The Christian Greek Horse of Isaiah 9:6

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ben Masada,

You have all the right in the world to but do not forget that Jesus was a Jew and Joseph his father was the one from the Tribe of Judah. If Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph, he could not have been from the Tribe of Judah.

The point here is not Mary but Jesus. As I said before, even if Mary was a direct daughter of King David, Jesus could not have been from the Tribe of Judah if he was not a biological son of Joseph.

The rule is not mine. Ask any Rabbi if a child could become of the Tribe of the mother rather than of the father and you will have the same rule I stated.

Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus, because God the Father was his father, then his only connection to David and the tribe of Judah was through his mother, and yes I will hold to my understanding of this.

"Christ" by definition means the Anointed One of the Lord. If you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what "Christ" is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel the Son of God if you read Exodus 4:22,23.

Jesus has also been anointed as prophet, priest and king.

The term "witnesses" is usually from hear-say. An eyewitness would be more to the point and there was none. But I don't need an eyewitness as I already have going on for me that the Scriptures, which Jesus always referred to as the Word of God states loud and clear that, "Once dead no one will ever return from the grave." (II Samuel 12:23; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9; Psalm 49:12,20)

Part of the appeal of Peter’s speech on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 was the fact that while David’s sepulchre was there, Jesus’ tomb was empty, and the rumour started by the Priests was that the disciples had stolen the body.

Taking one of your “support” verses, please consider the context:
Isaiah 26: 13-14 (KJV): 13 O LORD our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. 14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.
This is speaking of the various Gentile powers that had dominion over Israel at different times. But despite their greatness and prowess in their day, they are now in the grave, returned to the dust, never to be resurrected.

Isaiah 26: 19 (KJV): Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
In contrast, certain individuals, known as God’s dead, and also the prophet Isaiah looking forward to that day, also speaks of the resurrection of his own body, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

Also compare the ultimate resurrection of the Psalmist in contrast again to those who held positions of honour in their day, but had neglected an understanding of God's ways:
Psalm 49:12-15 (KJV): 12 Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish. 13 This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah. 14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling. 15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Ben Masada]

Greetings again Ben Masada,
Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus, because God the Father was his father, then his only connection to David and the tribe of Judah was through his mother, and yes I will hold to my understanding of this.

Jesus has also been anointed as prophet, priest and king.

I thought we were talking about Jesus as a Jew and not a Greek. This of a child born without a biological father is akin to the Greek concept of a demigod which
is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Besides, adoption could not be used to change the rule of Tribal inheritance. An adopted child had all the right of a legitimate child but one, the right to belong to the Tribe of the adopting father. You can also ask this to any Rabbi and you will have the same answer.

Regarding having Jesus been anointed as a prophet, probably Paul did his anointing because, at his time, the prophetic system in Israel had been cancelled. (II Timothy 2:8; Acts 9:20) There would be no more prophets in Israel and Jesus as a learned Jew knew that. (Daniel 9:24)

 

[Ben Masada]

1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV -

I said the Word of God, not the NT. Every time Jesus referred to the Word of God, he had the Tanach in mind, not the NT. This he never even dreamed would ever rise.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ben Masada,

Regarding having Jesus been anointed as a prophet, probably Paul did his anointing because, at his time, the prophetic system in Israel had been cancelled. (II Timothy 2:8; Acts 9:20) There would be no more prophets in Israel and Jesus as a learned Jew knew that. (Daniel 9:24)

Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and Power:
Matthew 3: 13-16 (KJV): 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
The last phrase quotes / alludes to Isaiah 42:1-7 the 1st Servant Song of Isaiah, showing that Jesus is this Servant / Son prophesied. Jesus is qualified to be prophet, priest and king because he is the Son of God, and because he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, always doing the will of His Father, the One God, God the Father in heaven. He is greater than David as David calls him Lord Psalm 110:1, and thus must have a higher origin than David.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Ben Masada]

Greetings again Ben Masada,
Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and Power: Matthew 3: 13-16: 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. The last phrase quotes / alludes to Isaiah 42:1-7 the 1st Servant Song of Isaiah, showing that Jesus is this Servant / Son prophesied. Jesus is qualified to be prophet, priest and king because he is the Son of God, and because he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, always doing the will of His Father, the One God, God the Father in heaven. He is greater than David as David calls him Lord Psalm 110:1, and thus must have a higher origin than David.

