Cain's action

[Fenris]

You'll notice "agnostics" posts and Fenris' posts all go together and support one another's every word. So whether I'm correct or not, I'm not too sure "agnostic"'s posts aren't Fenris' other account.

Oh noes! Two people disagree with me! That's not possible, they must be the same person!

[RabbiKnife]

Ok

Now that’s funny

[Fenris]

Ok

Now that’s funny

And you think it's funny. Must be my third account. I'm everyone on this forum. Just wait until the Jewish Space Laser (TM) comes online!

[RabbiKnife]

Ok

Now that’s funny

And you think it's funny. Must be my third account. I'm everyone on this forum. Just wait until the Jewish Space Laser (TM) comes online!

"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"

“Oh, goodie! My Illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator.”

[agnostic]

You'll notice "agnostics" posts and Fenris' posts all go together and support one another's every word. So whether I'm correct or not, I'm not too sure "agnostic"'s posts aren't Fenris' other account.

For someone who is constantly harping on others to follow "the rules" (guidelines) of the forum, your willingness to resort to a blatant lie/conspiracy theory as the only possible explanation why anyone could disagree with you instead of addressing the substance of what those two people actually said is... well, not that shocking, really.

I could be wrong of course but they do seem kinda like a married couple the way "agnostic" always supports and upholds everything Fenris  says.

Always.

[Fenris]

Always.

I don't agree with everything you say. But your depth of knowledge has very much  impressed me.

[agnostic]

I clicked the "Like" button. It must mean I'm you.

[greenonions]

Hi Agnostic. Thanks for the Hebrew lesson. I didn't know what ath meant. Looking at the first 10 times that "ath ashr" appears, it seems to mean "that which" (Genesis 9:24; 27:45; 28:15; 30:29; 34:28; 41:25; 44:1; 49:1; Exodus 4:15; 10:2). btw, can you recommend a way to search for more than one Hebrew word at a time?

It may help to give a technical definition of את because it's usage is really clear: this word is a participle used to distinguish an accusative noun of a transitive verb from other nouns (nominative, dative, genitive, vocative) in that context. Hebrew sentence structure can be a little more flexible than English, so this participle always immediately precedes the accusative noun it specifies.

Most of the time it isn't translated, because there's no real way to that wouldn't be cumbersome. In the first verse of Genesis: "God created את the heavens and את the earth." Its use here just means "the heavens and the earth" are the accusative noun modified by "God created."

Since את is used for "the one they've pierced", that person can't be the same person as either "they" or "me". Since "me" is God, then "את the one they've pierced" isn't.

[greenonions]

By suggesting Isaiah, you are allowing that "my servant" can mean someone other than the whole nation of Israel. We know that the descendants of Israel can be called Israel, and the remnant of the descendants of Israel can also be called Israel, so I suggest that this servant is a descendant of Israel.

Similarly, I think when Ezekiel 37:25 mentions "my servant David", it could refer to the Son of David, the Messiah.

Ezekiel 37:25 WEB They will dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob my servant, in which your fathers lived. They will dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children’s children, forever. David my servant will be their prince forever.


Startle works too. Thanks for pointing out that it is a different word from shake. I was just trying to follow what you said.


I'm talking about the timing of the message. We understand the message to be told at the Messianic era. At this time, the message will be believed. You are going back in time, as if the message that Israel was correct was not believed in the past, but that message was not proclaimed by the kings in the past (maybe it was told by Israel, then it won't be "our" message").

וְהִבִּיטוּ (and they look) אֵלַי (to me) אֵת אֲשֶׁר (that which) דָּקָרוּ (they stabbed)

If you add a comma after "to me", the translation can still refer to the speaker being the person they stabbed. I am being honest when I am unsure about the translation of "itself?" because the Interlinear Bible is unclear. But I hope we are still able to have an intelligent discussion despite my limited Hebrew.

Exodus 8:12 gives an example of crying out to God concerning some matter, and it doesn't use this wording. Do you have an example where look to me, cry to God, or something else happens "concerning" someone or something with "ath ashr"?

