑ךָ וּלְבֶן־אָ֜דָ֗ם צִדְקָתֶֽךָ​

Your wickedness a man like yourself, and your righteousness a son of man.

Son-of-man = human being, positive connotation, righteous​

Daniel 7:13

יגחָזֵ֚ה הֲוֵית֙ בְּחֶזְוֵ֣י לֵֽילְיָ֔א וַֽאֲרוּ֙ עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י שְׁמַיָּ֔א כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ אָתֵ֣ה הֲוָ֑א וְעַד־עַתִּ֚יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙ מְטָ֔ה וּקְדָמ֖וֹהִי הַקְרְבֽוּהִי​

I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a son-of-man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him.

Son-of-man = ???, positive connotation
Aramaic, Bar Enosh, instead of Ben Adam in Hebrew.
Enosh was son of Seth son of Adam​

Daniel 8:17

יז וַיָּבֹא֙ אֵ֣צֶל עָמְדִ֔י וּבְבֹא֣וֹ נִבְעַ֔תִּי וָֽאֶפְּלָ֖ה עַל־פָּנָ֑י וַיֹּ֚אמֶר אֵלַי֙ הָבֵ֣ן בֶּן־אָדָ֔ם כִּ֖י לְעֶת־קֵ֥ץ הֶחָזֽוֹן

And he came beside the place where I was standing, and when he came, I became frightened, and I fell upon my face. Then he said to me, "Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end."

Son-of-man = maybe a prophet / maybe human being, neutral
​

So, there's 14 occurances excluding the 90+ in Ezekiel.

• 4 where son-of-man is a human being with a negative connotation
• 7 where son-of-man is a human being with a neutral connotation
• 1 where son-of-man is a human being with a positive connotation
• 2 unknowns Daniel 7:13 and Psalms 80:17, both have positive connotations

So really, the words "son-of-man" could be any sort of person. If you look at the Hebrew "The Son of Man" doesn't actually exist anywhere in Hebrew scripture. All it takes is a "-ה" prefix to indicate the words "The" Son of Man compared to "A" son of man. That prefix is missing in each and every occurence.

"THE Son of Man" concept first makes its appearance in the legend documented in 1 Enoch ( see attached and search for "son of man" ). This, per wikipedia, was written around the 1st century BCE and was the likely source for much of The Son of Man concept in the Christian bible. In Enoch a Son-Of-Man is a type of an angel. There are several sons-of-man described. One of them is special, and that's where the story takes off from. But the son-of-man in the story is NOT the Jewish Messiah. None of that is part of the story, if I recall.

So, looking at Psalm 80, what is going on in verse 17? Is it a human, is it a prophet, is it an angel? Each one fits.

May Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the human-being whom You strengthened for Yourself.

May Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the prophet whom You strengthened for Yourself.

May Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the angel whom You strengthened for Yourself.​

Each one works in context with the psalm.

Let's pretend it is The Jewish Messiah, The Future King in the verse. What does that really mean? Not much! The son-of-man doesn't do anything in this psalm.

From the Christian definition of Messiah, it doesn't fit. The author asks The LORD for salvation, and it comes from God's countenance, God's face, shining on them ( verses 4, 8, and the concluding verse 20 ). No belief in the son-of-man is needed. No faith in the one whom the-father sent is needed. No blood sacrifice is needed.

It is much more likely that the "man of Your right hand" is the author of the psalm. They are supplicating God to draw near them with God's right hand, and is asking God to strengthen themself.

 

[dybmh]

Daniel 7:13,14 is scripture, is it not?

It's not me turning the words 'like the son of man' into a nation of people!

Like I said, it's your choice / the reader's choice with the Book of Daniel.

If it's word of God prophecy, then verse 27 cannot be ignored, and verse 13 is literally a vision in a cloud in a dream. And the meaning is a nation will be granted dominance.

If it's not word of God prophecy, just what Daniel was able to record, and hopefully it's accurate... then verse 27 can be ignored, and then verse 13 can mean pretty much whatever you want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, it's your choice / the reader's choice with the Book of Daniel.

If it's word of God prophecy, then verse 27 cannot be ignored, and verse 13 is literally a vision in a cloud in a dream. And the meaning is a nation will be granted dominance.

If it's not word of God prophecy, just what Daniel was able to record, and hopefully it's accurate... then verse 27 can be ignored, and then verse 13 can mean pretty much whatever you want.