I do not deny that Jesus was son of God but as part of the People of Israel if you read Exodus 4:22,23 whom the Almighty said, "Israel is My Son..." I also agree that Jesus was qualified to be a prophet but, the prophetic system in Israel had been cancelled soon after the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon with the establishment of the Jewish New World Order aka the New Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31)

David did not call Jesus his Lord in Psalm 110:1. That psalm was originally written thus: "The Lord said to me..." Since it would be awkward for the Levites to sing that way, a change was made to become "The Lord said to my lord..." The Lord God to my lord David. The second "lord" is not capitalized as we have in the JPS Jewish translation of the Bible from the Hebrew version.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ben Masada,

I do not deny that Jesus was son of God but as part of the People of Israel if you read Exodus 4:22,23 whom the Almighty said, "Israel is My Son...".

I appreciate your perspective on Israel being God’s son, but even though you do not accept this, the NT gives Jesus an additional and a greater status by virtue of his unique birth, also because of his moral character, and because he has been raised from the dead.

I also agree that Jesus was qualified to be a prophet but, the prophetic system in Israel had been cancelled soon after the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon with the establishment of the Jewish New World Order aka the New Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31)

I am interested in who then do you consider is the prophet spoken of by Moses.
Deuteronomy 18: 18-19 (KJV): 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

David did not call Jesus his Lord in Psalm 110:1. That psalm was originally written thus: "The Lord said to me..." Since it would be awkward for the Levites to sing that way, a change was made to become "The Lord said to my lord..." The Lord God to my lord David. The second "lord" is not capitalized as we have in the JPS Jewish translation of the Bible from the Hebrew version.

I do not think that the original Hebrew had capitals and so any translation that supplies capitals is interesting, but not conclusive. I accept that Jesus is David’s lord, in the sense of superior, ruler, master; no capitals required. If you look at the NT Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110:4 are extensively quoted and applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. There is never a hint or suggestion that the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus and the Apostles understood Psalm 110:1 in the way that you suggest. You seem to know all the Rabbinical rules, and my understanding is that a father cannot call his son “lord”. Also I believe that Psalm 110:1 is in part based upon 2 Samuel 7:18, when David went in and sat before the LORD.

Going back to the OP, I would like to briefly comment on two of the titles to be given to the child (to be) born:
Isaiah 9: 6 (KJV): For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
I suggest that these two titles had a partial fulfilment in Hezekiah. When he came to the throne the people responded to his reintroduction of the worship in Jerusalem and rejoiced in the Passover in the second month. The people also learnt to trust in Hezekiah during the Assyrian invasion, and as a result of the defeat of the Assyrian. In both of these Hezekiah became to Israel the father of that olahm, a period of time as the word can be translated, and he became the prince of peace at that time.

It is interesting the contrast between Uzziah who trusted in his many weapons including many that were invented in his time and Hezekiah who trusted in God. I see a parallel between Uzziah and with Israel today with their many armaments and unique clever military equipment, and also the signing of the military aid package from the US yesterday, a total of $38 bn over 10 years. I compare Hezekiah with Jesus and I believe that Isaiah 2:1-4 was spoken in Uzziah’s day, firstly predicting the peace and true worship in Hezekiah’s day. I also see the prophecy as relevant also against the present nation and their trust in armaments, with the time that is soon to be ushered in at the return of Jesus, who will sit upon the throne of David for 1000 years and rule over Israel and the nations in peace.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[beameup]

The Jews don't walk by faith Nick, but by sight.

Did Abram walk (sojourn) by faith or by sight?

 

[Ben Masada]

Greetings again Ben Masada,
I appreciate your perspective on Israel being God’s son, but even though you do not accept this, the NT gives Jesus an additional and a greater status by virtue of his unique birth, also because of his moral character, and because he has been raised from the dead.

What you refer to as Jesus' unique birth only debase him into the Greek myth of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:18) If you are aware that Jesus was a Jew, address him as a Jew and not as a Greek. And Jesus was not raised from the dead because it would prove God's Word in the Tanach to have been a failure and that is unheard of.

