Cain's action

[journeyman]

I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't take responsibility for our sins.

Our Lord took responsibility this way only,

When I say to the wicked, "You will certainly die," and you do not warn him - you do not speak out to warn the wicked to turn from his wicked deed and wicked lifestyle so that he may live - that wicked person will die for his iniquity, but I will hold you accountable for his death. But as for you, if you warn the wicked and he does not turn from his wicked deed and from his wicked lifestyle, he will die for his iniquity but you will have saved your own life. Eze.3:18-19

Exodus 13:13 uses the word translated ransom in Hosea 13:14 (H6299), and translates it redeem.
Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem [H6299] with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and you shall redeem all the firstborn of man among your sons.

Sometimes the word ransom definitely refers to paying a price. Other times a price does not seem necessary. God does not pay creditors because he owns everything -- but He can pay Himself.

Yes, we belonged to him before he sacrificed himself, so we doubly belong to him. God still paid a price. It can be a dive bomb example, but it's not free.

This verse equates "redemption through his blood" with "the forgiveness of our trespasses".

A lamb without blemish or spot was one that had no defect, and was fit for being offered as a sacrifice (e.g. Leviticus 1:10). So yes, being without spot means Jesus didn't deserve mistreatment or punishment. But again, the blood of Christ is a payment that is compared with silver and gold.

in all these things, the purpose is to produce a heart of repentance, whereby God forgives sin.

Paul compared himself with the people who wanted people to be circumcised. The false teachers didn't want to be persecuted. Paul, on the other hand, suffered for Jesus' sake.

Galatians 6:12 As many as desire to make a good impression in the flesh compel you to be circumcised; just so they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

The point is, Paul was being persecuted as his Lord was,

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; Phil.3:10

Paul didn't want to know how it felt to be held responsible for the sins of others. He wanted to know the love Jesus showed toward people who hated him.

More than just paying a price, Jesus was offered as a guilt offering.

Isaiah 53:10 WEB Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him.
    He has caused him to suffer.
When you make his soul an offering for sin,
    he will see his offspring.
He will prolong his days
    and Yahweh’s pleasure will prosper in his hand.

it pleased the Father to bruise his Son in the sense of correction,

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8

Endure your suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is there that a father does not discipline? Heb.12:7

The correction is to teach us how God is, being kind to people who hate him. Jesus truly needed no correction, but submitted himself to it as an example to us.

It's a terrible mistake to teach that our innocent Lord Jesus was being punished for what the guilty have done.

[Fenris]

Yes, the shoot from the stock of Jesse sounds like a descendant of Jesse, and is not called a servant in Isaiah 11. I think Spirit is already on him just as the servant had the Spirit in Isaiah 42:1, but the rest of the chapter remains future.

So you're splitting Is 11 into different times, one distant past, one yet to come. Unfortunately there's nothing in the chapter itself that suggest such a schism, convenient though it may be for your theology.

Compare the branch in Isaiah 11:1 with Jeremiah 23:5. What is his name?

Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days come,” says Yahweh,
    “that I will raise to David a righteous Branch,
and he will reign as king and deal wisely,
    and will execute justice and righteousness in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved,
    and Israel will dwell safely.
This is his name by which he will be called:
    Yahweh our righteousness.

Again, nothing to suggest that this is anything but a human being.

What does it mean to sit at God's right hand?

Psalm 110:1 Yahweh says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
    until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”

This is poetry, and probably refers to king David himself. I know that you capitalized the word "Lord" but the Hebrew word "Adonee" doesn't imply anything divine.

Compare the usage of the words "high and lifted up":

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant will deal wisely.
    He will be exalted and lifted up,
    and will be very high.

Again, there's nothing divine about saying that a person is "lifted up". Worse, God's "servant" is, in your theology, God Himself. That makes no sense and how can God be "lifted up", He is already God.

Who is the Psalmist addressing as "you"?

Psalm 45:6 Your throne, God, is forever and ever.
    A scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness.
    Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.

Why can't it be kind David? Or any righteous individual for that matter? I don't see why you always run to assume divinity on verses like this.

1 Kings 11:12-13 is about David's son, Solomon.
1 Kings 15:4 is about Abijam, not Solomon, and the context in 1 Kings 15:3 talks about his father David.
2 Kings 8:19 is about Jehoram, who also lived more than 100 years after David.

2 Kings 20:6 I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.

You = Hezekiah. God didn't clearly say I will defend this city for your sake.

Iiiiim confused.

The context of the surrounding verses (Isaiah 49:5-6) strongly suggests someone other than national Israel. The servant was named while still in his mother in Isaiah 49:1. Jacob was named after he was born. Jesus was given His name by the angel before He was born.

I mean verse 3 specifically says "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast." If you don't like that application for verses 1 and 5, why can't it be the prophet Isaiah itself? You're deliberately picking the more convoluted possibility because it supports your theology. That doesn't make it incorrect, but it also doesn't make it compelling for me to believe. 

In fact, there is someone else mentioned in Isaiah named Israel.

Isaiah 44:3 YLT For I pour waters on a thirsty one, And floods on a dry land, I pour My Spirit on thy seed, And My blessing on thine offspring.
4 And they have sprung up as among grass, As willows by streams of water.
5 This [one] saith, For Jehovah I [am], And this calleth [himself] by the name of Jacob, And this [one] writeth [with] his hand, `For Jehovah,' and by the name of Israel surnameth himself.

That is the most convoluted translation with archaic English and square brackets no less. I have no idea what it is saying. NIV is much simpler:

Some will say, ‘I belong to the LORD’ others will call themselves by the name of Jacob; still others will write on their hand, ‘The LORD’s,’ and will take the name Israel.

Since the chapter begins "And now, hearken, Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen..." it's talking about national Israel. The people who are "taking the name Israel" could just be converts to Judaism. It does happen you know.

The Christian view of salvation begins with the forgiveness of sins, but ultimately the Christian is saved from God's wrath at the end of the age.

Ok.

So you think the speaker is still using the language of his first preconceptions when describing what happened.

Why not?

I think you would agree that Isaiah 53:1-11a is spoken by a different speaker than Isaiah 53:11b-12, that talks about "my" servant again.

This seems logical.

I want to focus on the second half of Isaiah 53:11

My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself;
    and he will bear their iniquities.

1) The servant is righteous. That's something that Isaiah would not attribute to himself or to his people

No...the verse doesn't say that the "servant" is "righteous". That's not how the Hebrew reads, although I see most Christians will translate it in this manner. When a Hebrew word is doubled like that in the bible, it's generally a poetic way of making it an imperative. "My servant will surely bring righteousness" in this case. See Genesis 2:17 which uses the word "die" twice in a row, typically translated as "you will surely die" or Exodus 19:5 which uses the word "listen" twice in a row, usually translated as "if you will but listen/carefully listen".

Although even if we say that the text does say that the "servant" is "righteous", that doesn't mean that the servant is "perfect", simply righteous compared to the nations of the world; to whom the servant is bringing God's morality, which is also a nice tie-in with the people being a "light unto the nations".

To further this concept, we have Isaiah 60:21, in which God says says that Israel is righteous: "And your people, all of them righteous, shall inherit the land forever, a scion of My planting, the work of My hands in which I will glory."

Isaiah 64:6 For we have all become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteousness is like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf;
    and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

This quote is loved by Christians for it's supposed theological connotations, but I never thought much of it. Look at the context (a few verses further):

Your sacred cities have become a wasteland;
    even Zion is a wasteland, Jerusalem a desolation.
 Our holy and glorious temple, where our ancestors praised you,
    has been burned with fire,
    and all that we treasured lies in ruins.

This isn't a  sweeping statement about the futility of trying to be good for all generations that ever lived. It's a cry of anguish from the generation that saw the temple destroyed and the Jews exiled. Yes, I'm sure they felt as if "we have all become like one who is unclean". 

Though Balaam's prophecy shows God's view of Israel too:

Numbers 23:21 He has not seen iniquity in Jacob. Neither has he seen perverseness in Israel. Yahweh his God is with him. The shout of a king is among them.

Good point. And to add to it, this is the same people who committed the sin of the golden calf and the sins of the spies. And yet "He has not seen iniquity in Jacob" and Bilaam isn't even allowed to curse them "for they are blessed" (Num 22:12)

2) Other people will be justified, or declared righteous. So not just the servant, but other people too. Other people will become more righteous than Isaiah's people were in Isaiah 64:6.

It doesn't say "more righteous" only that the servant will bring righteousness. Which as I have already said, is about bringing knowledge of God to the world.

3) The servant bears the iniquities of the #2 people who were justified. These iniquities belong to the #2 people who are justified. If the #2 people were just because they didn't commit iniquity, the servant would have no iniquities to bear. If however, the #2 people were just BECAUSE the servant took away their iniquities, then we have vicarious atonement.

It doesn't have to be vicarious atonement.

On Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, we do no work and afflict ourselves by fasting, as commanded in the bible as an "eternal statute," "throughout your generations," "in any place you dwell". We also spend all day praying and begging for forgiveness of sin since "the day will make atonement for you". There is an exhaustive list of sins that we name and ask for forgiveness. And I have to be honest, while I am far from a perfect person I also haven't committed most of these sins. And here's where it gets interesting. We don't use the singular term, "forgive me for this sin", but instead the plural "Forgive us for this sin." Because, you see, we're not just confessing our individual sins but also the sins of the entire world.

We are bearing the sins of he world, just as the verse says.

See also Lamentations 5:7 as an example where bearing iniquities means to suffer the consequences of someone else's sins, and not suffering from sins directed towards them.

"Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities." As above, this could be a cry from a generation that saw exile and not a vast theological statement. However if you want to see it in this way  it reads like Ex 20:5 I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me... which doesn't imply vicarious suffering but rather intragenerational suffering from within a single family. 

4) If Verse 11b is about vicarious atonement and is part of a recap of Verse 1-11a, then Verses 4-6 also describe vicarious atonement. (Even if Verse 5 means "from" our transgressions, the substitute sin bearer can still suffer "from" our transgressions)

But I don't see 11b as vicarious atonement so this point is null.

So they are only in ancient manuscripts?

Why is this so important to you?

I thought of something else regarding Zechariah 12:10


Notice that they are mourning for someone who is in the singular.

The Hebrew word in question עָלָ֗יו can mean "on it" or (as you say) "on him". So let's say it means "on him" as a single person. A few days ago, a border policeman in Israel was shot in the head and is in critical condition in the hospital. An amazing thing happened. Thousands of people are outside the hospital, chanting Psalms and praying for his well-being. That's how Israel is. There are millions of people there, and every single one counts. When one soldier is critically wounded, the whole country is suffering.

[greenonions]

Yes, the shoot from the stock of Jesse sounds like a descendant of Jesse, and is not called a servant in Isaiah 11. I think Spirit is already on him just as the servant had the Spirit in Isaiah 42:1, but the rest of the chapter remains future.

