₦airaland Forum

immaculatesense:
Though the question was not directed to you but I respect your input. But you did not anstmy question? Was 'elohim' in Psalm 8:5 the same as 'angelos' in Hebrews? I believe it's a straight forward question.

if you understood my response would you be repeating the question?

immaculatesense:
So, if you know me, you will know I rarely talk and I don't like back and forth. I have Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I don't like picking errors, but I rather ask questions. According to your rebuttal in your first paragraph, just two quick questions. (1) Verse 1. Why were the 'gods' called an 'heavenly court' if they are not heavenly beings? (2) Verse 6. Why were the 'gods' referred to as the 'chikdren of the Most High' if they were not heavenly beings?
On your second paragraph. It is true that angels do not refer to themselves as 'elohim' except in the case of Moses, but that aside. If that is your point, it can be used against you by those who do not believe that Jesus is God. Because Jesus never referred to himself as 'theos"- god. Not even 'son of god". He humbling calls himself 'the son of man' and messenger of god.
John 17:3
[3]And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.
But we know that he is god (divine/deity).
Thanks.

Is this a response to me writing, "Psalm 82 isn't the acknowledgement of gods which the Torah rejects..."? Or is it an error?
Now for your question
"Why were the 'gods' called an 'heavenly court' if they are not heavenly beings?" Not sure from what translation you are asking this question but it should be about Psalm 82:1 right?
But how I am supposed to tell you why an English translator translates the Hebrew the way they did when I am not them?

Now verse 6, I said gods you are and children of the Most High you all are, verse 7 but like men you shall die...


That verse 6 wasn't a commendation but a rebuke. You claim to be gods but you are all my children, both Satan, Lucifer and all of them, who claim to be gods who are being judged in Psalm 82 in God's congregation, did you read the previous verses before verse 6?

You ask if they were heavenly beings, is it because I said even men claimed to be gods? Was that a lie? Dont men as well as false entities claim to be God?

I do not know what you mean by except in the case of Moses, or was there an angel who claimed to be God to Moses? Or are you calling the burning bush God or what?

You claim something can be used against me, how can that be when there is no record of such, of an angel of God calling themselves God and also Jesus did not claim and even admitted to be the Messiah who is the son of God. Saying that Jesus never called himself the son of God is a lie either born of ignorance of the gospels or deception.

immaculatesense:
Smile. I respect your taught but you need to broading your view. I don't hold a doctrinal point of any church, I stand on the scriptures even if it opposes the standpoint of my church. I am loyal to the scriptures and not to denomination because of you are loyal to a denomination, your view will be influenced and you will not be objective in your view. My close associates are jw and they know me, I respect their view but when I talk they know I speak to issues objectively. You AV read my comments before some years back, I just stayed away for personal development.
Maxim, let me ask you a simple question that will confuse you.
Explain the difference between these two verses of the same origin and meaning, but different in just one word.
Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7
Psalms 8:5
[5]Yet you made them only a little lower than God (elohim)
    and crowned them with glory and honor.

Hebrews 2:7
[7]Yet you made them only a little lower than the angels (angelos)
    and crowned them with glory and honor.

You know I don't like back and forth, tell me why the psalmist used (god)- elohim-, and the writer of Hebrews while making reference to the psalmist changed it to (angels)- angelos. Does it mean that the psalmist and the writer of Hebrews viewed angels as 'elohim' (god) or the writer of Hebrews was trying to correct the psalmist? I will go with the first. Let's hear ur own view on this two same but distinct verses.

there are two translations of psalm 8:5, the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew text which was popular at that time and the Masoretic text, which has the term me-elohim. So it isn't about the author of Hebrew correctly the scripture but teaching based on what they themselves have been taught. For example the author places the altar of incense at the most holy place instead of the holy place

immaculatesense:
I respect your view sir. In my explanation I have proven three things. (1) The word 'elohim' god was a general word for 'divinity' at the time. You can agree with me on the basis of Jacob and Manoah that I quoted. (2) I showed from scriptures that Jesus was divine even before his birth and has been with the Father even before the foundation of the word- John 17:5. He is god (elohim/divine/deity). (3) That the Father is supreme and superior to the son- Jesus. That Jesus himself showed that he is subject to the Father in all things. He called the Father his God and derived his authority from his father- John 20:17.
Conclusion: Jesus is god and above all, except the Father who is above Jesus and above all.- I Corinthians 15:27-28
That is the position of the scriptures. I am Pentecostal and I am loyal to the scriptures and not denomination.