Exodus 8:12 Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, and Moses cried to Yahweh concerning the frogs which he had brought on Pharaoh.

Yes, Israel is one of the servants mentioned in Isaiah. Here is another servant who brings Jacob again to God (who is not Jacob).

Isaiah 49:5 Now Yahweh, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,
    says to bring Jacob again to him,
    and to gather Israel to him,
    for I am honorable in Yahweh’s eyes,
    and my God has become my strength.
6 Indeed, he says, “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob,
    and to restore the preserved of Israel.
I will also give you as a light to the nations,
    that you may be my salvation to the end of the earth.”

You're missing the first verses of the chapter here, and it's significant.

Start from 49: Listen to me, you islands;
    hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
    from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
    in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
    and concealed me in his quiver.
 He said to me, “You are my servant,
    Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”

So the servant is still Israel.

In verse 5 why can't the servant be the prophet Isaiah himself? He even uses "I".

"shake" many nations? That is what happens at the start of the Messianic age.

Again, I like "startle". Yes, it comes in the messianic age.

Haggai 2:7 and I will shake all nations. The precious things of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory, says Yahweh of Armies.

This is a different Hebrew word,  "וְהִרְעַשְׁתִּ", something more akin to "I will make thunderous sound". Could be synonymous with "startle".

1) message was reported in the past. --> 1) Gentile kings had no message in the past

I don't understand what you're saying here. In the messianic era, the kings will be startled.

2) message was not believed --> 2) Message will be believed if it was told after the servant is exalted

Yes, the idea was not believed. What idea, specifically? That the despised and downtrodden Jews were correct all along!

Which would be more starling to the world? That 1/3 of the world's population, 2.3 billion Christians, were correct all along? Or that the world's 13 million Jews who comprise less than 2 people out of every thousand were correct all along? Think about it.

Regarding translation of Zechariah 12:10

וְהִבִּיטוּ (and they look) אֵלַי (to me) אֵת (itself?) אֲשֶׁר (whom) דָּקָרוּ (they stabbed)

I don't see "regarding those" in the Hebrew.

You're putting a question mark in the translation. That alone shows you aren't sure. אֵת אֲשֶׁר is idiomatic for "regarding which" or "about whom".

[greenonions]

When Jesus talked about His blood, He emphasized His blood that was shed at His death, not the blood that means He is alive.

Matthew 26:27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.

The blood of Jesus is also associated with His sufferings and death in Heb. 9:25-26. His sacrifice puts away sin. Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many (v. 27). So it strongly points to Jesus dying for our sins.

Hebrews 9:25 nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place year by year with blood not his own, 26 or else he must have suffered often since the foundation of the world. But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation.

1 Corinthians 15:17 talks about the hypothetical situation if Jesus did not rise from the dead. If Jesus never died and resurrected, and you have repented, then "you are still in your sins" according to this Bible verse. Repentance without Jesus' death is not enough if you are not under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant had sacrifices and promises.

1 Corinthians 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.

So it sounds like you are saying that Jesus' death demonstrates love which draws people to repentance and life. That is true, but it is Jesus' death which turns away God's wrath and need to punish our sins.

1 John 2:1 And he is the atoning sacrifice[ b ] for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

[Footnote b: “atoning sacrifice” is from the Greek “ιλασμος”, an appeasing, propitiating, or the means of appeasement or propitiation—the sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath because of our sin.]

Our Lords sacrifice is God turning his wrath away. People sinning against the Messiah and the Messiah not blasting them into oblivion.

The blood typically refers to blood that is outside the body, and symbolizes death. For example, at the first Passover, the Israelites painted blood on the doorposts and lintel of the houses. When God sees the blood, He means blood that is outside of the animal, indicating that the animal was killed.

Exodus 12:13 The blood shall be to you for a token on the houses where you are. When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

By putting the bloo on their houses, they were identifying themselves with the Messiahs sacrifice,

when ye do well, and suffer for it.....because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example.....1Pet.2:20-21

Look at what he's saying. Jesus suffered for doing good.