So you're splitting Is 11 into different times, one distant past, one yet to come. Unfortunately there's nothing in the chapter itself that suggest such a schism, convenient though it may be for your theology.

I'm not trying to press any point here. I'm just stating the view from my vantage point that Is 11 may be partially fulfilled, and that I cannot agree heartily with you that ALL of Isaiah 11 is future.

Compare the branch in Isaiah 11:1 with Jeremiah 23:5. What is his name?

Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days come,” says Yahweh,
    “that I will raise to David a righteous Branch,
and he will reign as king and deal wisely,
    and will execute justice and righteousness in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved,
    and Israel will dwell safely.
This is his name by which he will be called:
    Yahweh our righteousness.

Again, nothing to suggest that this is anything but a human being.

I know characters in the Bible had part of God's name in their name, but I don't think God's full name was ever part of their name. I thought having God's full name would mean addressing the Messiah as God.

What does it mean to sit at God's right hand?

Psalm 110:1 Yahweh says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
    until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”

This is poetry, and probably refers to king David himself. I know that you capitalized the word "Lord" but the Hebrew word "Adonee" doesn't imply anything divine.

I understand God to be sitting on the throne and the Messiah sitting beside God in a very honoured position.

Compare the usage of the words "high and lifted up":

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant will deal wisely.
    He will be exalted and lifted up,
    and will be very high.

Again, there's nothing divine about saying that a person is "lifted up". Worse, God's "servant" is, in your theology, God Himself. That makes no sense and how can God be "lifted up", He is already God.

Remember the angel of the LORD is described as God Himself. God is lifted up in Isaiah 6:1, even though He is already God.

Who is the Psalmist addressing as "you"?

Psalm 45:6 Your throne, God, is forever and ever.
    A scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness.
    Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.

Why can't it be kind David? Or any righteous individual for that matter? I don't see why you always run to assume divinity on verses like this.

The third word in Psalm 45:6 is addressing "God" in relation to the first word "your".

I was thinking about how it sounded like Solomon. He had lots of gold and ivory (1 Kings 10:18, 22), but the Bible never mentions Solomon having an ivory palace (Psalm 45:8 ). King Ahab had an ivory house (1 Kings 22:39), but this psalm is definitely not about Ahab. As for David, I guess he was rich too, and this psalm could have been written after God promised that David's throne would last forever (2 Samuel 7:16)

1 Kings 11:12-13 is about David's son, Solomon.
1 Kings 15:4 is about Abijam, not Solomon, and the context in 1 Kings 15:3 talks about his father David.
2 Kings 8:19 is about Jehoram, who also lived more than 100 years after David.

2 Kings 20:6 I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.

You = Hezekiah. God didn't clearly say I will defend this city for your sake.

Iiiiim confused.

We are talking about whether "David" means "David" in these verses. You claimed in that 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 that David doesn't mean David because David was long dead. 2 Kings 8:19 proves that David can mean David even long after he was dead.

The context of the surrounding verses (Isaiah 49:5-6) strongly suggests someone other than national Israel. The servant was named while still in his mother in Isaiah 49:1. Jacob was named after he was born. Jesus was given His name by the angel before He was born.

I mean verse 3 specifically says "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast." If you don't like that application for verses 1 and 5, why can't it be the prophet Isaiah itself? You're deliberately picking the more convoluted possibility because it supports your theology. That doesn't make it incorrect, but it also doesn't make it compelling for me to believe. 

The Bible did not mention Isaiah's name when he was in his mother either. Isaiah was not God's salvation to the ends of the earth, at least not in your understanding of salvation, I don't think.

In fact, there is someone else mentioned in Isaiah named Israel.

Isaiah 44:3 YLT For I pour waters on a thirsty one, And floods on a dry land, I pour My Spirit on thy seed, And My blessing on thine offspring.
4 And they have sprung up as among grass, As willows by streams of water.
5 This [one] saith, For Jehovah I [am], And this calleth [himself] by the name of Jacob, And this [one] writeth [with] his hand, `For Jehovah,' and by the name of Israel surnameth himself.

That is the most convoluted translation with archaic English and square brackets no less. I have no idea what it is saying. NIV is much simpler:

Some will say, ‘I belong to the LORD’ others will call themselves by the name of Jacob; still others will write on their hand, ‘The LORD’s,’ and will take the name Israel.

Since the chapter begins "And now, hearken, Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen..." it's talking about national Israel. The people who are "taking the name Israel" could just be converts to Judaism. It does happen you know.

I agree that Isaiah 44:1-3 is about national Israel. Thanks for finding the simpler translation. I'm just saying that people could take the name Israel, so Isaiah 49:3 could be one of those people.

I think you would agree that Isaiah 53:1-11a is spoken by a different speaker than Isaiah 53:11b-12, that talks about "my" servant again.

This seems logical.

Yay!

I want to focus on the second half of Isaiah 53:11

My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself;
    and he will bear their iniquities.

1) The servant is righteous. That's something that Isaiah would not attribute to himself or to his people

No...the verse doesn't say that the "servant" is "righteous". That's not how the Hebrew reads, although I see most Christians will translate it in this manner. When a Hebrew word is doubled like that in the bible, it's generally a poetic way of making it an imperative. "My servant will surely bring righteousness" in this case. See Genesis 2:17 which uses the word "die" twice in a row, typically translated as "you will surely die" or Exodus 19:5 which uses the word "listen" twice in a row, usually translated as "if you will but listen/carefully listen".

Although even if we say that the text does say that the "servant" is "righteous", that doesn't mean that the servant is "perfect", simply righteous compared to the nations of the world; to whom the servant is bringing God's morality, which is also a nice tie-in with the people being a "light unto the nations".

To further this concept, we have Isaiah 60:21, in which God says says that Israel is righteous: "And your people, all of them righteous, shall inherit the land forever, a scion of My planting, the work of My hands in which I will glory."

Isaiah 64:6 For we have all become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteousness is like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf;
    and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

This quote is loved by Christians for it's supposed theological connotations, but I never thought much of it. Look at the context (a few verses further):

Your sacred cities have become a wasteland;
    even Zion is a wasteland, Jerusalem a desolation.
 Our holy and glorious temple, where our ancestors praised you,
    has been burned with fire,
    and all that we treasured lies in ruins.

This isn't a  sweeping statement about the futility of trying to be good for all generations that ever lived. It's a cry of anguish from the generation that saw the temple destroyed and the Jews exiled. Yes, I'm sure they felt as if "we have all become like one who is unclean". 

Yes, this statement in Isaiah 64:6 is quoted a lot. Thanks for the commentary and reminder about the context.

Though Balaam's prophecy shows God's view of Israel too:

Numbers 23:21 He has not seen iniquity in Jacob. Neither has he seen perverseness in Israel. Yahweh his God is with him. The shout of a king is among them.

Good point. And to add to it, this is the same people who committed the sin of the golden calf and the sins of the spies. And yet "He has not seen iniquity in Jacob" and Bilaam isn't even allowed to curse them "for they are blessed" (Num 22:12)

God's grace is amazing.

2) Other people will be justified, or declared righteous. So not just the servant, but other people too. Other people will become more righteous than Isaiah's people were in Isaiah 64:6.

It doesn't say "more righteous" only that the servant will bring righteousness. Which as I have already said, is about bringing knowledge of God to the world.

3) The servant bears the iniquities of the #2 people who were justified. These iniquities belong to the #2 people who are justified. If the #2 people were just because they didn't commit iniquity, the servant would have no iniquities to bear. If however, the #2 people were just BECAUSE the servant took away their iniquities, then we have vicarious atonement.

It doesn't have to be vicarious atonement.

On Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, we do no work and afflict ourselves by fasting, as commanded in the bible as an "eternal statute," "throughout your generations," "in any place you dwell". We also spend all day praying and begging for forgiveness of sin since "the day will make atonement for you". There is an exhaustive list of sins that we name and ask for forgiveness. And I have to be honest, while I am far from a perfect person I also haven't committed most of these sins. And here's where it gets interesting. We don't use the singular term, "forgive me for this sin", but instead the plural "Forgive us for this sin." Because, you see, we're not just confessing our individual sins but also the sins of the entire world.

We are bearing the sins of he world, just as the verse says.

Does the exhaustive list of sins that you confess correspond to the 613 commandments?

Levitcus 16:17 No one shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, and has made atonement for himself and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel. ... 32 The priest, who is anointed and who is consecrated to be priest in his father’s place, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen garments, even the holy garments.

The priest makes atonement on that day. When the priest comes out of the Holy Place, he has finished making atonement. It is not the entirety of the day that makes atonement, even though the people are required to afflict themselves for the rest of the day too.

Leviticus 16:17 only mentions atonement for the priest, his household and all the assembly of Israel. I don't think the atonement is promised to cover people outside the assembly of Israel, just because the people of Israel mention their sins. But nice thought, nonetheless. Of course, God may choose to answer any prayers offered to Him, but that is not the way God prescribed for taking away the sins of nations, I don't think, at least not in the Law of Moses.

See also Lamentations 5:7 as an example where bearing iniquities means to suffer the consequences of someone else's sins, and not suffering from sins directed towards them.

"Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities." As above, this could be a cry from a generation that saw exile and not a vast theological statement. However if you want to see it in this way  it reads like Ex 20:5 I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me... which doesn't imply vicarious suffering but rather intragenerational suffering from within a single family. 

I agree that it's probably intragenerational suffering in Lamentations 5:7, but still an example of suffering from the guilt of someone rather than the actions of someone.

4) If Verse 11b is about vicarious atonement and is part of a recap of Verse 1-11a, then Verses 4-6 also describe vicarious atonement. (Even if Verse 5 means "from" our transgressions, the substitute sin bearer can still suffer "from" our transgressions)

But I don't see 11b as vicarious atonement so this point is null.

OK, in your interpretation, you are linking the bearing the iniquities in verse 11 not with what is happening in verse 5, but what is happening in verse 6. btw, do you God is interceding in the servant in verse 6 or the servant is interceding before God in verse 6?

So they are only in ancient manuscripts?

Why is this so important to you?

Just curious. New information

I thought of something else regarding Zechariah 12:10


Notice that they are mourning for someone who is in the singular.

The Hebrew word in question עָלָ֗יו can mean "on it" or (as you say) "on him". So let's say it means "on him" as a single person. A few days ago, a border policeman in Israel was shot in the head and is in critical condition in the hospital. An amazing thing happened. Thousands of people are outside the hospital, chanting Psalms and praying for his well-being. That's how Israel is. There are millions of people there, and every single one counts. When one soldier is critically wounded, the whole country is suffering.

I prayed for the border policeman. I doubt the Zechariah 12 war will have only one Jewish casualty.

----

For Isaiah 53:1, there are actually two parallel statements:

Who has believed our message?
    To whom has Yahweh’s arm been revealed?

If you change the "has" to "would have", does it still work?

Who [would have] believed our message?
    To whom [would have] Yahweh’s arm been revealed?