That's why I wrote on that thread the term and usage of Elohim needs to be properly understood.

When you say 1. The elohim was a general Hebrew term to reference divinity we also need to understand it was used to specifically teach that there is only one true Divine while the rest were false.

And we know that some of God's sons fell and started playing God on the earth. Now we have to consider that the very first commandment and decree from God is to denounce any other God. You shall have no other god/elohim besides me. Of which is became blasphemy and idolatry to consider anyone or anything God or Divine asides from God Almighty YHVH.

There also no where in scripture where God ascribes divinity to His word, either directly nor through His prophets. Nor does He in anyway suggest that His word is God even when He promises to send the Messiah.

Jesus is king anointed by God and made so by God, he was never anointed nor appointed a god nor a divine

immaculatesense:
Good. You are correct sir. I believe you have at least some knowledge of Hebrew language. The Hebrew word-'elohim' means god, divine, deity, or supernatural. They use the same word for angels as in the case of Jacob who said he fought against god (elohim-) and prevail but we know that he fought not against the Father but angel, as no man can fight against the Father and win. Also in the case of Manoah and his wife, they saw an angel and they said they would die because they have seen god, but we know that wat they saw was an angel and not the Father.
Maxim. Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus before he was born? I mean do you believe that he has been in existence before his birth or that his life began at his birth?
If you do, in which I know you do. Why don't you then agree with me that Jesus is god (elohim, deity, and divine) from the standpoint that the word 'elohim' is use for divinity, but he is not the Father- the supreme god over all other god and that only the Father is superior to him and Jesus is in turn superior to all other creature in heaven and on earth.

I don't think we should be taking Jacobs account as a consideration of one who actually saw the face of God, infact that angel is said to be called Peniel, face of God doesn't mean the angel is God's face does it?

No man has seen God because there is only one God to see, even Moses's face was covered when God descended with only his back visible.

This term divinity should only be understood as the holiness of God and not like a chieftaincy title that is acquired. Other religions claims diverse forms of divinity thereby diverse gods, but there is only one God therefore His holiness set apart from the rest which are false gods.

immaculatesense:
Yes, I do, since they are 'divine' that makes them 'god' (elohim). According to Psalm 82:1
‭Psalms 82:1 NIV‬
[1] God (elohim-) presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods” (elohim):

I interprete this passage as "the Father (elohim) god presides in the great assembly, he renders judgement among the angels (refer to by the psalmist as gods (elohim) just like in Psalms 8:5. I believe this is somehow relatable with Job 1:6 and Job 2:1. I believe in both passages, the scriptures refers to the heavenly assembly or court as an assembly of angels or heavenly beings who have been sent by the Father to lead and guide the affairs of men. They give report and account to the Father on how they manage the affairs of men. I think along the line, the issue of idolatry has it stem from men's encounters with this heavenly beings overtime. So, yes. Angels were referred to across scriptures as 'elohim' which means god.

el also means strength or leader, it doesn't make every strong leader a god but they may claim to be in the eyes of people. Psalm 82 isn't the acknowledge of gods which the Torah rejects, but with correct interpretation and understanding we see that these were self elevated beings who were going to be brought low like Lucifer.

Angels were only one time or two referred to as elohim, and usually with the term benelohim to show their submission to the one true Elohim. We see in the book of revelation that they refer to themselves as servants of Elohim and not elohim.

immaculatesense:
Sir, I respect your view and I have the same view too. But let me help you to create a balance. Your view is correct but not complete. Let me answer or rephrase your thoughts one after another.
1. Is Jesus same as God? The answer is YES. But is Jesus same as the Father? The answer is NO. I will clarify this in my last paragraph.
2. Is Jesus equal to God? The answer is YES. But is Jesus equal to the Father? The answer is NO. He was only equal 'with' not 'to' the Father. I will also clarify this in my last paragraph.
3. Is the Trinity doctrine scriptural? The answer is YES. But has the Trinity doctrine been rightly taught the way the scriptures viewed it by most denomination? The answer is NO.