 

[Ben Masada]

I do not think that the original Hebrew had capitals and so any translation that supplies capitals is interesting, but not conclusive. I accept that Jesus is David’s lord, in the sense of superior, ruler, master; no capitals required. If you look at the NT Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110:4 are extensively quoted and applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. There is never a hint or suggestion that the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus and the Apostles understood Psalm 110:1 in the way that you suggest. You seem to know all the Rabbinical rules, and my understanding is that a father cannot call his son “lord”. Also I believe that Psalm 110:1 is in part based upon 2 Samuel 7:18, when David went in and sat before the LORD.

That's right! No capital letters in Hebrew even today. I used the JPS Jewish translation of the Tanach in Hebrew and, the second term for "lord" does not come in capital letter to indicate the second "lord" to be David. Only the Christian translations, especially the KJV capitalize both in order to interpolate the idea of Jesus into the text as Christian preconceived assumptions. It works for the Christians but for
the Jews it is taken as a Christian pious forgery.

 

[Ben Masada]

I am interested in who then do you consider is the prophet spoken of by Moses.
Deuteronomy 18: 18-19 (KJV): 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

The name is Joshua (not Jesus) and you can verify what I am saying by reading Numbers 27:18 and Joshua 1:5,16-18)

 

[Ben Masada]

Did Abram walk (sojourn) by faith or by sight?

Abraham walked by sight aka understanding of HaShem's instructions because he trusted the Lord. There is a big difference between faith and trust.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ben Masada,

The name is Joshua (not Jesus) and you can verify what I am saying by reading Numbers 27:18 and Joshua 1:5,16-18)

What is partially true with Joshua, is completely true with Jesus.

Going back to the OP, I would like to briefly comment on the future role and one more of the titles to be given to the child (to be) born:
Isaiah 9: 6 (KJV): For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

I was interested in the explanation given in TWOT 310b for gibbor:
“The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior.”
“Thus the psalmists recount God’s mighty acts (Psalm 106:8; 145:4, 11, 12; etc.) and in various places those attributes which a warrior-king might be expected to possess—wisdom, might, counsel and understanding—are attributed par excellence to God (Job 12:13; Prov 8:14). Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6; cf. 10:21) indicates that these will be the attributes of the Coming King, whose name is the Mighty God as well as the Prince of Peace, but he also makes it plain that justice and righteousness will accompany his might (cf. Ps 89:13–14 [H 14–15]).”

The concept of a warrior king reminds us of David who subdued the surrounding nations before he had rest from his enemies. A significant reference is Psalm 8, and I believe this commemorates David’s victory over Goliath, where David incipiently is given rulership over the nations, as king of God’s kingdom. But David had to learn that there were greater enemies than the giant. He had to contend with Saul, and with his own failures and trouble in his own household. In other words, in order to fulfil the role of king of God’s kingdom, he needed to overcome sin in all its manifestations.

Isaiah 9:6 and Psalm 8:3-6 in their fullness pointed forward to Jesus as the true warrior-king who would do battle with sin, firstly in himself as he was born a human, a son of Adam, and overcome sin and its effects in all aspects, especially by means of his death and resurrection. Only such a king is qualified to have the government placed upon his shoulder. He will return to subdue the kingdoms of men in all their rebellion against God, and finally overcome the last enemy at the end of the 1000 years, even death itself.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Ben Masada]

Greetings again Ben Masada,
What is partially true with Joshua, is completely true with Jesus.

Going back to the OP, I would like to briefly comment on the future role and one more of the titles to be given to the child (to be) born:
Isaiah 9: 6 (KJV): For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

I was interested in the explanation given in TWOT 310b for gibbor:
“The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior.”
“Thus the psalmists recount God’s mighty acts (Psalm 106:8; 145:4, 11, 12; etc.) and in various places those attributes which a warrior-king might be expected to possess—wisdom, might, counsel and understanding—are attributed par excellence to God (Job 12:13; Prov 8:14). Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6; cf. 10:21) indicates that these will be the attributes of the Coming King, whose name is the Mighty God as well as the Prince of Peace, but he also makes it plain that justice and righteousness will accompany his might (cf. Ps 89:13–14 [H 14–15]).”