[Fenris]

I'm not trying to press any point here. I'm just stating the view from my vantage point that Is 11 may be partially fulfilled, and that I cannot agree heartily with you that ALL of Isaiah 11 is future.

Just saying that it seems peculiar to me that a chapter without any natural breaks or internal messaging is describing two different time periods. The opposite, it uses the phrasing "on that day." To wit-

And it shall come to pass on that day that the  Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious. And it shall come to pass on that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the Mediterranean.

He will raise a banner for the nations
    and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
    from the four quarters of the earth.

It reads to me like one event. There will be this amazing descendant of Jesse (David's father) who will be known to the world. And on that same day God will gather the Jewish exiles.

I know characters in the Bible had part of God's name in their name, but I don't think God's full name was ever part of their name. I thought having God's full name would mean addressing the Messiah as God.

Well first of all, in Jewish theology God is not a human being. God is God. An infinite, timeless being who cannot be contained in any physical or time bound form, including a human body. A person having a name with God in it doesn't mean that person is God.

 There are scores of Jewish names with all or part of God's name in them, which glorifies God, not the person so named. "Gabriel" = "Strength of God". It's talking about God's strength, not the person with that name. "Isaiah" = "God saves" it's talking about God saving people, not the person so named. And so on.

I understand God to be sitting on the throne and the Messiah sitting beside God in a very honoured position.

Um, there's nothing in that Psalm that makes me think the subject is anyone other than king David. 

Remember the angel of the LORD is described as God Himself. God is lifted up in Isaiah 6:1, even though He is already God.

I am familiar with Isaiah 6, it's the reading for my Bar Mitzvah. A better translation " I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne". That implies nothing that you just said.

The third word in Psalm 45:6 is addressing "God" in relation to the first word "your".

I was thinking about how it sounded like Solomon. He had lots of gold and ivory (1 Kings 10:18, 22), but the Bible never mentions Solomon having an ivory palace (Psalm 45:8 ). King Ahab had an ivory house (1 Kings 22:39), but this psalm is definitely not about Ahab. As for David, I guess he was rich too, and this psalm could have been written after God promised that David's throne would last forever (2 Samuel 7:16)

Could be.

We are talking about whether "David" means "David" in these verses. You claimed in that 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 that David doesn't mean David because David was long dead. 2 Kings 8:19 proves that David can mean David even long after he was dead.

I've lost the plot. Alas.

The Bible did not mention Isaiah's name when he was in his mother either. Isaiah was not God's salvation to the ends of the earth, at least not in your understanding of salvation, I don't think.

But the author is Isaiah. When the verse says "Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him," it's simplest by far to assume that the "me" is Isaiah himself and not some other character being introduced. Medieval commentator Rashi says that the "salvation to the ends of the earth"  is Isaiah's message about the downfall of Babylon at the hands of Cyrus. Babylon was a brutal oppressor, but Cyrus's Persia was quite enlightened even by today's standards- he freed the slaves, allowed exiles to go home, and in general freed the captured peoples from under Babylon. 

In fact, there is someone else mentioned in Isaiah named Israel.

I agree that Isaiah 44:1-3 is about national Israel. Thanks for finding the simpler translation.

Glad we can work together.

Yes, this statement in Isaiah 64:6 is quoted a lot. Thanks for the commentary and reminder about the context.

You are very welcome

God's grace is amazing.

Indeed! We can agree on that.

Does the exhaustive list of sins that you confess correspond to the 613 commandments?

The confession uses more general terms and also tends to be more poetical. I mean it's also complicated because the bible has almost as many "thou shalts" as "thou shalt nots". So missing out on doing something that one is obligated to do is also a sin.

The priest makes atonement on that day. When the priest comes out of the Holy Place, he has finished making atonement. It is not the entirety of the day that makes atonement, even though the people are required to afflict themselves for the rest of the day too.

Leviticus 16:17 only mentions atonement for the priest, his household and all the assembly of Israel. I don't think the atonement is promised to cover people outside the assembly of Israel, just because the people of Israel mention their sins. But nice thought, nonetheless. Of course, God may choose to answer any prayers offered to Him, but that is not the way God prescribed for taking away the sins of nations, I don't think, at least not in the Law of Moses.

It is a day on which God is open for hearing us confess our sin and request atonement. In the bible (I hate the term "laws of Moses", making it sound as if those laws came from Moses and not from God) it lists many ways to achieve atonement, including prayer, good deeds, and charity. The bible also explicitly states  (Num 15:30) that there is no sacrifice for willful intentional sins. 

I agree that it's probably intragenerational suffering in Lamentations 5:7, but still an example of suffering from the guilt of someone rather than the actions of someone.

Agree but again, this is talking about something within a family. And its not vicarious atonement its simply suffering from another's sin.

OK, in your interpretation, you are linking the bearing the iniquities in verse 11 not with what is happening in verse 5, but what is happening in verse 6. btw, do you God is interceding in the servant in verse 6 or the servant is interceding before God in verse 6?

53:6 is still the nations speaking. So they are expressing their own opinion, which may or may not be correct.

I prayed for the border policeman.

That's wonderful. May God bless you.

I doubt the Zechariah 12 war will have only one Jewish casualty.

Could be. It is yet to come so we shall see.

For Isaiah 53:1, there are actually two parallel statements:

Who has believed our message?
    To whom has Yahweh’s arm been revealed?

If you change the "has" to "would have", does it still work?

Who [would have] believed our message?
    To whom [would have] Yahweh’s arm been revealed?

You're interested in the tenses. Reading from the Hebrew, it reads past tense. Something like "Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?"

[greenonions]

I'm not trying to press any point here. I'm just stating the view from my vantage point that Is 11 may be partially fulfilled, and that I cannot agree heartily with you that ALL of Isaiah 11 is future.

Just saying that it seems peculiar to me that a chapter without any natural breaks or internal messaging is describing two different time periods. The opposite, it uses the phrasing "on that day." To wit-

And it shall come to pass on that day that the  Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious. And it shall come to pass on that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the Mediterranean.

He will raise a banner for the nations
    and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
    from the four quarters of the earth.

It reads to me like one event. There will be this amazing descendant of Jesse (David's father) who will be known to the world. And on that same day God will gather the Jewish exiles.

Suppose the Messiah's life has some resemblance to his ancestor David's story, or just take David's story as a possible scenario that may also occur in the Messiah's life. The Spirit of the LORD was on David after he was anointed king by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13). But David didn't become king in a practical sense until much later (2 Samuel 2:4). Similarly, the Messiah could have the Spirit on him long before he extends his kingdom to the nations in Isaiah 11:10. I agree that Isaiah 11:3-16 refers to the day that Messiah "strikes the earth with the rod of his mouth" (v. 4). That said, Isaiah 11:2 works in the future too, because it doesn't say that God's spirit will start resting on him.

Yahweh’s Spirit will rest on him:
    the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
    the spirit of counsel and might,
    the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh.

Notice that Messiah is the conqueror of the nations in Isaiah 11:4. Did you notice that in Zechariah 12:1-9, it doesn't mention the Messiah leading the battle? It only says "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:8 ).

I know characters in the Bible had part of God's name in their name, but I don't think God's full name was ever part of their name. I thought having God's full name would mean addressing the Messiah as God.

Well first of all, in Jewish theology God is not a human being. God is God. An infinite, timeless being who cannot be contained in any physical or time bound form, including a human body. A person having a name with God in it doesn't mean that person is God.

 There are scores of Jewish names with all or part of God's name in them, which glorifies God, not the person so named. "Gabriel" = "Strength of God". It's talking about God's strength, not the person with that name. "Isaiah" = "God saves" it's talking about God saving people, not the person so named. And so on.

So if I name myself Yahweh Tsidqenuw, would that be ok? Or would it be considered blasphemous? Would it be allowed based on the 3rd commandment, not to take God's name in vain?

Yes, the heavens cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27), but God still appear in any form that He likes, including a flame in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2).

God looked human to Abraham (Genesis 18:1-33), Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30), Gideon (Judges 6:11-24), and Samson's parents (Judges 13:2-23). In Christian theology, Jesus is God AND man, meaning He retains His infinite qualities.

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    being small among the clans of Judah,
    out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel;
    whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.

It sounds like this ruler existed from ancient times, suggesting the Messiah existed long before he was born, and is not an ordinary man.

I understand God to be sitting on the throne and the Messiah sitting beside God in a very honoured position.

Um, there's nothing in that Psalm that makes me think the subject is anyone other than king David. 

If David wrote Psalm 110, it seems strange to address the subject as "you". Unless you think David didn't write the Psalm and someone wrote about David. You don't think it strange that God sits in heaven (Psalm 2:4) and the subject sits at His right hand [in heaven]? Which day in David's life is the "day of Your power" in Psalm 110:3, or is the meaning of day flexible here? Which heads of state did David break in pieces (Psalm 110:6)?

Remember the angel of the LORD is described as God Himself. God is lifted up in Isaiah 6:1, even though He is already God.

I am familiar with Isaiah 6, it's the reading for my Bar Mitzvah. A better translation " I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne". That implies nothing that you just said.

And because God is sitting on top of the throne, He is high and exalted too. You said the servant in Isaiah 52:13 could not be God because God cannot be lifted up, but it could simply be that God is high and exalted.

We are talking about whether "David" means "David" in these verses. You claimed in that 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 that David doesn't mean David because David was long dead. 2 Kings 8:19 proves that David can mean David even long after he was dead.

I've lost the plot. Alas.

We were talking about Israel in Isaiah 49:3 could mean Israel's descendant, just as David can mean David's descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said David meant one of David's descendants in other places too (which I tried to contradict) but Israel never meant one of Israel's descendants in other places.

The Bible did not mention Isaiah's name when he was in his mother either. Isaiah was not God's salvation to the ends of the earth, at least not in your understanding of salvation, I don't think.

But the author is Isaiah. When the verse says "Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him," it's simplest by far to assume that the "me" is Isaiah himself and not some other character being introduced. Medieval commentator Rashi says that the "salvation to the ends of the earth"  is Isaiah's message about the downfall of Babylon at the hands of Cyrus. Babylon was a brutal oppressor, but Cyrus's Persia was quite enlightened even by today's standards- he freed the slaves, allowed exiles to go home, and in general freed the captured peoples from under Babylon. 

I understood Isaiah 49:6 to say the servant [you say Isaiah] is God's salvation, not that the servant announced God's salvation.

Does the exhaustive list of sins that you confess correspond to the 613 commandments?

The confession uses more general terms and also tends to be more poetical. I mean it's also complicated because the bible has almost as many "thou shalts" as "thou shalt nots". So missing out on doing something that one is obligated to do is also a sin.

Interesting

The priest makes atonement on that day. When the priest comes out of the Holy Place, he has finished making atonement. It is not the entirety of the day that makes atonement, even though the people are required to afflict themselves for the rest of the day too.