MY LAST PARAGRAPH
The word 'god'-'elohim' (note that there is not capital letters in Hebrew and Greek) is a plural word that is used for anyone divine or special. Angels were known as 'god' in the biblical period. Study the story of Jacob wrestling with god (angel) Genesis 32:30. Remember Manoah and his wife saw an angel and the said they saw 'god'- Judges 13:22. There are numerous examples of angels been regarded as God all across the scriptures but those two examples are clear enough for that.
Men were also called god. Remember that even the Father through his angel called Moses god (elohim) unto pharaoh and Aaron his prophet- Exodus 7:1. Abraham was called 'god' (elohim) by the Canaanites, even though some versions changed it to 'mighty' and some 'prince' but the original Hebrew word was 'elohim.'- Genesis 23:6. In Psalms the writer clearly stated that 'elohim sits on his throne in the heavenly court and judges among the elohim- Psalm 82:1.
Jesus is god (elohim-) because he is divine/deity but he is not the Father- the one and only god who alone is above all. Jesus is below him but superior to all other god.
In the true Bible teaching of the Trinity, just like the word Bible is not in the scriptures, the word Trinity is not in the scriptures but the Father who alone is supreme and above all sent his son Jesus on a salvation mission (John 3:16-18) and after fulfilling the mission the Father through Jesus sent the holy spirit to guide and lead men into all truth (John 16:13-15). These three, united in purpose but distinct in authority as the Father is above the son and the son is above the spirit play their roles in the salvation of mankind. This is how the Trinity should be taught and not to make the three equal in authority as that is not true, but they are one and united in purpose.
Jesus is not equal to the Father. That should not even be a debate at all. Jesus himself declared severally that "My Father is greater than I am." And severally he always makes it known that he is subject to the Father's will and that the Father is his God- John 20:17. The son came from the Father but the Father came from no one. The son is god (deity/divine/worthy of worship) but the Father is god over all (deity/divine/worthy of worship).
Thanks you so much. I hope you will just include this in your view which is correct but not complete. Peace.

Your number 1 & 2 is suggesting that the Father and God are not the same person, but two different persons. Is that what you believe?

Your "last paragraph" reminds me of my post in https://www.nairaland.com/8337768/term-elohim

About the elohim, and I understand your response is saying Jesus is an elohim, but when we understand scripture we realize that angels are mainly called messengers so as to different them from those beings trying to play God and deceive men. So to say Jesus is not the Elohim but an elohim is associate him with the other references which were related to false gods that God will judge.

cornelboy:
Just a comparison.
Read well

I think you should change the title from "same" to "similar" authority

cornelboy:
Your post makes almost no sense to me especially the third paragraph

ah thought I was the only one who found it confusing

StillDtruth:
This is a misleading formulation especially as you are not paying attention, to the word "our God" which is very specific throughout the First Testaments.

Thus, it is misleading to formulate the question "is Jesus equal to God?" When the bible clearly shows that He is God's Son Who sits at the Right Hand of God.

So, really if you truly wanted to appreciate the Trinitarian views, you can see what they mean.

And this is why half truths are very very dangerous especially as this view comes from Catholics who are devils themselves who know and used the wicked power of half truth and have therefore created this unprofitable argument and division

this is confusing are you saying that Jesus being the son of God is half truth?

TenQ:
The Qur'an is the exact verbatim words of Allah

The Hadiths are sayings of Mohammed and sometimes his sahabas (immediate followers)

Both are authoritative for most Muslims especially the Sunnis but they still regard the Qur'an as perfect and free from errors

but didn't someone say Muhammad could not lie and was known as a honest man. So was he lying in his Hadith?

MightySparrow:
What is your point?

lol his point is simple and obvious there cannot be two first angels, there is only one first angel before the rest of them

MightySparrow:
One of the Archangels.