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 1Cor.5:7

Other verses that link Jesus' sacrifice to forgiveness of sins, and not the obedience of people who repent (repentance is necessary, but not sufficient without Jesus' sacrifice).

Its our Lords sacrifice that causes repentance. Seeing how sinners (which we all are) have wronged God.

Romans 5:18 So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.

Hebrews 9:27 ... But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ... 10:10 by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ... 14 For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Hes saying Jesus himself was sinless. Because of this, he rose from death,

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Rom.5:10

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2Cor.5:20

We are reconciled to God by confessing our  sin against him and living for him,

He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Pro.28:13

[journeyman]

When Jesus talked about His blood, He emphasized His blood that was shed at His death, not the blood that means He is alive.

Matthew 26:27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.

They drank from his cup. That's the key to understanding all of scripture. By his cup, he put the flesh to death,

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb.12:4

Striving against sin is how our Lord lives in us.

[Fenris]

By suggesting Isaiah, you are allowing that "my servant" can mean someone other than the whole nation of Israel. We know that the descendants of Israel can be called Israel, and the remnant of the descendants of Israel can also be called Israel, so I suggest that this servant is a descendant of Israel.

There's a problem with that. The servant has been explicitly identified multiple times between Is 40 and Is 52, and it is the nation Israel. I'm not going to post all those verses agai.

Similarly, I think when Ezekiel 37:25 mentions "my servant David", it could refer to the Son of David, the Messiah.

Different prophet. And you're mangling the context. At least quote the whole verse "My servant David will be king over them". That's obviously one person. Plus we have the wonderful Isaiah 43:10 You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen... Obviously this is national Israel "My witnesses", plural, yet also "My servant", singular. Because the servant is Israel. Even some Christians admit this.

I'm talking about the timing of the message. We understand the message to be told at the Messianic era. At this time, the message will be believed. You are going back in time, as if the message that Israel was correct was not believed in the past

No. In the messianic era, the nations will admit that they were wrong. That the Jews suffered because they, the nations oppressed them. Not because God did.


וְהִבִּיטוּ (and they look) אֵלַי (to me) אֵת אֲשֶׁר (that which) דָּקָרוּ (they stabbed)

 אֵת אֲשֶׁר  is better rendered as "regarding that" or regarding whom" .

And your understanding is very tenuous. Let's look at the pronouns. "And they" (the Jews) "will look to me" (God) "who they" (the Romans) "stabbed", "and they" (the Jews, again) "will mourn for him" (God) "as one mourns over a firstborn".

Who "they" is keeps changing; it's the Jews, or the Romans, or whoever it needs to be.  And God is sometimes "me" and sometimes "him". This is overly complicated and doesn't make much sense.

"And they (The Jews) will look to me (God) about those (Jews) who have been murdered, and they will mourn for them as one mourns over a firstborn".

Very clean.

This verse also takes place at the cusp of the messianic era, as the rest of the chapter helpfully informs us.

And it shall come to pass on that day that I will make Jerusalem a stone of burden for all peoples; all who bear it shall be gashed, and all the nations of the earth shall gather about it...On that day I will make the princes of Judah as a fiery stove among wood, and as a brand of fire among sheaves. And they shall consume on the right and on the left all the nations round about, and Jerusalem shall still stay in its place in Jerusalem...On that day the Lord shall protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the weakest of them shall be, on that day, like David. And the house of David shall be like gods, like the angel of the Lord before them.

Which has yet to happen. (Although the line about the weakest of the Jews will still be as mighty as king David, and the strongest will be like gods does make one think of the modern day IDF).

If you add a comma after "to me"

You can't start adding commas to a translation from another language.

Exodus 8:12 gives an example of crying out to God concerning some matter, and it doesn't use this wording. Do you have an example where look to me, cry to God, or something else happens "concerning" someone or something with "ath ashr"?

Exodus 8:12 Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, and Moses cried to Yahweh concerning the frogs which he had brought on Pharaoh.