Leviticus 16:17 only mentions atonement for the priest, his household and all the assembly of Israel. I don't think the atonement is promised to cover people outside the assembly of Israel, just because the people of Israel mention their sins. But nice thought, nonetheless. Of course, God may choose to answer any prayers offered to Him, but that is not the way God prescribed for taking away the sins of nations, I don't think, at least not in the Law of Moses.

It is a day on which God is open for hearing us confess our sin and request atonement. In the bible (I hate the term "laws of Moses", making it sound as if those laws came from Moses and not from God) it lists many ways to achieve atonement, including prayer, good deeds, and charity. The bible also explicitly states  (Num 15:30) that there is no sacrifice for willful intentional sins. 

The word sacrifice is not mentioned in Numbers 15:30, but I know what you mean. The offender was killed, not brought to the tabernacle to offer a sacrifice to atone for his/her crime. Leviticus 16:30 says "that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD".

I agree that it's probably intragenerational suffering in Lamentations 5:7, but still an example of suffering from the guilt of someone rather than the actions of someone.

Agree but again, this is talking about something within a family. And its not vicarious atonement its simply suffering from another's sin.

Agreed. I was referring to the usage of the words "bear their iniquities" having a meaning similar to "bearing the consequences of guilt".

OK, in your interpretation, you are linking the bearing the iniquities in verse 11 not with what is happening in verse 5, but what is happening in verse 6. btw, do you God is interceding in the servant in verse 6 or the servant is interceding before God in verse 6?

53:6 is still the nations speaking. So they are expressing their own opinion, which may or may not be correct.

So you think Isaiah 53:1-10 is the honest opinion of the kings, which may or may not be correct, but their words should match the observations of an ordinary bystander? Are the kings predicting the future in Isaiah 53:10b? "He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand"

I prayed for the border policeman.

That's wonderful. May God bless you.

He died, right?

For Isaiah 53:1, there are actually two parallel statements:

Who has believed our message?
    To whom has Yahweh’s arm been revealed?

If you change the "has" to "would have", does it still work?

Who [would have] believed our message?
    To whom [would have] Yahweh’s arm been revealed?

You're interested in the tenses. Reading from the Hebrew, it reads past tense. Something like "Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?"

ok

[Fenris]

Suppose the Messiah's life has some resemblance to his ancestor David's story, or just take David's story as a possible scenario that may also occur in the Messiah's life. The Spirit of the LORD was on David after he was anointed king by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13). But David didn't become king in a practical sense until much later (2 Samuel 2:4). Similarly, the Messiah could have the Spirit on him long before he extends his kingdom to the nations in Isaiah 11:10.

Yeah but we're not talking about something that happens a short time later. According to your reading, the events in the chapter are separated by what, 2000 years or more? There's nothing internally in the chapter that would lead me to believe that. Why would God deliberately communicate in such a confusing manner?

And notwithstanding that Jesus is God yet he also has "the spirit of God upon him" (which I never understood.)

Notice that Messiah is the conqueror of the nations in Isaiah 11:4. Did you notice that in Zechariah 12:1-9, it doesn't mention the Messiah leading the battle? It only says "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:8 ).

I'm not sure what your point here is.

So if I name myself Yahweh Tsidqenuw, would that be ok? Or would it be considered blasphemous? Would it be allowed based on the 3rd commandment, not to take God's name in vain?

There's nothing blasphemous about saying "the Lord is righteous".

Yes, the heavens cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27), but God still appear in any form that He likes, including a flame in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2).

The burning bush wasn't God though.

God looked human to Abraham (Genesis 18:1-33), Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30), Gideon (Judges 6:11-24), and Samson's parents (Judges 13:2-23).

Uh, those were all angels, not God. It's in the text.

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    being small among the clans of Judah,
    out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel;
    whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.

It sounds like this ruler existed from ancient times, suggesting the Messiah existed long before he was born, and is not an ordinary man.

King David was born in Bethlehem. The messiah is a descendant of David. Ergo "out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.".

I think it's interesting that many Christians seem to feel that Jews don't know what's in our own bible.

If David wrote Psalm 110, it seems strange to address the subject as "you".

It's not strange at all. David is also the subject of the Psalm. And who were the Psalms written for? The Levites, who chanted them in service. Now that we've established that, let's look at the psalm again-

In the Hebrew it begins "A Psalm of David". Why those first words aren't in most English translations I have no idea.

It continues: God (YHVH) said to my master (Adonee); "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."

The Levites are talking about God speaking to their master, king David.

The English translation typically reads "The Lord said to my Lord", as if the two words "Lord" are the same, but they're not. They are two different Hebrew words and should be translated as such.

Unless you think David didn't write the Psalm and someone wrote about David. You don't think it strange that God sits in heaven (Psalm 2:4) and the subject sits at His right hand [in heaven]?

Why'd you add the words in brackets? It's not in the Psalm. Why can't it just be a poetic term? You know the Psalms are poems, right?

Verse 2: The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion

Who ruled in Zion? King David.

Which day in David's life is the "day of Your power" in Psalm 110:3, or is the meaning of day flexible here?

KJV and ESV translate it as "day of power", but you should look at the other translations. NIV renders the verse as " Your troops will be willing on your day of battle". So yeah, when king David goes to war (he did that a lot, you know) his troops will be ready to fight for him. Very simple.

Which heads of state did David break in pieces (Psalm 110:6)?

He defeated many enemies of Israel. Surely you are aware of this.

And because God is sitting on top of the throne, He is high and exalted too. You said the servant in Isaiah 52:13 could not be God because God cannot be lifted up, but it could simply be that God is high and exalted.

It says "Will be raised up" not "Is already raised up". And I don't understand how Jesus i.e. God could also be God's servant.

We were talking about Israel in Isaiah 49:3 could mean Israel's descendant, just as David can mean David's descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said David meant one of David's descendants in other places too (which I tried to contradict) but Israel never meant one of Israel's descendants in other places.

Because Isaiah doesn't use the term with that meaning anywhere else. You want to use it here because you think it proves your point. That's a very bad reason to borrow terminology. It's intellectually dishonest.

I understood Isaiah 49:6 to say the servant [you say Isaiah] is God's salvation, not that the servant announced God's salvation.

It doesn't say the servant IS God's salvation. The end of the verse reads "...so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."

Agreed. I was referring to the usage of the words "bear their iniquities" having a meaning similar to "bearing the consequences of guilt".

Yeah, but I mean again, it's one thing within a family because God says He will punish to the fourth generation.

As an aside, He also says that He will extend kindness for a thousand generations of those who love Him and keep his commands. We're not a thousand generations from Abraham so...

So you think Isaiah 53:1-10 is the honest opinion of the kings, which may or may not be correct, but their words should match the observations of an ordinary bystander?

They are bystanders. I don't know what you mean here.

Are the kings predicting the future in Isaiah 53:10b? "He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand"

Perhaps its their hope? I don't see how verse 10 could be applied to Jesus regardless. He had no "seed" (descendants) and his days were cut short, not prolonged. 

He died, right?

He did.

At least it was protecting his people. May the Almighty avenge his blood.

[greenonions]

Suppose the Messiah's life has some resemblance to his ancestor David's story, or just take David's story as a possible scenario that may also occur in the Messiah's life. The Spirit of the LORD was on David after he was anointed king by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13). But David didn't become king in a practical sense until much later (2 Samuel 2:4). Similarly, the Messiah could have the Spirit on him long before he extends his kingdom to the nations in Isaiah 11:10.

Yeah but we're not talking about something that happens a short time later. According to your reading, the events in the chapter are separated by what, 2000 years or more? There's nothing internally in the chapter that would lead me to believe that. Why would God deliberately communicate in such a confusing manner?

It could be all future, and that verse 2 about the spirit resting on the Messiah is the future condition. It's just possible (based on other passages) that the future condition began earlier in time and continues until the future.

And notwithstanding that Jesus is God yet he also has "the spirit of God upon him" (which I never understood.)

I guess that is related to the concept of the Trinity.

Isaiah 48:16 “Come near to me and hear this: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it happened, I was there.” Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me with his Spirit.

Yahweh can send with his Spirit. The speaker appears to be God, based on verses 9-15, but you'll probably interpret the last sentence as Isaiah speaking.

Notice that Messiah is the conqueror of the nations in Isaiah 11:4. Did you notice that in Zechariah 12:1-9, it doesn't mention the Messiah leading the battle? It only says "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:8 ).

I'm not sure what your point here is.

That the Messiah could be the God. See also Zechariah 14:9 where the LORD is king over the earth -- something that Messiah will be.

So if I name myself Yahweh Tsidqenuw, would that be ok? Or would it be considered blasphemous? Would it be allowed based on the 3rd commandment, not to take God's name in vain?

There's nothing blasphemous about saying "the Lord is righteous".

OK. I guess people just need to be careful not to call me by my first name.

Yes, the heavens cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27), but God still appear in any form that He likes, including a flame in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2).

The burning bush wasn't God though.

Exodus 3:2 Yahweh’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the middle of a bush.

Not the bush itself. God appeared like a flame of fire.

God looked human to Abraham (Genesis 18:1-33), Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30), Gideon (Judges 6:11-24), and Samson's parents (Judges 13:2-23).

Uh, those were all angels, not God. It's in the text.

Yes, they were all called the angel of the LORD, but also Yahweh or God:

Genesis 18:1 Yahweh appeared to him ...
Genesis 18:13 Yahweh said to Abraham, ...
Genesis 18:17 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:20 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:26 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:33 Yahweh went his way ...
Genesis 32:30 Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”
Judges 6:14 Yahweh looked at him, and said, ...
Judges 6:16 Yahweh said to him, ...
Judges 13:22 Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    being small among the clans of Judah,
    out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel;
    whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.

It sounds like this ruler existed from ancient times, suggesting the Messiah existed long before he was born, and is not an ordinary man.

King David was born in Bethlehem. The messiah is a descendant of David. Ergo "out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.".

I think it's interesting that many Christians seem to feel that Jews don't know what's in our own bible.

I'm sure you've read it many times, but I can still quote it, right? I don't think the Bible has an account of David's birth, but he definitely lived in Bethlehem as a child. "out of you will come" --> so the ruler is a future ruler (Messiah, I think we are agreed). The goings out are from ancient times. Do these "goings out" refer to the future Messiah?

If David wrote Psalm 110, it seems strange to address the subject as "you".

It's not strange at all. David is also the subject of the Psalm. And who were the Psalms written for? The Levites, who chanted them in service. Now that we've established that, let's look at the psalm again-

In the Hebrew it begins "A Psalm of David". Why those first words aren't in most English translations I have no idea.

It continues: God (YHVH) said to my master (Adonee); "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."

The Levites are talking about God speaking to their master, king David.

The English translation typically reads "The Lord said to my Lord", as if the two words "Lord" are the same, but they're not. They are two different Hebrew words and should be translated as such.

I agree that Adonee means master. It can be used for God too, right?