I once in your publications decades ago. I can't really remember which now. It was said that Michael is interpreted as ' One like God or who God is ' but the scriptures show us many people bearing Michael.


Num.13.13 - Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael.

1Chr.5.13 - And their brethren of the house of their fathers were, Michael, and Meshullam, and Sheba, and Jorai, and Jachan, and Zia, and Heber, seven.

1Chr.5.14 - These are the children of Abihail the son of Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Michael, the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the son of Buz;

1Chr.6.40 - The son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah, the son of Malchiah,
1Chr.7.3 - And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five: all of them chief men.

1Chr.12.20 - As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah, and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zilthai, captains of the thousands that were of Manasseh.

1Chr.27.18 - Of Judah, Elihu, one of the brethren of David: of Issachar, Omri the son of Michael:

2Chr.21.2 - And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.

Ezra.8.8 - And of the sons of Shephatiah; Zebadiah the son of Michael, and with him fourscore males.

Dan.10.13 - But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Dan.12.1 - And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

S
The name Michael was in use far before Daniel to mean, ' who is like God or El' No one like God.

I will like you to enlighten us how you make Jesus this Archangel. Just to learn o. No fight.

wait was no one bearing Jesus before Jesus or after Jesus?

You want to believe that God is Jesus but please don't refuse to read what scripture records which Jesus said testifies of him.

As believers we shouldn't hate the government nor the president Tinubu, even if anyone believes they are wicked and cruel. What God expects from us is to love them and pray for them.

It may sound crazy to say love Tinubu and you may think I am his supporter, but I am not. It's when you understand that to love a person also means to correct them and desire their good, that to love also means to hate wickedness and evil. We are expected to love our enemies while we hate the world and the things of the world. If you ask, what then is there to love about your enemies the only answer I can give you, is their soul, is for us to care that they would perish if they continue in their wickedness.

You can love President Tinubu and pray for him and his government without actually liking him nor favoring what he does. There is always prayer for repentance and mercy, and for God's will to be done. But our attitude towards those who don't like us or to those whom we don't like may affect how we think and how we treat them.

The hardship in Nigeria isn't worth disobeying Jesus for, no matter how we feel towards those who hurt and cause us pain, we are expected to do what is right and good. That doesn't discredit the pain you feel but how we handle it may discredit us before God.


Insulting President Tinubu isn't the way, Jesus doesn't expect us to insult those who hate and hurt us. In the new testament we are expected to pray for our leaders so that we may serve God in peace. So that there may be peace in Nigeria for the righteous. You may think insulting them is the only way to hurt them, but do you actually think they feel hurt by such? Well if they do, maybe they do still have some heart but instead of insults why not just speak the truth in love. Well this isn't about them but about us.

God doesn't expect us to prophecy in favor of the wicked and workers of Iniquity, even if you do, there is no peace for the wicked and if we believe God judges there's really no reason to take matters into our own hands but believe in God's judgement and do what is right.


You may say this is keeping quiet against wickedness, no it is not, if you love, you correct, you rebuke, you call to repentance and not insulting nor been rebellious against good laws.

I know some are tired of praying for Nigeria but I want you to know that you are actually praying for God's children and those children who will come through you. If you bless a person or speak peace to a place and it doesn't accept it, it will return to you. If Nigeria doesn't accept you, where will accept you will receive you and you will receive a just reward.

So let's not waste our time hating the government nor the president because of the state of the country, such hatred doesn't help you nor anyone.


P.S I still do not like the current state of affairs nor the corrupt leaders, but I pray they change and I pray that righteousness excels and exalts this nation. While I pray, I tell you all this, God will judge and destroy all those who refuse to repent and stop their wicked ways.

The Gospel is true but some men love lies

2Cor.4.2 We reject all shameful and underhanded methods. We do not try to trick anyone, and we do not distort the word of God. We tell the truth before God, and all who are honest know that.

sonmvayina:
At least he should understand what I am saying, if he wants to point out what he is not comfortable with, he is free to do so. Not ask a question on what is not even captured in my post..