Christian apologetics works on "You did not totally prove my idea wrong, and there is a very very slight case that my interpretation could be the right one so it must be the right one".

When one is claiming that the Bible is inerrant one should realize that just the appearance of massive errors is an error. A perfect God could have done a better job.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Thank you

OK. Great one!

OK, let's talk about it.

The Son of Man is a facinating concept; thank you for raising it.

We know that the words "son of man" could mean various things. The most common occurence ( almost 100 times ) is as the title given to Ezekiel by God. So, the son of man could be a prophet. That's one possibility.

Removing those we are left with these occurences. I'll put it in a spoiler in case other readers aren't interested in the details.


So, there's 14 occurances excluding the 90+ in Ezekiel.

• 4 where son-of-man is a human being with a negative connotation
• 7 where son-of-man is a human being with a neutral connotation
• 1 where son-of-man is a human being with a positive connotation
• 2 unknowns Daniel 7:13 and Psalms 80:17, both have positive connotations

So really, the words "son-of-man" could be any sort of person. If you look at the Hebrew "The Son of Man" doesn't actually exist anywhere in Hebrew scripture. All it takes is a "-ה" prefix to indicate the words "The" Son of Man compared to "A" son of man. That prefix is missing in each and every occurence.

"THE Son of Man" concept first makes its appearance in the legend documented in 1 Enoch ( see attached and search for "son of man" ). This, per wikipedia, was written around the 1st century BCE and was the likely source for much of The Son of Man concept in the Christian bible. In Enoch a Son-Of-Man is a type of an angel. There are several sons-of-man described. One of them is special, and that's where the story takes off from. But the son-of-man in the story is NOT the Jewish Messiah. None of that is part of the story, if I recall.

So, looking at Psalm 80, what is going on in verse 17? Is it a human, is it a prophet, is it an angel? Each one fits.

May Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the human-being whom You strengthened for Yourself.

May Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the prophet whom You strengthened for Yourself.

May Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the angel whom You strengthened for Yourself.​

Each one works in context with the psalm.

Let's pretend it is The Jewish Messiah, The Future King in the verse. What does that really mean? Not much! The son-of-man doesn't do anything in this psalm.

From the Christian definition of Messiah, it doesn't fit. The author asks The LORD for salvation, and it comes from God's countenance, God's face, shining on them ( verses 4, 8, and the concluding verse 20 ). No belief in the son-of-man is needed. No faith in the one whom the-father sent is needed. No blood sacrifice is needed.

It is much more likely that the "man of Your right hand" is the author of the psalm. They are supplicating God to draw near them with God's right hand, and is asking God to strengthen themself.

Interestingly enough, Christ does appear as all three examples: as a human-being, as a prophet, and as an angel (the 'Angel of the LORD' in the Hebrew scriptures).

Once again, what l see from Torah Jewish interpretation is an unwillingness to attribute to Christ (the Spirit of God) the eternal attributes of God.

Daniel 7:27 reads thus: 'And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him'.

Who are the saints of the most High? Are they not those that enter the kingdom and possess it?

If the saints are those that inherit the kingdom of God, then how does one take hold of the kingdom? Were you not aware that Jesus spent his whole ministry preaching that the Kingdom of God was 'nigh' or 'at hand'? 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God'.

In Zechariah 14:5 it says, 'And ye shall flee to the valleys of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee'.

How did the saints get to be with the LORD before returning to earth?

How can the LORD, who is Spirit, come to earth, and be recognised on earth?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Like I said, it's your choice / the reader's choice with the Book of Daniel.

If it's word of God prophecy, then verse 27 cannot be ignored, and verse 13 is literally a vision in a cloud in a dream. And the meaning is a nation will be granted dominance.

If it's not word of God prophecy, just what Daniel was able to record, and hopefully it's accurate... then verse 27 can be ignored, and then verse 13 can mean pretty much whatever you want.

Daniel 7:27 talking about about 'the kingdom' makes evident that there must be a Messiah King in authority if a kingdom is to be established.

Ezekiel 34:23-25. 'And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.
And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it.
And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land: and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods.'

Now, a prince is heir to the throne. David was anointed as heir to the throne. So, too, was Jesus.

Ezekiel 37:24. 'And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.'

 

[dybmh]

Interestingly enough, Christ does appear as all three examples: as a human-being, as a prophet, and as an angel (the 'Angel of the LORD' in the Hebrew scriptures).