Unless you think David didn't write the Psalm and someone wrote about David. You don't think it strange that God sits in heaven (Psalm 2:4) and the subject sits at His right hand [in heaven]?

Why'd you add the words in brackets? It's not in the Psalm. Why can't it just be a poetic term? You know the Psalms are poems, right?

I added the brackets to suggest that if it was literal, God would probably be sitting on His throne in heaven. So David did not literally sit at God's right hand, but perhaps figuratively.

Verse 2: The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion

Who ruled in Zion? King David.

Yes David ruled in Zion, and so did Melchizedek, and so will the future Messiah.

Which day in David's life is the "day of Your power" in Psalm 110:3, or is the meaning of day flexible here?

KJV and ESV translate it as "day of power", but you should look at the other translations. NIV renders the verse as " Your troops will be willing on your day of battle". So yeah, when king David goes to war (he did that a lot, you know) his troops will be ready to fight for him. Very simple.

The word translated "power" or "battle" seems mean "ability" or "army" in other Bible verses. Your interpretation is possible.

Which heads of state did David break in pieces (Psalm 110:6)?

He defeated many enemies of Israel. Surely you are aware of this.

I know, but the gruesome executions mentioned here were not described in the Bible. Or maybe break in pieces just means defeating them?

And because God is sitting on top of the throne, He is high and exalted too. You said the servant in Isaiah 52:13 could not be God because God cannot be lifted up, but it could simply be that God is high and exalted.

It says "Will be raised up" not "Is already raised up". And I don't understand how Jesus i.e. God could also be God's servant.

I see your point. I guess this is a New Testament thing.

Philippians 2:5 Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name,

We were talking about Israel in Isaiah 49:3 could mean Israel's descendant, just as David can mean David's descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said David meant one of David's descendants in other places too (which I tried to contradict) but Israel never meant one of Israel's descendants in other places.

Because Isaiah doesn't use the term with that meaning anywhere else. You want to use it here because you think it proves your point. That's a very bad reason to borrow terminology. It's intellectually dishonest.

I'm not borrowing terminology as strong evidence, but a possible explanation for a difficulty in the interpretation. It's like you saying "it is poetic". It's not strong evidence, but it offers a possible explanation for your interpretation. Does that make sense?

I understood Isaiah 49:6 to say the servant [you say Isaiah] is God's salvation, not that the servant announced God's salvation.

It doesn't say the servant IS God's salvation. The end of the verse reads "...so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."

We have different translations. This is from the World English Bible.

Isaiah 49:6 ... I will also give you as a light to the nations, that you may be my salvation to the end of the earth.”

My interlinear Bible has this:

u·nththi·k [and I give you] l-aur [for light of] guim [nations] l-eiuth [to to become of] ishuoth-i [salvation of me]

Agreed. I was referring to the usage of the words "bear their iniquities" having a meaning similar to "bearing the consequences of guilt".

Yeah, but I mean again, it's one thing within a family because God says He will punish to the fourth generation.

As an aside, He also says that He will extend kindness for a thousand generations of those who love Him and keep his commands. We're not a thousand generations from Abraham so...

Good thing He didn't say a hundred generations.

So you think Isaiah 53:1-10 is the honest opinion of the kings, which may or may not be correct, but their words should match the observations of an ordinary bystander?

They are bystanders. I don't know what you mean here.

OK. I was checking my understanding.

Are the kings predicting the future in Isaiah 53:10b? "He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand"

Perhaps its their hope? I don't see how verse 10 could be applied to Jesus regardless. He had no "seed" (descendants) and his days were cut short, not prolonged.

I guess this is a New Testament thing.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:

Romans 6:9 knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him!

[Fenris]

It could be all future, and that verse 2 about the spirit resting on the Messiah is the future condition. It's just possible (based on other passages) that the future condition began earlier in time and continues until the future.

You can see it this way if you wish. But it's not especially convincing and I'm sure you will understand if I don't.

I guess that is related to the concept of the Trinity.

Isaiah 48:16 “Come near to me and hear this: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it happened, I was there.” Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me with his Spirit.

Yahweh can send with his Spirit. The speaker appears to be God, based on verses 9-15, but you'll probably interpret the last sentence as Isaiah speaking.

Other individuals have also had the spirit of God on them. Numbers 11, Judges 3, even the wicked Balaam (Numbers 24). It doesn't imply divinity.

That the Messiah could be the God. See also Zechariah 14:9 where the LORD is king over the earth -- something that Messiah will be.

The messiah is a scion of David. That means he's a person.

OK. I guess people just need to be careful not to call me by my first name.

Exodus 3:2 Yahweh’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the middle of a bush.

Not the bush itself. God appeared like a flame of fire.

You said it yourself. An angel.

Yes, they were all called the angel of the LORD, but also Yahweh or God:

Genesis 18:1 Yahweh appeared to him ...
Genesis 18:13 Yahweh said to Abraham, ...
Genesis 18:17 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:20 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:26 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:33 Yahweh went his way ...

The bible specifically says that Abraham's visitors were angels. Granted, God spoke to Abraham many times also.

Genesis 32:30 Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

Yet he wrestled with "a man". Hosea 12:4 clarifies that it was an angel.

Judges 6:14 Yahweh looked at him, and said, ...
Judges 6:16 Yahweh said to him, ...

The earlier verses specifically say that it was an angel.

Judges 13:22 Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”

Again, verses say that it was an angel. Not everyone in the bible is a reliable narrator.

I'm sure you've read it many times, but I can still quote it, right? I don't think the Bible has an account of David's birth, but he definitely lived in Bethlehem as a child. "out of you will come" --> so the ruler is a future ruler (Messiah, I think we are agreed). The goings out are from ancient times. Do these "goings out" refer to the future Messiah?

What the verse means is, that from Bethlehem in ancient times will the messiah come. That's because the messiah is descended from David, who was from Bethlehem.

I agree that Adonee means master. It can be used for God too, right?

It doesn't imply divinity and wouldn't make sense in this context. Why use YHVH and Adonee to refer to God in the same verse? It's simpler to picture the levites singing "God said to my master (king David)."

I added the brackets to suggest that if it was literal, God would probably be sitting on His throne in heaven. So David did not literally sit at God's right hand, but perhaps figuratively.

Yeah. I mean again, Psalms are poems.

Yes David ruled in Zion, and so did Melchizedek, and so will the future Messiah.

Yes. But since the Psalm literally begins with the words "A Psalm for David", why assume that it's talking about anyone other than David?

I know, but the gruesome executions mentioned here were not described in the Bible. Or maybe break in pieces just means defeating them?

David turned in hundreds of foreskins as proof of his prowess (1 Samuel 18:27) (eew).

I see your point. I guess this is a New Testament thing.

It's ok. We can agree to disagree on things.

Philippians 2:5 Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name,

See this is pretty heavy theology. But it's Christian theology. It's in your bible, and it's fine that you believe it.

I'm not borrowing terminology as strong evidence, but a possible explanation for a difficulty in the interpretation. It's like you saying "it is poetic". It's not strong evidence, but it offers a possible explanation for your interpretation. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Fair point.

We have different translations.

It's problematic.

Good thing He didn't say a hundred generations.

Ha!

I guess this is a New Testament thing.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:

It is.

In the Jewish bible, "seed" always means physical descendants. A disciple might use the term "Ben" (son).

Romans 6:9 knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him!

But if he's God, to say that he came back from the dead seems trivial.

[greenonions]

That the Messiah could be the God. See also Zechariah 14:9 where the LORD is king over the earth -- something that Messiah will be.

The messiah is a scion of David. That means he's a person.

I'm sure you've read it many times, but I can still quote it, right? I don't think the Bible has an account of David's birth, but he definitely lived in Bethlehem as a child. "out of you will come" --> so the ruler is a future ruler (Messiah, I think we are agreed). The goings out are from ancient times. Do these "goings out" refer to the future Messiah?

What the verse means is, that from Bethlehem in ancient times will the messiah come. That's because the messiah is descended from David, who was from Bethlehem.

Bethlehem shouldn't be considered particularly ancient, compared to a lot of cities in Israel at the time of Micah (and Hezekiah). It was still a landmark in Jeremiah 41:17. The ancient "origins" refer to the Messiah, not to the town of Bethlehem. If you are talking about ancestors being ancient, that conveys little information. My own ancestors are so ancient that they trace back to Adam. Christians typically understand it to mean that the Messiah existed in eternity past, before the creation of the world -- hence more than just human. It does not prove that the Messiah is divine, but I think it offers a hint of that possibility.

Another Bible verse that suggests the Messiah is divine is Isaiah 9:6-7, based on the names given, including "Mighty God". Verse 7 says he establishes the kingdom forever.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Solomon's psalm 72 starts off like a prayer for himself, but there are some things that seem to be more Messianic, i.e. outlasting the moon, dominion to the ends of the earth. I guess living forever doesn't prove someone is divine though. Do you think it is poetic hyperbole?

Psalm 72:7 In his days, the righteous shall flourish,
    and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more.
8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
    from the River to the ends of the earth.

Exodus 3:2 Yahweh’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the middle of a bush.

Not the bush itself. God appeared like a flame of fire.

You said it yourself. An angel.

It clearly says that God called to Moses out of the middle of the bush. The angel is God.

Exodus 3:4 When Yahweh saw that he came over to see, God called to him out of the middle of the bush, and said, “Moses! Moses!”
He said, “Here I am.”
5 He said, “Don’t come close. Take off your sandals, for the place you are standing on is holy ground.” 6 Moreover he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.
7 Yahweh said, “I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows.

Yes, they were all called the angel of the LORD, but also Yahweh or God:

Genesis 18:1 Yahweh appeared to him ...
Genesis 18:13 Yahweh said to Abraham, ...
Genesis 18:17 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:20 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:26 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:33 Yahweh went his way ...

The bible specifically says that Abraham's visitors were angels. Granted, God spoke to Abraham many times also.

God + 2 angels = 3 men

Genesis 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood near him. ...
Genesis 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. ...

Genesis 32:30 Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

Yet he wrestled with "a man". Hosea 12:4 clarifies that it was an angel.

I showed in Exodus 3 that the angel of the LORD sometimes refers to God Himself. Good reference in Hosea 12:4.

Judges 6:14 Yahweh looked at him, and said, ...
Judges 6:16 Yahweh said to him, ...

The earlier verses specifically say that it was an angel.

Correct, it was an angel. Yahweh can take the form of an angel too. Why is the angel called Yahweh? Did someone leave out his last name?

Judges 13:22 Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”

Again, verses say that it was an angel. Not everyone in the bible is a reliable narrator.

Fair enough.

I agree that Adonee means master. It can be used for God too, right?

It doesn't imply divinity and wouldn't make sense in this context. Why use YHVH and Adonee to refer to God in the same verse? It's simpler to picture the levites singing "God said to my master (king David)."

I think this psalm is prophetic. It would be strange for Levites to be singing that David would be a priest, which is a very Levitical role.