I understood what you wrote and I pointed it out clearly where you missed the Tanakh but you can keep deceiving yourself

sonmvayina:
Messiah means anointed king/ priest
Anointed with a special oil kept inside the arc of the covenant as part of their coronation.
Jesus was never a priest or a king. So he is not a Messiah.
God and read Isaiah 53,you will see it is not about the Messiah.
The Messiah is not coming to die...he is coming to rule as king in an era of world peace. We're men will hammer their swords into ploughshares. That has not happened.is it?
The Messiah is not coming to die for sins. God already gave the Jews the solution to the problem of sin.
Comprende??

you are a shameless liar

The Jews don't believe that they are the Messiah

They are looking for the coming Messiah who not according to your nonsense coming in an era of peace, but to come deliver them from their enemies and bring peace to them.

Guy you are shaming Judaism, to them the Messiah is a warrior who will make Israel great again

Jesus was not a king yet they crucified for being king of the Jews

sonmvayina:
It is common in Tanach [Jewish Scriptures] to refer to the nation of Israel as a single individual. For example, it says, “And the people gathered as one man” (Nehemiah 8:1). In a revealing passage, “You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen” (Isaiah 43:10), the subject Israel is referred to first in the plural and then in the singular.

So, about whom and what is Isaiah 53 speaking?

Starting in Isaiah 52, the prophet describes the reaction of the nations of the world when they witness[2] the future and ultimate messianic redemption of the Jewish people.

Since the nations viewed the Jewish people scornfully and considered them rejected by God and deserving of Divine suffering, they will be shocked and dumbfounded[3] when they witness God’s unexpected and glorious redemption of the Jewish people.

At this point, the nations and their leaders will be left wondering and conclude that the Jewish people did not suffer because God rejected them, as the nations mistakenly thought; instead, it was because they persecuted the Jewish people beyond what they may have deserved.[4]

This is the meaning of the passage, “he [Israel] was wounded from our [the nations] transgression and bruised from our [the nations’] iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5). Israel suffered from the mistreatment of the nations.

In English translations of this chapter, Christians mistranslate the prefix [מ] as “for” rather than “from.” This manipulates the text to sound as if the servant will suffer for the sins of the Jewish people. Fortunately, some Christian translations, such as the New Oxford Annotated Bible, have acknowledged and corrected this mistake.

The idea that the Jewish people suffered from or because of the nations’ misdeeds is substantiated in the passage, “For the transgress of my [the nation’s] people they [למו–lamow, i.e., the Jewish people] were stricken” (Isaiah 53:cool. The word [למו] is biblical Hebrew and is a plural word as in, “a statute that He gave [למו] to them” (Psalms 99:7). Missionaries incorrectly translated this word as “he” in Isaiah 53:7 to make it sound as if “he was stricken” and therefore speaking about a single individual, i.e., Jesus.

Furthermore, Christian missionaries incorrectly change the role of the messiah from a physical human redeemer from oppression and exile to a spiritual [divine] savior from sin.

Although all Jewish commentators believe that the straightforward identification of the servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel,[5] some, on an allegorical level, identify the servant as the messiah. They do so because, as a member of the Jewish people, the messiah can bear the responsibility to alleviate a portion of the punishment on behalf of the rest of the nation.[6]

A similar example of this concept is found in Numbers 4:19-20, where the children of Kehat bear the responsibility of carrying the Ark, at considerable risk to themselves, on behalf of the rest of the nation, so no one else would die. Amazingly, just before Isaiah 53, Israel is referred to as “bearers of the vessels of the Lord” (Isaiah 52:11).

In contrast to Christian belief, no Jewish commentary claims that the messiah will die for our sins or that we need to believe in, or even know about him, to benefit from his suffering. Even without our knowledge, the messiah’s suffering, as well as the suffering of other righteous Jews, can alleviate some portion of the nation’s suffering.

It is also noteworthy that under the influence of paganism, the early Christians also transformed the messiah into a deity. The Christian beliefs that the messiah dies for our sins and is divine are foreign to Judaism and not based on the Tanach.