The concept of a warrior king reminds us of David who subdued the surrounding nations before he had rest from his enemies. A significant reference is Psalm 8, and I believe this commemorates David’s victory over Goliath, where David incipiently is given rulership over the nations, as king of God’s kingdom. But David had to learn that there were greater enemies than the giant. He had to contend with Saul, and with his own failures and trouble in his own household. In other words, in order to fulfil the role of king of God’s kingdom, he needed to overcome sin in all its manifestations.

Isaiah 9:6 and Psalm 8:3-6 in their fullness pointed forward to Jesus as the true warrior-king who would do battle with sin, firstly in himself as he was born a human, a son of Adam, and overcome sin and its effects in all aspects, especially by means of his death and resurrection. Only such a king is qualified to have the government placed upon his shoulder. He will return to subdue the kingdoms of men in all their rebellion against God, and finally overcome the last enemy at the end of the 1000 years, even death itself.

Kind regards
Trevor

I think I told you already that Isaiah 9:6 was a prophecy of Isaiah about the homage the Gentiles of the Galilee paid to the Jews when they were returning from exile in Babylon after the 70 years were over. They would acclaim the returning Jews as "A child being born to us." That's a reference to the child born of the virgin Israel according to Isaiah 7:14,15,22; 8:8 and Amos 5:2.

Whatever you mean by partially true with Joshua is perfectly true with Jesus is wish-fulfilling assumption as a result of Christian preconceived notions. The point is that the Tanach has nothing to do with the NT. The Tanach was the gospel of Jesus; the NT was the gospel of Paul.

 

[Ktoyou]

Greetings again Ben Masada,
Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus, because God the Father was his father,
Trevor

In one simple sense, God was the father, but in a more complex sense, God was His essence. Otherwise you have two Gods or Jesus not being divine. both errors.

Jesus was not part Mary. Do not mix biology with divine acts. God can be flesh without genetics.

The inherited right of Jesus birth stands no matter what. Two earthly parents, two essences, fully human and fully God, yet He did not receive that human side from Mary.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Ktoyou,

In one simple sense, God was the father, but in a more complex sense, God was His essence. Otherwise you have two Gods or Jesus not being divine. both errors.

Jesus was not part Mary. Do not mix biology with divine acts. God can be flesh without genetics.

The inherited right of Jesus birth stands no matter what. Two earthly parents, two essences, fully human and fully God, yet He did not receive that human side from Mary.

No, I do not accept your view. I believe that there is only One God, the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God, because God the Father is his father, and Mary is mother in a literal sense Luke 1:35. You are adding your theology to what is written here, and ignoring what it says. Jesus is also the son of God because of his moral character and because of his resurrection Romans 1:1-4.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ben Masada,

I think I told you already that Isaiah 9:6 was a prophecy of Isaiah about the homage the Gentiles of the Galilee paid to the Jews when they were returning from exile in Babylon after the 70 years were over. They would acclaim the returning Jews as "A child being born to us." That's a reference to the child born of the virgin Israel according to Isaiah 7:14,15,22; 8:8 and Amos 5:2.

I believe that the background to many of Isaiah’s prophecies is the life of Hezekiah and the Assyrian invasion and has little to do with the return from Babylon. Also I do not see the post-Babylon period as being a golden era. So the setting is the events of Hezekiah’s time taken as a framework for the future role of the Messiah, and to us this incorporates his first and second advents. To Israel they will mainly appreciate this in the future advent of their Messiah.

This section of Scripture starts in Isaiah 6 with a vision of the future King-Priest enthroned in the Most Holy Isaiah 6:1, and concludes with another exodus, and the language draws upon the language of the Song of Moses:
Isaiah 12: 1-3 (KJV): 1 And in that day thou shalt say, O LORD, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me. 2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. 3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.
There is nothing in the return from Babylon that exceeds the exodus from Egypt.

Whatever you mean by partially true with Joshua is perfectly true with Jesus is wish-fulfilling assumption as a result of Christian preconceived notions. The point is that the Tanach has nothing to do with the NT. The Tanach was the gospel of Jesus; the NT was the gospel of Paul.