Yes David ruled in Zion, and so did Melchizedek, and so will the future Messiah.

Yes. But since the Psalm literally begins with the words "A Psalm for David", why assume that it's talking about anyone other than David?

The phrase "A Psalm of David" appears many times in the book of Psalms. There are also psalms of Asaph. They are often "for" the director of music. Although a Psalm "for" David is a possible meaning, it seems more likely that it means only that David wrote the psalm.

I know, but the gruesome executions mentioned here were not described in the Bible. Or maybe break in pieces just means defeating them?

David turned in hundreds of foreskins as proof of his prowess (1 Samuel 18:27) (eew).

OK. Pretty gross. What I meant is the gruesome executions of heads of state in Psalm 110:5-6 is not described.

I guess this is a New Testament thing.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:

It is.

In the Jewish bible, "seed" always means physical descendants. A disciple might use the term "Ben" (son).

The New Testament says these children are "born of God".

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 6:9 knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him!

But if he's God, to say that he came back from the dead seems trivial.

Jesus had to prove that He is God by coming back from the dead. Jesus is also so human that people need such clarifying statements. Romans 6:9 is citing the death and resurrection of Jesus as a pattern for Christians, and telling people to live for God and not for sin, as sin and death no longer have dominion over us.

Romans 6:11 Thus consider yourselves also to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[Fenris]

Bethlehem shouldn't be considered particularly ancient, compared to a lot of cities in Israel at the time of Micah (and Hezekiah). It was still a landmark in Jeremiah 41:17. The ancient "origins" refer to the Messiah, not to the town of Bethlehem.

What are you talking about? It refers to David, who by the time the messiah comes will be from "ancient times".

If you are talking about ancestors being ancient, that conveys little information. My own ancestors are so ancient that they trace back to Adam. Christians typically understand it to mean that the Messiah existed in eternity past, before the creation of the world -- hence more than just human.

That's great, but nothing forces one to understand the verse in that way. And Jews don't.

Another Bible verse that suggests the Messiah is divine is Isaiah 9:6-7, based on the names given, including "Mighty God". Verse 7 says he establishes the kingdom forever.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

This is talking about king Hezekiah though.

It is perfectly reasonable to translate it thus: For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

You'll notice the last line of your quote. "The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this". In Hebrew it reads "קִנְאַ֛ת יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־זֹּֽאת". That's a unique phrase in the bible, and it occurs exactly three times in all of Tanach (what you would call the "OT"). Once here, once in Isaiah 37:32, and once in 2 Kings 19:31. If you read Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19, you'll see that the context of what "the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform" is saving Jerusalem and king Hezekiah from Sennacherib, king of Assyria. I don't think that people give enough importance to what happened. The Assyrians, the world's sole superpower, were turned back at Jerusalem. As a historical event, because that happened, Judaism survived. If the Assyrians win, they exile Judea, and just like the northern ten tribes, they are lost to history. That means 700 years later, there's no Jesus and no Christianity. It's a monumentous, world shaking event. 

Solomon's psalm 72 starts off like a prayer for himself, but there are some things that seem to be more Messianic, i.e. outlasting the moon, dominion to the ends of the earth. I guess living forever doesn't prove someone is divine though. Do you think it is poetic hyperbole?

Psalm 72:7 In his days, the righteous shall flourish,
    and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more.
8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
    from the River to the ends of the earth.

That's...not a great translation. It could be rendered " In his days, may the righteous flourish..." which is more a request than a statement of fact. Psalms are generally not understood as prophecy by Jews. They're poems sung to God. As such, they will contain requests as a form of prayer.

It clearly says that God called to Moses out of the middle of the bush. The angel is God.

Umm angels are not God. Angels are angels. That God called to Moses from a flame doesn't mean that the flame is God either. See Deuteronomy 4:15 And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form...

Any form.

Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.

On holidays when Priests bless the congregation, "May the Lord bless you and protect you..." they face the people and raise their hands over their head in what has become the Vulcan salute (Leonard Nimoy was Jewish and aware of the practice and made it part of Star Trek lore). They don't look at their hands and neither does the congregation, everyone covers their face with a prayer shawl. It's because the divine presence is resting on their hands. It doesn't mean that it's something that can be seen. Yet we avert our eyes nonetheless.

Genesis 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood near him. ...
Genesis 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. ...

Yes, the third angel had completed it's mission. It wasn't God and two angels. Again, go read Deuteronomy 4:15. God has no form. Period. 

Correct, it was an angel. Yahweh can take the form of an angel too. Why is the angel called Yahweh? Did someone leave out his last name?

Deuteronomy 4:15. 

I think this psalm is prophetic.

Okay, and you can think that. But that's not a compelling reason for me to think that.

It would be strange for Levites to be singing that David would be a priest, which is a very Levitical role.

Yes. So I will direct you to 2 Samuel 8:18, which said that David's sons were priests. Obviously they too could not be priests, as they were from the tribe of Judah and not Levi. So obviously the term "priest" can mean something other than a descendant of Aaron. Perhaps high ranking officials? I will postulate thus: Let's have a look at Psalm 110 again. It begins "Of David a psalm." Then "“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” (NKJV. I don't love this translation but the others are worse.) In this context, David is a "priest" like Melchizedek in that he is the king of Jerusalem just as Melchizedek was.

The phrase "A Psalm of David" appears many times in the book of Psalms. There are also psalms of Asaph. They are often "for" the director of music. Although a Psalm "for" David is a possible meaning, it seems more likely that it means only that David wrote the psalm.

So what if he did? It can still be about him.

The New Testament says these children are "born of God".

Right, so it's an NT thing. I'm free to see it otherwise.

Jesus had to prove that He is God by coming back from the dead.

I don't see how that would prove anything. Sure God can bring people back from the dead. See 2 Kings 4. That doesn't make the person God. 

[greenonions]

Bethlehem shouldn't be considered particularly ancient, compared to a lot of cities in Israel at the time of Micah (and Hezekiah). It was still a landmark in Jeremiah 41:17. The ancient "origins" refer to the Messiah, not to the town of Bethlehem.

What are you talking about? It refers to David, who by the time the messiah comes will be from "ancient times".

If you are talking about ancestors being ancient, that conveys little information. My own ancestors are so ancient that they trace back to Adam. Christians typically understand it to mean that the Messiah existed in eternity past, before the creation of the world -- hence more than just human.

That's great, but nothing forces one to understand the verse in that way. And Jews don't.

OK, but olam can mean from eternity past or eternity future, right? e.g. Psalm 90:2

Another Bible verse that suggests the Messiah is divine is Isaiah 9:6-7, based on the names given, including "Mighty God". Verse 7 says he establishes the kingdom forever.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

This is talking about king Hezekiah though.

It is perfectly reasonable to translate it thus: For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

You'll notice the last line of your quote. "The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this". In Hebrew it reads "קִנְאַ֛ת יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־זֹּֽאת". That's a unique phrase in the bible, and it occurs exactly three times in all of Tanach (what you would call the "OT"). Once here, once in Isaiah 37:32, and once in 2 Kings 19:31. If you read Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19, you'll see that the context of what "the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform" is saving Jerusalem and king Hezekiah from Sennacherib, king of Assyria. I don't think that people give enough importance to what happened. The Assyrians, the world's sole superpower, were turned back at Jerusalem. As a historical event, because that happened, Judaism survived. If the Assyrians win, they exile Judea, and just like the northern ten tribes, they are lost to history. That means 700 years later, there's no Jesus and no Christianity. It's a monumentous, world shaking event. 

You're changing the word order: "call his name" comes before "wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father".

Yes, it was pretty momentous. The Assyrians nearly swallowed up Judah. Nevertheless, part of the miraculous workings of God is that after Judah was swallowed up by Babylon yet it was restored. And Israel was scattered all over the world and yet was reborn in 1948.

Isaiah 37:32 says that "out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant". Isaiah 9:6-7 says talks about an everlasting kingdom, which doesn't really fit for Hezekiah. The same phrase about the zeal of the LORD is used, but the superficial meaning of the words seems to be saying the LORD is accomplishing two different things. Similarly, these two different things can be done at different times. The word translated zeal is also used in Isaiah 42:13. I think it's translated jealousy in different parts of the Bible.

Solomon's psalm 72 starts off like a prayer for himself, but there are some things that seem to be more Messianic, i.e. outlasting the moon, dominion to the ends of the earth. I guess living forever doesn't prove someone is divine though. Do you think it is poetic hyperbole?

Psalm 72:7 In his days, the righteous shall flourish,
    and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more.
8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
    from the River to the ends of the earth.

That's...not a great translation. It could be rendered " In his days, may the righteous flourish..." which is more a request than a statement of fact. Psalms are generally not understood as prophecy by Jews. They're poems sung to God. As such, they will contain requests as a form of prayer.

Interesting. Yes, I suppose it could have been in the form of requests like "may the righteous flourish" rather than predictions. Well, I believe God will answer the prayer in the messianic era.

It clearly says that God called to Moses out of the middle of the bush. The angel is God.

Umm angels are not God. Angels are angels. That God called to Moses from a flame doesn't mean that the flame is God either. See Deuteronomy 4:15 And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form...

Any form.

Strictly speaking, Deuteronomy 4:15 was Moses' words to the congregation of Israel. Moses was referring to the event when God audibly spoke the Ten Commandments to them on Mount Sinai. They did not see God's form on that occasion.

Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.

On holidays when Priests bless the congregation, "May the Lord bless you and protect you..." they face the people and raise their hands over their head in what has become the Vulcan salute (Leonard Nimoy was Jewish and aware of the practice and made it part of Star Trek lore). They don't look at their hands and neither does the congregation, everyone covers their face with a prayer shawl. It's because the divine presence is resting on their hands. It doesn't mean that it's something that can be seen. Yet we avert our eyes nonetheless.

Yes, I heard about the Vulcan salute being related to the priestly tradition. I don't remember the Bible talking about the divine presence resting on their hands. I remember the divine presence is above the Mercy Seat between the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies.

Genesis 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood near him. ...
Genesis 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. ...

Yes, the third angel had completed it's mission. It wasn't God and two angels. Again, go read Deuteronomy 4:15. God has no form. Period. 

Isn't it clear that the LORD is one of the three men who ate the food and talked to Abram?
Who is talking in Genesis 18:10? Was it one of the three men or God?
Who is talking in Genesis 18:13-14? Was it one of the three men or God?
Note that the speakers in Genesis 18:10 and 14 both say the same thing.

Exodus 24:9 NKJV Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity.

Exodus 33:23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”

The elders saw God. Moses saw God's back. God has feet. God has a face. God has a back. Therefore, God has a form, or at least He can assume a form.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.

Isaiah saw God!

Correct, it was an angel. Yahweh can take the form of an angel too. Why is the angel called Yahweh? Did someone leave out his last name?

Deuteronomy 4:15. 

I think this psalm is prophetic.