I have attempted to present a brief overview of Isaiah 53 and how missionaries distort the original text to fit Jesus into the picture.[7] This overview also demonstrates the danger of reading passages or a chapter out of context.[8]

As King Solomon wisely stated, “The first to present his argument sounds correct, until someone cross-examines him” (Proverbs 18:17)

yes indeed when you have been cross-examined and you have shown yor lack of knowledge of the Tanakh which resulted in your nonsensical argument where you thought by a few words you sounded right to yourself. You keep avoiding cross-examination and answering simple questions, because you are wise in your own eyes.

Just look at you, first cross-examination "to refer to the nation of Israel as a single individual. For example, it says, “And the people gathered as one man” (Nehemiah 8:1)."

Infact those who know the Tanakh know there are far way more better examples where God refers to the nations as a single entity but your nonsensical use of scriptures misguided you into using Neh.8.1 where they gather as one, so if people gather as one it means they are referred to as one person?

In Isaiah 43:10 God was referring to his witnesses and his servant, two different terms, while his servant has the verb following after is singular and muscular. His witnesses are God's people and His servant is whom God has chosen to lead His people.


Infact most times God refers to Israel or Jerusalem as it or she, as to his bride but Isaiah 52:13 is a single masculine noun for a single male servant and that's why Isaiah 49 recorded this servant purpose is to restore Israel.

Using the very Tanakh to cross examine your nonsense shows that your arrogance is only due to their ignorance

Isa.49.5 "And now the LORD says, Who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, So that Israel is gathered to Him (For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, And My God shall be My strength),...

sonmvayina:
So it wasn't a sacrifice then?
He was executed for blasphemy and possibly treason.

So how did somebody just woke and tell you he died for your sins and you believed

Why?

so now you can actually see Jesus didn't commit an abomination before God.

You need to wake up and read and study your scriptures, was there a promise of a new covenant? Even the Isaiah 49 or which one, God promised to give this seed, this servant as a covenant.

I think it's pathetic that you think when God promised Abraham that his seed would be a blessing to the nations, you thought it was Israel the very nations God divided and left only Judah (+Benjamin) and the Jews were not any blessing to any other nation not to speak of nations. 🤣 so it's the Jews that would bring the gentiles into God's house.

When I said you lack understanding of the Tanakh it wasn't a jest

sonmvayina:
Nah...you are a dummy.
Whaaaaaat?

please close your mouth before the flies and Beelzebub have another feast from it

sonmvayina:


Ok..now we are getting somewhere...

God never ordered it

He just offered himself as a sacrifice and God accepted it. Somebody who yold you that human sacrifice is an abomination will accept it.
You are being deceived, and you don't know it..

if you can't understand the simple words I am writing how do you even claim to understand the Tanakh. Are you now denying your own explanation of human sacrifice.

Or are you saying that those who offered themselves as living sacrifices unto God, not loving this world nor their selves but loving God even at the cost of their own lives were all an abomination in the eyes of God.

If you are accusing Jesus of human ritual, why not clearly state how he performed this ritual which is an abomination. So we can be enlightened by your understanding of what is written

sonmvayina:
Blasphemy and insubordination....and maybe treason.... according to the new testament.

🤣 blasphemy to who?
Insubordination to who?

Maybe yet you claim according to, guy do you know or you don't know? Your assumptions are not helping you in anyway

sonmvayina:
You are dummy..hahahahahha

How Jacob died?

He is talking about the Jews/Jacob/ Israel and his children....the entire Jewish nation...

so Jacob died without an offspring?

sonmvayina:
You have not showed me where God planned the Jesus idea in the Tanakh. All these are just your opinion.

I have you are just obviously been too blind to admit it.

From the seed of the woman, to the promise from Moses, to the naming of Joshua and the appointing of Elisha by the other witness, Elijah, who stands before the anointed of God, all prophetically bearing the same name.

You call them my opinion when you refuse to read and even when you do, you convince yourself that it is a lie. Like God told Isaiah, that is looking they will not see, nor can you even hear the truth, read at plainly for you

sonmvayina:
So what did you make of this portion. Is it talking about Jesus.
Did the person die and have children too...