Paul also expounds the Tanakh and for example speaks of a future rest that the second Joshua would give to those of faith, because Israel and the Jews never received the promised rest under Joshua and his successors.
Hebrews 4: 7-11 (KJV): 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus (mg: Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Ben Masada]

Paul also expounds the Tanakh and for example speaks of a future rest that the second Joshua would give to those of faith, because Israel and the Jews never received the promised rest under Joshua and his successors. Hebrews 4: 7-11 (KJV): 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus (mg: Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

And what kind of rest did they receive at the time of Jesus? Care to share with me?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ben Masada,

And what kind of rest did they receive at the time of Jesus? Care to share with me?

Matthew 11: 25-30 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
The rest that Jesus provides is firstly very personal, a removal of sins past, a comfort from the stress and turmoil and anxieties of life, and finally the eternal rest when our mortal bodies or resurrected bodies will be changed into immortal bodies at the return of Jesus and we will enter into the 1000 years of rest when he reigns upon the earth for the 1000 years, the 7th Millennium of rest prefigured by the Sabbath. I have quoted the above from Matthew in greater detail, as it connects what Jesus says to his claim that he is the Son of Man, the son of Adam spoken of in Psalm 8. He is the one in and through whom God's purpose in creation will be fulfilled, refer also Hebrews 2 regarding Psalm 8.

Both these elements are spoken of by Paul in Hebrews 4.
Hebrews 4: 7-11 (KJV): 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus (mg: Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest (a keeping of the Sabbath) to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Ben Masada]

The rest that Jesus provides is firstly very personal, a removal of sins past, a comfort from the stress and turmoil and anxieties of life, and finally the eternal rest when our mortal bodies or resurrected bodies will be changed into immortal bodies at the return of Jesus and we will enter into the 1000 years of rest when he reigns upon the earth for the 1000 years, the 7th Millennium of rest prefigured by the Sabbath. I have quoted the above from Matthew in greater detail, as it connects what Jesus says to his claim that he is the Son of Man, the son of Adam spoken of in Psalm 8. He is the one in and through whom God's purpose in creation will be fulfilled, refer also Hebrews 2 regarding Psalm 8.

Removal of sins occurs only when we decided to set things right with God that our sins from scarlet read become as white as snow through repentance and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19) Jesus himself made that very clear in Luke 16:29-31 when he said to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. Then, all those maladies you mention in the following up as provided by Jesus, believe it or not, more people suffer from them as after Jesus was gone than before he was born. Again, what rest did Jesus provided with being claimed to have been the Messiah?

No resurrection and no immortality could have come from Jesus because he could not contradict his own gospel aka the Tanach. Why don't you use it to prove these things? To use a Hellenistic Bible to prove these things will take you nowhere.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ben Masada,

Removal of sins occurs only when we decided to set things right with God that our sins from scarlet read become as white as snow through repentance and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19)

My starting point regarding forgiveness of sins is not obedience of God’s Law, but belief in God’s promises:
Genesis 15: 3-6 (KJV): 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Jesus himself made that very clear in Luke 16:29-31 when he said to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. Then, all those maladies you mention in the following up as provided by Jesus, believe it or not, more people suffer from them as after Jesus was gone than before he was born. Again, what rest did Jesus provided with being claimed to have been the Messiah?

I am not sure that you can prove “obedience to God’s Law” as the basis for justification by quoting from the comments after the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, especially when he was targeting the strictest claimers to Law Keeping, the Pharisees Luke 16:13-18.

No resurrection and no immortality could have come from Jesus because he could not contradict his own gospel aka the Tanach. Why don't you use it to prove these things? To use a Hellenistic Bible to prove these things will take you nowhere.

I am not sure why you dismiss what I quoted. You seem to accept some portions of the NT, but reject others. Do you accept what Jesus stated concerning Psalm 8?

If you are looking for a Tanuch reference for resurrection, possibly you will accept the following as applicable to the Messiah at least:
Psalm 16: 8-11 (KJV): 8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall restb in hope. 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

If you are looking for a Tanuch reference for the future rest under the Messiah, possibly you will also accept the following, especially if you consider all of Isaiah 11:
Isaiah 11: 9-10 (KJV): 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Kind regards
Trevor