Still, whatever it is being referenced in Psalm 80, the "son-of-man" doesn't actually do anything. The Psalm says it was written by Asaph, not a prophet. So all the psalm indicates that the concept, "son-of-man", exists to the author. Nothing more.

Once again, what l see from Torah Jewish interpretation is an unwillingness to attribute to Christ (the Spirit of God) the eternal attributes of God.

Yes. That unwillingness is reverence for God and scripture. I won't post a bunch of quotes, but if you have access to bible search software, search for "spirit of the lord" and "spirit of god". What you'll find is that "The Spirit" performs actions. Usually it rests on a prophet and not much else. But God's attributes are never applied to it. The best one can do is pose unanswered questions like Isaiah does in chapter 40:

13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counseller hath taught him?

14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?​

And then this suggests that Christ Jesus cannot be The Spirit of God because Jesus' teachings came from the-father ( John 8:28 ). Isaiah says, no one teaches the Spirit of the Lord.

Daniel 7:27 reads thus: 'And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him'.

Who are the saints of the most High? Are they not those that enter the kingdom and possess it?

If the saints are those that inherit the kingdom of God, then how does one take hold of the kingdom? Were you not aware that Jesus spent his whole ministry preaching that the Kingdom of God was 'nigh' or 'at hand'? 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God'.

If this is read as prophecy, then every word matters. The kingdom in the dream is "GIVEN" to "THE PEOPLE". The saints ( not a literal translation ) are not included. That's not what it says. And the kingdom is given, no one needs to take hold of it.

Jesus on the other hand put conditions on the kingdom. ( Mark 10:15, Matthew 7:21, John 3:3, and others ) This doesn't match the vision in the dream. Therefore, the kingdom Jesus preached about, the mustard seed, the "man", the field mixed with weeds, is something else.

 

[dybmh]

In Zechariah 14:5 it says, 'And ye shall flee to the valleys of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee'.

How did the saints get to be with the LORD before returning to earth?

How can the LORD, who is Spirit, come to earth, and be recognised on earth?

These are pretty easy

1) "saints" is an assumption. The words in hebrew are "כָּל־קְדֹשִׁ֖ים". Literally translated = "all holy ones". So, IF God is literally coming from afar ( which is also an assumption ) then the holy ones are angels.

2) The prophet describes "how" in the next verses. God comes in the form of reversing the laws of nature, and cursing the armies that have amassed.

 

[dybmh]

Daniel 7:27 talking about about 'the kingdom' makes evident that there must be a Messiah King in authority if a kingdom is to be established.

Respectfully, for clarity, IF read literally as word of God prophecy, yes there must be an anointed king.

Ezekiel 34:23-25. 'And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.
And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it.
And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land: and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods.'

Beautiful.

Now, a prince is heir to the throne. David was anointed as heir to the throne. So, too, was Jesus.

BUZZZZZZZ! You get the buzzer on that one. This is FALSE. Jesus was never anointed. As has been established in this thread already. The episodes that describe what could be an oil anointing use the wrong oil or the wrong procedure or both. The submersion and mystical experience after was a baptism, a mikveh, not anointing. If you have scripture to support the anointing, please bring it.

Ezekiel 37:24. 'And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.'

Yes, something to look forward to. Was there a connection you were trying to make with this verse?

 

[Redemptionsong]

And then this suggests that Christ Jesus cannot be The Spirit of God because Jesus' teachings came from the-father ( John 8:28 ). Isaiah says, no one teaches the Spirit of the Lord.

'Christ' is the Spirit of God. In 1 Corinthians it says, And [the Israelites in the wilderness] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.'

Jesus was not born until the days of Herod the Great. Jesus was baptised with the Holy Spirit, aged about thirty.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If this is read as prophecy, then every word matters. The kingdom in the dream is "GIVEN" to "THE PEOPLE". The saints ( not a literal translation ) are not included. That's not what it says. And the kingdom is given, no one needs to take hold of it.

Jesus on the other hand put conditions on the kingdom. ( Mark 10:15, Matthew 7:21, John 3:3, and others ) This doesn't match the vision in the dream. Therefore, the kingdom Jesus preached about, the mustard seed, the "man", the field mixed with weeds, is something else.

The condition that Jesus placed on the entering the kingdom was faith with love! This means placing faith in the king, and doing his will. Another way of putting it, would be to say, Worship God in Spirit and in truth.

How can you do this if you don't have the indwelling Holy Spirit?