I have told you a thousand times, Isaiah 53 is about Israel. Israel is God's servant. Isaiah told you 8 times prior to chapter 53. See chapter 45:3-7

3 And I will give you treasures of darkness, and riches hidden in secret places, in order that you know that I am the Lord Who calls [you] by your name-the Holy One of Israel.
4 For the sake of My servant Jacob, and Israel My chosen one, and I called to you by your name; I surnamed you, yet you have not known Me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God: I will strengthen you although you have not known Me.
6 In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other.
7 Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.


See the verse I bolded, Isaiah would have thought you would have read chapter 45 before 53. You see who God says is his servant? Not somebody in the future. Read it in context and find out why Isaiah wrote it.

I should explain to you what you refuse to believe that through the death of Jesus, many become children of God through him, both Jesus and us have eternal life

Why not tell us how Jacob died then came back to life and had numerous children?

You are obviously incapable of understanding the Tanakh even if it is spelt right before you. Isn't Isaiah 45 about Cryus?

Oya look for another nonsense to respond to me with

sonmvayina:
Well explained here

https://www.nairaland.com/6612275/isaiah-53-why-suffering-servant

😂🤣 even when I read writes up in search for what is true, this is one of the most unintelligent and stupid write-ups i have read in a while.

You avoided many key points in the text you are quoting while adding your own porious view, and then attempted to patch another portion of Isaiah to chapter 53 without connecting them in anyway. That's poor, just plain horrible.

You actually called that "well explained" are you indirectly insulting my intelligence. You didn't even show without a doubt that it wasn't Jesus, your half baked statements only showed doubts while ignoring a whole lot of other texts.

What was one solid point you mentioned, you were just being a criminal to sensible reasoning. Didn't Jesus call himself their brethren, isn't he one of God's servants.

sonmvayina:
You are the one pressurising God to accept a human who was executed for crimes as a human sacrifice....

You see why Christianity is a big insult against God. Run from it my friend.

and what was his crime?

sonmvayina:
Ok, did Jesus qualify as a sin sacrifice.
Was he sacrificed in that temple.
Did Jesus ever give the job of sacrificing in his temple to the Romans?

Did God ever ask for a human sacrifice. That was my question.

I am waiting.

like you defined your human sacrifice is when others lay a human upon an altar, kill them offering their death to their idols.

God never asked for such nor would he ever accept such.

You ask did Jesus qualify as a sin sacrifice? Do you know the requirements for a sin offering? Or what it was meant for? Do you think under the old testament murders could give an offering and they would be forgiven? If adulterers were caught, they were stoned.

Now do you want what sin atonement was for, as mentioned in Exodus 29. It was for purifying things and not the people, even the priests who partook of it, were to do it regularly.

Now I asked you what sin does a young bull commit? Or what is the offense of a Lamb?

Yet there's a blood more pure and precious than that, not offered by others but offered by the one who has it. Not offered to God for the blood of animals were never given to God so also the blood of Jesus was for our purification.

For no offering was given for such in the Torah, to purify a man from his sons. Or can you tell me of one?

You asked if Jesus was sacrificed in the temple? Was the passover lamb sacrificed in the temple? Are you not ignorant of what is actually written.

Jesus gave his own life, and said so himself. For what reason did they kill him, because he is the king of the Jews?

The Romans killed him because it is how it was prophecied and written
His bones were not broken because it was have it was prophecied and written.

If only you would wait on God and have him open your understanding to the scriptures, then maybe you won't ask another silly question that you can easily read from the Tanakh you claim to believe in

sonmvayina:
Ok. Amen sorry. The Jews were using animals as sacrifices....
Now show me where God ordered a human sacrifice for sin of the whole world

I am waiting.

based on your definition and understanding of what you have been asking, from which you wrote

"Like the one yahoo plus people do

Kill a human being for riches.... usually sacrificed to moloch. He was the only one that was accepting human sacrifice....
Not God...who created life itself."


God NEVER ordered such and Jesus never did such.

Nobody used Jesus for sacrifice, he offered himself to God and God accepted him as recorded in the scriptures.

sonmvayina:
Like the one yahoo plus people do

Kill a human being for riches.... usually sacrificed to moloch. He was the only one that was accepting human sacrifice....
Not God...who created life itself.

so was Jesus killed in that way?