Okay, and you can think that. But that's not a compelling reason for me to think that.

It would be strange for Levites to be singing that David would be a priest, which is a very Levitical role.

Yes. So I will direct you to 2 Samuel 8:18, which said that David's sons were priests. Obviously they too could not be priests, as they were from the tribe of Judah and not Levi. So obviously the term "priest" can mean something other than a descendant of Aaron. Perhaps high ranking officials? I will postulate thus: Let's have a look at Psalm 110 again. It begins "Of David a psalm." Then "“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” (NKJV. I don't love this translation but the others are worse.) In this context, David is a "priest" like Melchizedek in that he is the king of Jerusalem just as Melchizedek was.

I was thinking about how David's sons were priests. My guess is that they were priests in the sense of "representatives of David" to the people, or "intermediaries". So yes, "royal officials" would capture this idea. Because the Levitical priests were also "representatives of God" to the people, or "intermediaries". This idea of priest requires that the priest like Melchizedek represents someone higher. If my understanding of David's sons as priests is correct, then David was not a priest in the sense of royal official, because the king does not normally act as an intermediary for himself.

Moreover, Melchizedek was the priest of God Most High and likely offered sacrifices. I think David was different from Melchizedek in that respect. The priest like Melchizedek would have a similar priesthood as Melchizedek who was a priest of God Most High. David was not a priest in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest.

The phrase "A Psalm of David" appears many times in the book of Psalms. There are also psalms of Asaph. They are often "for" the director of music. Although a Psalm "for" David is a possible meaning, it seems more likely that it means only that David wrote the psalm.

So what if he did? It can still be about him.

Yes it could be about him, but I'm just suggesting that it doesn't necessarily say a Psalm about David.

The New Testament says these children are "born of God".

Right, so it's an NT thing. I'm free to see it otherwise.

Yes, but at least the NT did not forget to mention Jesus having children, which Isaiah 53:10 says the servant must have.

Jesus had to prove that He is God by coming back from the dead.

I don't see how that would prove anything. Sure God can bring people back from the dead. See 2 Kings 4. That doesn't make the person God.

True. Jesus' resurrection needs to be seen in light of His claims. His resurrection strongly indicates that Jesus was telling the truth.

----------------------
In an earlier post, I mentioned in Isaiah 48:16 where God sent someone with His Spirit. I was trying to provide an example where God had God's Spirit upon Him, and mentioning that the speaker was God.

Isaiah 48:16b WEB Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me with his Spirit.

But you are right, someone who has God's Spirit is not necessarily God Himself.

----------------------
I was thinking about Isaiah 53. Most of the things which you said the kings said are facts of history. Surely the kings knew they were evil for persecuting and killing people, right? Or do you think they were surprised that their cruelty could be called "iniquity" and "transgression"? The only surprising part of their report would be that the servant is innocent, right? But maybe they even knew the servant was innocent already.

Isaiah 53:9 They made his grave with the wicked,
    and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
    nor was any deceit in his mouth.

What new information or main point are the kings reporting in Isaiah 53:1-10 in your view? "we considered" in Isaiah 53:4 indicates that the speaker was mistaken, so what was the corrected message?Or are they simply astounded that Israel is exalted even though they were mistreated before? In my view, vicarious atonement would be surprising to the speaker of Isaiah 53:1-10.

[Fenris]

OK, but olam can mean from eternity past or eternity future, right? e.g. Psalm 90:2

Psalm 90:2 simply says "forever and ever". You're really forcing a translation here. There's no compelling reason for it to be read that way.

You're changing the word order: "call his name" comes before "wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father".

So? Hebrew is not English. Sentences can have a different word order.

Yes, it was pretty momentous. The Assyrians nearly swallowed up Judah. Nevertheless, part of the miraculous workings of God is that after Judah was swallowed up by Babylon yet it was restored.

You're missing my point. By all rights Judah should have been destroyed, and with it Judaism. It was and is probably the single most significant battle in the history of the world. You're brushing it aside because of hindsight.

Isaiah 37:32 says that "out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant".

Yes, that's us. We are the remnant.

Isaiah 9:6-7 says talks about an everlasting kingdom, which doesn't really fit for Hezekiah.

Sure it does. Judah survived for another 200 years.

The same phrase about the zeal of the LORD is used, but

But


There's no "but". It's a unique phrase that occurs only three times in the bible. You free to scour the bible for the word "Olam" and find stray instances where it could be interpreted to your liking and consider that evidence. But when a specific, unique phrase shows up in three related circumstances, you feel free to ignore it.

the superficial meaning of the words seems to be saying the LORD is accomplishing two different things.

One thing: Saving Judah.

I'm going to use a contemporary example of how momentous the occasion was.

Imagine if, in 1948, rather than Israel being invaded by 5 armies who outnumbered them perhaps 3 to 1, Israel was invaded by the Soviet Union, who outnumbered them 100 to 1. With tens of thousands of tanks and artillery and aircraft. And they conquered the entire country and sieged Jerusalem. And then, suddenly, a plague struck, destroying the Red Army and sending Stalin back to Moscow in disgrace.

The zeal of the Lord of Hosts, indeed.

Strictly speaking, Deuteronomy 4:15 was Moses' words to the congregation of Israel. Moses was referring to the event when God audibly spoke the Ten Commandments to them on Mount Sinai. They did not see God's form on that occasion.

Strictly speaking, it's actually a command not to worship anything that can be seen, specifically because God has no form.

Exodus 24:9 NKJV Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity.

As it doesn't say what they saw or what God looked like, I'm going to take it as "perceived God" rather than "saw Him". I'll go back to Deut 4:15 because it's not a story but a command- And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. And why is the narrative here? Because Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female,

God has no form. Don't worship any form. (Catholics have all those weird statues and such, I don't know how they square it with this).

Exodus 33:23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”

The elders saw God. Moses saw God's back. God has feet. God has a face. God has a back. Therefore, God has a form, or at least He can assume a form.

Then why couldn't Moses see God's "front"? Because there's another perfectly reasonable way to to look at this. God is saying that His presence in human history is only understandable looking back "Oh that's why God did that".

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.

Isaiah saw God!

I am familiar with this passage, it is from my Bar Mitzvah reading. This and passages in Ezekiel are clearly describing some metaphysical event and not a floating chair with a giant old man with a white beard.

Correct, it was an angel. Yahweh can take the form of an angel too. Why is the angel called Yahweh? Did someone leave out his last name?

Angel of God. Well, technically the Hebrew word for "angel" is "messenger", which amounts to the same thing.

I was thinking about how David's sons were priests. My guess is that they were priests in the sense of "representatives of David" to the people, or "intermediaries". So yes, "royal officials" would capture this idea. Because the Levitical priests were also "representatives of God" to the people, or "intermediaries". This idea of priest requires that the priest like Melchizedek represents someone higher.

Again if you wish to to believe that you may. But it's very simple to say that David was a priest like Malkitzedek in that they were both officials that ruled in Jerusalem.

Moreover, Melchizedek was the priest of God Most High and likely offered sacrifices. I think David was different from Melchizedek in that respect. The priest like Melchizedek would have a similar priesthood as Melchizedek who was a priest of God Most High. David was not a priest in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest.

David also offered sacrifices. 2 Samuel 24:25.

Yes it could be about him, but I'm just suggesting that it doesn't necessarily say a Psalm about David.

So what it means is flexible, depending on one's theological needs.

True. Jesus' resurrection needs to be seen in light of His claims. His resurrection strongly indicates that Jesus was telling the truth.

Well his alleged resurrection.

I was thinking about Isaiah 53. Most of the things which you said the kings said are facts of history. Surely the kings knew they were evil for persecuting and killing people, right?

Um, no. Not only didn't they think they were evil, they thought they were doing something good. You assume that everyone has Biblical values. History says otherwise.

Or do you think they were surprised that their cruelty could be called "iniquity" and "transgression"? The only surprising part of their report would be that the servant is innocent, right? But maybe they even knew the servant was innocent already.

Isaiah 53:9 They made his grave with the wicked,
    and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
    nor was any deceit in his mouth.

I mean, the Jews martyred through the ages didn't deserve their fate. They weren't criminals. The verse applies.

What new information or main point are the kings reporting in Isaiah 53:1-10 in your view? "we considered" in Isaiah 53:4 indicates that the speaker was mistaken, so what was the corrected message? Or are they simply astounded that Israel is exalted even though they were mistreated before?

They're surprised that the despised Jews were actually correct all along. That the Jews weren't smitten by God, but by the nations who in their sinful behavior persecuted them.

[greenonions]

OK, but olam can mean from eternity past or eternity future, right? e.g. Psalm 90:2

Psalm 90:2 simply says "forever and ever". You're really forcing a translation here. There's no compelling reason for it to be read that way.

The context of Psalm 90:2 is talking about the time before the earth was formed, so Psalm 90:2 could be referring to the ancient past with the first olam in olam ad olam. Are you saying that I'm forcing a translation in Micah 5:2 or Psalm 90:2?

You're changing the word order: "call his name" comes before "wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father".

So? Hebrew is not English. Sentences can have a different word order.

Biblical Hebrew can have Verb-Subject-Object word order in the sentence. You are interpreting it as Verb-Object-Subject: call (verb) his name (object) wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father (subject). Is that acceptable grammar?

Yes, it was pretty momentous. The Assyrians nearly swallowed up Judah. Nevertheless, part of the miraculous workings of God is that after Judah was swallowed up by Babylon yet it was restored.

You're missing my point. By all rights Judah should have been destroyed, and with it Judaism. It was and is probably the single most significant battle in the history of the world. You're brushing it aside because of hindsight.

The Assyrian invasion was pretty devastating for Judah. Lachish was taken. Every fortified city was captured except Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:13). The battle was also very decisive as it ended the Assyrian invasion. God even threatened Hezekiah that Jerusalem would be destroyed but later relented.

Jeremiah 26:18 “Micah the Morashtite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Yahweh of Armies says: “‘Zion will be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem will become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.’ 19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Didn’t he fear Yahweh, and entreat the favor of Yahweh, and Yahweh relented of the disaster which he had pronounced against them? We would commit great evil against our own souls that way!”

Isaiah 37:32 says that "out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant".

Yes, that's us. We are the remnant.

Yes!

Isaiah 9:6-7 says talks about an everlasting kingdom, which doesn't really fit for Hezekiah.

Sure it does. Judah survived for another 200 years.

The kingdom is supposed to last forever (olam -- there's that word again). 200 years is not forever. Are you thinking of verse 7 only referring to the 15 years of Hezekiah's reign after the momentous battle? His government and peace stopped increasing when his son Manasseh came along, killed lots of innocent people (2 Kings 21:16), and was captured by the Assyrian army (2 Chronicles 33:11).