OK, so here's the thing. In any language, you can communicate the same concept using different words. In English you could say "about", "regarding", "pertaining to", "concerning", etc. The same hold true for Hebrew. So in Zechariah the Hebrew uses the phrase "Et Asher" and in Exodus it uses the phrase עַל־דְּבַ֥ר "Al Dibar" "upon the matter" which is saying the same thing uses different words. Also remember that in many cases the prophets use more poetic language. 

[greenonions]

So you agree that this cup of blood refers to death. And in the passage, the blood results in the remission of sins -- so do you see "remission" of sins to mean "striving against sin" or "forgiving past sins"?

When Jesus talked about His blood, He emphasized His blood that was shed at His death, not the blood that means He is alive.

Matthew 26:27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.

They drank from his cup. That's the key to understanding all of scripture. By his cup, he put the flesh to death,

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb.12:4

Striving against sin is how our Lord lives in us.

[greenonions]

By suggesting Isaiah, you are allowing that "my servant" can mean someone other than the whole nation of Israel. We know that the descendants of Israel can be called Israel, and the remnant of the descendants of Israel can also be called Israel, so I suggest that this servant is a descendant of Israel.

There's a problem with that. The servant has been explicitly identified multiple times between Is 40 and Is 52, and it is the nation Israel. I'm not going to post all those verses agai.

Let's look at the servant passages:

Isaiah 42:1-17 starts with "Behold! My servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him" --- This servant is special and is introduced with "Behold!" to call for your attention. Israel will receive the Holy Spirit in the Messianic era, so either this is another servant, or it is Israel in the Messianic era.

Isaiah 42:18-25 is another servant who is blind and deaf, who is named Jacob and Israel in 42:24. This is Israel before the Messianic era.

Isaiah 43:1-21 talks about Israel in comforting words, but calls them "blind and deaf" in 43:8 and chosen servant in 43:10. This is "You", the present day Israel, that does not fully understand that God is the only true God.

Isaiah 43:22-28 talks about Jacob and Israel as evil but does not mention the word servant

Isaiah 44:1-5 talks about Jacob as the chosen servant with the Spirit poured on his descendants. This refers to Israel in the Messianic era

Isaiah 44:21-23 talks about blotting out Israel's sins as the servant, like in 43:25

Isaiah 49:1-9 talks about the servant, whose identity we have disagreed about. Verse 5 and 6 indicates that it is someone who brings Jacob back to God, so I claimed it was another servant, namely the same servant in Isaiah 42:1-17 and 52:13-53:12. You claim there is no other servant besides Israel mentioned previously. If verse 5 and 6 are sufficient to establish that this is not national Israel, the "light to the Gentiles" in 42:6 and 49:6 identify the servants in the two passages as the same servant.

Isaiah 52:13-52:12 is a servant who suffers before the Messianic era and is exalted during the Messianic era. Again there is a call to "Behold" the servant as in Isaiah 42:1. 52:14 also seems to compare "you" with "him" as Israel vs another servant.

Similarly, I think when Ezekiel 37:25 mentions "my servant David", it could refer to the Son of David, the Messiah.

Different prophet. And you're mangling the context. At least quote the whole verse "My servant David will be king over them". That's obviously one person. Plus we have the wonderful Isaiah 43:10 You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen... Obviously this is national Israel "My witnesses", plural, yet also "My servant", singular. Because the servant is Israel. Even some Christians admit this.

I agree that Isaiah 43:10 refers to national Israel.

I'm talking about the timing of the message. We understand the message to be told at the Messianic era. At this time, the message will be believed. You are going back in time, as if the message that Israel was correct was not believed in the past

No. In the messianic era, the nations will admit that they were wrong. That the Jews suffered because they, the nations oppressed them. Not because God did.

You have two options:

	Before Messianic Era	After Messianic Era Begins
Option 1	Kings do not report a message. No unbelief as a result.	Kings report a message and people believe because they see Israel in glory

Option 2

Someone else reports a message and no one believes

Note how option 1 does not fit with Isaiah 53:1 because people believe after the start of the messianic era when the kings give their report.