The same phrase about the zeal of the LORD is used, but

But


There's no "but". It's a unique phrase that occurs only three times in the bible. You free to scour the bible for the word "Olam" and find stray instances where it could be interpreted to your liking and consider that evidence. But when a specific, unique phrase shows up in three related circumstances, you feel free to ignore it.

the superficial meaning of the words seems to be saying the LORD is accomplishing two different things.

One thing: Saving Judah.

I'm going to use a contemporary example of how momentous the occasion was.

Imagine if, in 1948, rather than Israel being invaded by 5 armies who outnumbered them perhaps 3 to 1, Israel was invaded by the Soviet Union, who outnumbered them 100 to 1. With tens of thousands of tanks and artillery and aircraft. And they conquered the entire country and sieged Jerusalem. And then, suddenly, a plague struck, destroying the Red Army and sending Stalin back to Moscow in disgrace.

The zeal of the Lord of Hosts, indeed.

I can see that Isaiah 9:7 guarantees that Judah will not be finished and there was still hope that the kingdom would survive in the future. An earlier verse Isaiah 9:4 reminds the people about God's ability to save His people from a huge army, like He did against the Midianites. The zeal of the LORD guarantees that. So that phrase was used as a reassurance for King Ahaz to hear in Isaiah 9:7 and for King Hezekiah to hear in Isaiah 37:32, as they both faced the threat of being conquered, except Assyria was supposed to be King Ahaz's ally.

Strictly speaking, Deuteronomy 4:15 was Moses' words to the congregation of Israel. Moses was referring to the event when God audibly spoke the Ten Commandments to them on Mount Sinai. They did not see God's form on that occasion.

Strictly speaking, it's actually a command not to worship anything that can be seen, specifically because God has no form.

Numbers 12:8 says that Moses saw God's form.

Numbers 12:7 My servant Moses is not so. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him, I will speak mouth to mouth, even plainly, and not in riddles; and he shall see Yahweh’s form. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?”

Exodus 24:9 NKJV Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity.

As it doesn't say what they saw or what God looked like, I'm going to take it as "perceived God" rather than "saw Him". I'll go back to Deut 4:15 because it's not a story but a command- And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. And why is the narrative here? Because Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female,

God has no form. Don't worship any form. (Catholics have all those weird statues and such, I don't know how they square it with this).

Yes, we shouldn't make images or statues of God to worship them. Don't worship any form. It doesn't mean God has no form.

Exodus 33:23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”

The elders saw God. Moses saw God's back. God has feet. God has a face. God has a back. Therefore, God has a form, or at least He can assume a form.

Then why couldn't Moses see God's "front"? Because there's another perfectly reasonable way to to look at this. God is saying that His presence in human history is only understandable looking back "Oh that's why God did that".

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.

Isaiah saw God!

I am familiar with this passage, it is from my Bar Mitzvah reading. This and passages in Ezekiel are clearly describing some metaphysical event and not a floating chair with a giant old man with a white beard.

So you think the metaphysical event is visible?

I was thinking about how David's sons were priests. My guess is that they were priests in the sense of "representatives of David" to the people, or "intermediaries". So yes, "royal officials" would capture this idea. Because the Levitical priests were also "representatives of God" to the people, or "intermediaries". This idea of priest requires that the priest like Melchizedek represents someone higher.

Again if you wish to to believe that you may. But it's very simple to say that David was a priest like Malkitzedek in that they were both officials that ruled in Jerusalem.

Moreover, Melchizedek was the priest of God Most High and likely offered sacrifices. I think David was different from Melchizedek in that respect. The priest like Melchizedek would have a similar priesthood as Melchizedek who was a priest of God Most High. David was not a priest in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest.

David also offered sacrifices. 2 Samuel 24:25.

Interesting. I guess non-Levitical priests have offered sacrifices too, like Gideon (Judges 6:26).

True. Jesus' resurrection needs to be seen in light of His claims. His resurrection strongly indicates that Jesus was telling the truth.

Well his alleged resurrection.

Have you seen the movie "The Case for Christ" with Lee Strobel?

I was thinking about Isaiah 53. Most of the things which you said the kings said are facts of history. Surely the kings knew they were evil for persecuting and killing people, right?

Um, no. Not only didn't they think they were evil, they thought they were doing something good. You assume that everyone has Biblical values. History says otherwise.

Or do you think they were surprised that their cruelty could be called "iniquity" and "transgression"? The only surprising part of their report would be that the servant is innocent, right? But maybe they even knew the servant was innocent already.

Isaiah 53:9 They made his grave with the wicked,
    and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
    nor was any deceit in his mouth.

I mean, the Jews martyred through the ages didn't deserve their fate. They weren't criminals. The verse applies.

What new information or main point are the kings reporting in Isaiah 53:1-10 in your view? "we considered" in Isaiah 53:4 indicates that the speaker was mistaken, so what was the corrected message? Or are they simply astounded that Israel is exalted even though they were mistreated before?

They're surprised that the despised Jews were actually correct all along. That the Jews weren't smitten by God, but by the nations who in their sinful behavior persecuted them.

OK, so in your view, the kings are confessing that their persecuting actions were crimes. That seems fairly easy for people to believe, no? Isaiah 53:1 says people won't believe them.

[Fenris]

The context of Psalm 90:2 is talking about the time before the earth was formed, so Psalm 90:2 could be referring to the ancient past with the first olam in olam ad olam. Are you saying that I'm forcing a translation in Micah 5:2 or Psalm 90:2?

I'm saying the word means "forever". That's all.

Is that acceptable grammar?

Yeah, in Hebrew in can be. Hebrew is a very compact language and sometimes words like "is" are assumed when no present.

The Assyrian invasion was pretty devastating for Judah.

If Jerusalem was captured, it would have been the end of Jews and Judaism. World history would be vastly different in ways we can't even imagine.

The kingdom is supposed to last forever (olam -- there's that word again). 200 years is not forever.

200 years is a long time in the context of human experience. We think of the United States as having existed "forever" and its not much more than 200 years since 1776.

I can see that Isaiah 9:7 guarantees that Judah will not be finished and there was still hope that the kingdom would survive in the future.

Not just the kingdom. The Jewish people. Do you know why you've never met an Assyrian or a Ammonite or a Moabite or Hittite or a Babylonian? Because in the ancient world, when a kingdom was conquered they stayed gone.

An earlier verse Isaiah 9:4 reminds the people about God's ability to save His people from a huge army, like He did against the Midianites. The zeal of the LORD guarantees that. So that phrase was used as a reassurance for King Ahaz to hear in Isaiah 9:7

Isaiah 9 was prophesized to Judah and not Israel. Israel did not survive the Assyrian invasion.

Strictly speaking, Deuteronomy 4:15 was Moses' words to the congregation of Israel. Moses was referring to the event when God audibly spoke the Ten Commandments to them on Mount Sinai. They did not see God's form on that occasion.

Strictly speaking, it's actually a command not to worship anything that can be seen, specifically because God has no form.

Numbers 12:8 says that Moses saw God's form.

Deuteronomy also said that God spoke to Moses "face to face". The priestly blessing asked that God turn his face to us. But God doesn't have a body. He doesn't have a face. Deut 4:15. This is basic Jewish theology supported by our understanding of the bible. The text is simply anthromorphizing.

Yes, we shouldn't make images or statues of God to worship them. Don't worship any form. It doesn't mean God has no form.

That's not how we see it and it's not really what the bible says.

So you think the metaphysical event is visible?

In the mind, perhaps.

Interesting. I guess non-Levitical priests have offered sacrifices too, like Gideon (Judges 6:26).

I think kings had more latitude in these areas, particularly before the temple was built.

Have you seen the movie "The Case for Christ" with Lee Strobel?

I have not.

OK, so in your view, the kings are confessing that their persecuting actions were crimes. That seems fairly easy for people to believe, no? Isaiah 53:1 says people won't believe them.

53:1 is also the kings. "Who would have believed it? "

[greenonions]

The context of Psalm 90:2 is talking about the time before the earth was formed, so Psalm 90:2 could be referring to the ancient past with the first olam in olam ad olam. Are you saying that I'm forcing a translation in Micah 5:2 or Psalm 90:2?

I'm saying the word means "forever". That's all.

Besides "forever", olam can also mean the ancient past. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon says it can mean: long duration, antiquity, futurity.

Some examples where olam means the ancient past:

Deuteronomy 32:7 Remember the days of old. Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you.
Isaiah 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and in his pity he redeemed them. He bore them, and carried them all the days of old. ... 11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying, “Where is he who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is he who put his Holy Spirit among them?”
Amos 9:11In that day I will raise up the tent of David who is fallen, and close up its breaches, and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old;
Micah 5:2But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.
Micah 7:14Shepherd your people with your staff, the flock of your heritage, who dwell by themselves in a forest, in the middle of fertile pasture land, let them feed; in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.
Malachi 3:4Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to Yahweh, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years.

Numbers 12:8 says that Moses saw God's form.

Deuteronomy also said that God spoke to Moses "face to face". The priestly blessing asked that God turn his face to us. But God doesn't have a body. He doesn't have a face. Deut 4:15. This is basic Jewish theology supported by our understanding of the bible. The text is simply anthromorphizing.

It could be anthropomorphizing when describing God's power as God's arm, or God's attention as God's face.

So you think the metaphysical event is visible?

In the mind, perhaps.

If it is in the mind, only one person should see it, right? If multiple people see the same thing in the mind at the same time at the same location, perhaps this thing has actually occupied a real physical location and appeared in that form. Exodus 24:9-11 talks about 74 people who saw God, including a paved work of sapphire stone under His feet. So it seems like God occupied a physical location and could be seen by multiple people in some form. Interesting how only the appearance of the sapphire stone was described (perhaps to prevent attempts at making an image), but they knew that God was above that. Do you agree that God was perceived to be at a particular location?

Interesting. I guess non-Levitical priests have offered sacrifices too, like Gideon (Judges 6:26).

I think kings had more latitude in these areas, particularly before the temple was built.

Numbers 18:3 They [Levites] shall keep your [Aaron's] commands and the duty of the whole Tent; only they shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary and to the altar, that they not die, neither they nor you.

It sounds like only descendants of Aaron could go near the altar. Not even Levites were allowed to. I wonder if this rule applies to other altars that other people build out of stone. But people were only supposed to offer sacrifices at the place that God chooses. Even at the time of Gideon, there was an altar at Shiloh. At the time of Elijah, there was an altar in Jerusalem. I guess the exceptions need to be specifically commanded by God.

Exodus 20:25 If you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of cut stones; for if you lift up your tool on it, you have polluted it.
Deuteronomy 12:13 Be careful that you don’t offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see; 14 but in the place which Yahweh chooses in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.

Have you seen the movie "The Case for Christ" with Lee Strobel?

I have not.

It's a story about a real life crime reporter who's wife converts to Christianity who tries to disprove the resurrection, but found out:
1) The proof of a resurrection can be simple: Jesus was dead and then people saw Him alive
2) There were multiple witnesses and group hallucinations don't happen
3) The crucifixion really killed Jesus according to some medical evidence