וְהִבִּיטוּ (and they look) אֵלַי (to me) אֵת אֲשֶׁר (that which) דָּקָרוּ (they stabbed)

 אֵת אֲשֶׁר  is better rendered as "regarding that" or regarding whom" .

And your understanding is very tenuous. Let's look at the pronouns. "And they" (the Jews) "will look to me" (God) "who they" (the Romans) "stabbed", "and they" (the Jews, again) "will mourn for him" (God) "as one mourns over a firstborn".

Who "they" is keeps changing; it's the Jews, or the Romans, or whoever it needs to be.  And God is sometimes "me" and sometimes "him". This is overly complicated and doesn't make much sense.

"And they (The Jews) will look to me (God) about those (Jews) who have been murdered, and they will mourn for them as one mourns over a firstborn".

Very clean.

According to the narrative in the New Testament, Roman soldiers pierced Jesus, but they killed Jesus at the instigation of Jews. So those Jews share in the responsibility of how Jesus died, kind of like how David caused Uriah the Hittite to be killed indirectly by the Ammonites in battle.

"And they" (the Jews) "will look to me" (God) "whom they" (the Jews) "stabbed", "and they" (the Jews, again) "will mourn for him" (God) "as one mourns over a firstborn".

Cleaner, in my opinion.

This verse also takes place at the cusp of the messianic era, as the rest of the chapter helpfully informs us.

And it shall come to pass on that day that I will make Jerusalem a stone of burden for all peoples; all who bear it shall be gashed, and all the nations of the earth shall gather about it...On that day I will make the princes of Judah as a fiery stove among wood, and as a brand of fire among sheaves. And they shall consume on the right and on the left all the nations round about, and Jerusalem shall still stay in its place in Jerusalem...On that day the Lord shall protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the weakest of them shall be, on that day, like David. And the house of David shall be like gods, like the angel of the Lord before them.

Which has yet to happen. (Although the line about the weakest of the Jews will still be as mighty as king David, and the strongest will be like gods does make one think of the modern day IDF).

I agree that it happens at the cusp of the messianic era (Jesus' Second Coming). That's why they can see Him. I hope the IDF can protect Israel, but I think Zechariah 13:8 and 14:2 are yet future, so may God have mercy on Israel. After that the Jews will win the war (Zechariah 14:14).

If you add a comma after "to me"

You can't start adding commas to a translation from another language.

I don't think the Hebrew had commas, so consider the comma an interpretation. Does it violate the Hebrew grammar if we identify "Me" with "whom"?

Exodus 8:12 gives an example of crying out to God concerning some matter, and it doesn't use this wording. Do you have an example where look to me, cry to God, or something else happens "concerning" someone or something with "ath ashr"?

Exodus 8:12 Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, and Moses cried to Yahweh concerning the frogs which he had brought on Pharaoh.

OK, so here's the thing. In any language, you can communicate the same concept using different words. In English you could say "about", "regarding", "pertaining to", "concerning", etc. The same hold true for Hebrew. So in Zechariah the Hebrew uses the phrase "Et Asher" and in Exodus it uses the phrase עַל־דְּבַ֥ר "Al Dibar" "upon the matter" which is saying the same thing uses different words. Also remember that in many cases the prophets use more poetic language.

Yes, of course you can use different words to convey the same meaning of "concerning" or "regarding". You claim that "Et Asher" can mean "regarding" in Hebrew idiom. It is possible that you have used it yourself in that way, but do you have any Bible verse that shows that ancient Biblical Hebrew ever used such an idiom?

[journeyman]

So you agree that this cup of blood refers to death. And in the passage, the blood results in the remission of sins -- so do you see "remission" of sins to mean "striving against sin" or "forgiving past sins"?

Both, because if our Lord had not endured the wrongs being committed against him, the only alternative would have been to judge sinners. People must see how they have sinned against God and repent and nowhere in all of scripture is this more clear than by the evil done to his Son,

repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name Lk.24:47

And those who believe in him are being conformed to his image,

For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pet.2:19-21

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, Act.2:38