Purity: Shema is the Backbone of OT AND NT, Agree?

[Purity]

Always have agaped the old Isaiah chapter 40-66, eg, Isa.42:1-4, Have used August Pieper's Jesaias II., 116, etc. Commentary for decades with success. My point: Matt.3:16, after the description of Christ's relation to His Sender we learn about His equipment; this is sent down on Him to enable His human nature to do its great part. HERE THE ENTIRE TRINITY APPEARS IN WORKING OUT OUR REDEMPTION.



Only putting in a 'plug' our God-man Lord Jesus Christ, and the Trinity.

Old Jack, ie, not that He needs any 'plug.'

Old Jack...what are you saying about Isa 42:1-4?
This is not making any sense.

 

[shturt678]

Old Jack...what are you saying about Isa 42:1-4?
This is not making any sense.

Thank you for your response!

Let's bring aboard Matt.12:17-21 construed with Isa.42:1-4 for clarity. Matthew simply appropriated Isa.42:1-4 of course. One of the few times Matthew follows the Hebrew, and not the LXX. except in the last line, v.21. The purpose of the appropriation is not literal reproduction at the original but application of the ancient prophecy to the great beginnings of its fulfillment.

Simply Matthew contradicts the Jewish rabbinical and the naturalistic-modernistic interpretation which states that this Servant and this Beloved of YHWH is the people of Israel, and not the Messiah, Lord God-man Jesus Christ. Simply this interpretation finds support in the LXX, which has "Jacob, my servant," and "Israel, my chosen." This support vanishes when we note that the great concept "Servant of YHWH" like "Seed of Abraham" resembles a pyramid; its broad base is the whole nation; on this rests the believing part of the nation, correct?; and on this rests the apex, God-man Christ, correct?

Old Jack's view

 

[Purity]

Thank you for your response!

Let's bring aboard Matt.12:17-21 construed with Isa.42:1-4 for clarity. Matthew simply appropriated Isa.42:1-4 of course. One of the few times Matthew follows the Hebrew, and not the LXX. except in the last line, v.21. The purpose of the appropriation is not literal reproduction at the original but application of the ancient prophecy to the great beginnings of its fulfillment.

Simply Matthew contradicts the Jewish rabbinical and the naturalistic-modernistic interpretation which states that this Servant and this Beloved of YHWH is the people of Israel, and not the Messiah, Lord God-man Jesus Christ. Simply this interpretation finds support in the LXX, which has "Jacob, my servant," and "Israel, my chosen." This support vanishes when we note that the great concept "Servant of YHWH" like "Seed of Abraham" resembles a pyramid; its broad base is the whole nation; on this rests the believing part of the nation, correct?; and on this rests the apex, God-man Christ, correct?

Old Jack's view

Old Jack are up to your old tricks again?

Here is the text for Isa 42:1-4

Isa 42:1 1 “Here is my servant whom I support, my chosen one (Jesus) in whom I take pleasure. I have placed my spirit on him (Jesus); he will make just decrees for the nations.

Primary message for selection of a servant: This was true of Hezekiah Isa 38:9-20 was it not?
Primary message for one making just decrees for the nations: Isa 56:1; Isa 58:2; Isa 59:6-15; true also of Hezekiah (2Ch 32:22).

Prophetically fulfilled in God raising up a servant (not Himself): Matt 12:18,19,20,21

Personal name included for greater meaning:

Mat 12:18 "Here is my servant (Jesus) whom I (Yahweh) have chosen, the one I (Yahweh) love (Jesus), in whom I take great delight. I (Yahweh) will put my Spirit on him (Jesus), and he (Jesus) will proclaim justice to the nations. Mat 12:19 He (Jesus) will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. Mat 12:20 He (Jesus) will not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick, until he brings justice to victory. Mat 12:21 And in his (Jesus) name the Gentiles will hope."

Stating the obvious Old Jack; where do you get God-Man from this?

The prophecy is speaking about God raising up a servant from among His people whom He will love and place upon him His Spirit (power and authority). Those Trinitarians surely are scratching their head thinking this testifies to Jesus the Son of Man more than Son of God and certainly nowhere is God the Son.

You will see Old Jack Isaiah's audience is unclear until Isa 42:9. The plural pronoun “you” implies that the prophet was speaking to the same general Israelite audience that was listening to Isa 40:12–41:29. Israel were meant to be the faithful servant but due to their transgressions God now introduces an individual called “my servant” (ʿabdî), and he draws their attention (hēn “behold, look,” NIV has “here”) to what he has done to empower this servant to accomplish God’s will.

Trinaterian issue below:

A significant factor governing Yahweh's election was a personal relationship of “affection & delight'

How is God to have affection and delight with Himself?....God rewards those who diligently seeks Him.

The verb רָצְתָה is third fem. sg. because נַפְשִׁי “my soul” is a fem. noun. The verb refers to the action of “favoring, wanting, delighting, being pleased” with someone. Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 1:211–12, prefer the translation “whom I myself accepted” instead of “in whom my soul delights.” In both cases the translators rightly supply the relative pronoun “whom” (borrowed from the previous clause) in order to connect this clause to the rest of the sentence.

No "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" - it does not say "God was Christ reconciling the world to Himself) - we keep coming back to God manifestation don't we Old Jack?

Now the servant is a Jew (Salvation is of the Jews) and later you see God will give the servant the mission to restore Israel (Isa 49:6) and bring justice to all nations.

Smarten up those navigation skills Old Jack - the terrain is not that difficult.

Purity

 

[shturt678]

Old Jack are up to your old tricks again?

Thank you for response and exceptional caring, ie, I'm a retired teacher (of the lower payrade), and you deserve an "A" for sure for caring without having to step on the ol' Bell Curve - great!

Jackster, yes, - Trickster, no, ie, not smart enough.


Here is the text for Isa 42:1-4

Isa 42:1 1 “Here is my servant whom I support, my chosen one (Jesus) in whom I take pleasure. I have placed my spirit on him (Jesus); he will make just decrees for the nations.

See, we can agree to agree so far, ie, "the Messiah," ie, the Coming Savior.

Only a head's up: O.T. passages do not govern interpretations of the N.T., ie, if fact we look to the N.T. appropriations to govern the O.T. passages, ie, basic Bible 100, ie, "1" less than Bible 101. :)

Primary message for selection of a servant: This was true of Hezekiah Isa 38:9-20 was it not?
Primary message for one making just decrees for the nations: Isa 56:1; Isa 58:2; Isa 59:6-15; true also of Hezekiah (2Ch 32:22).

Prophetically fulfilled in God raising up a servant (not Himself): Matt 12:18,19,20,21

Agreeing to disagree of course.

Personal name included for greater meaning:

Mat 12:18 "Here is my servant (Jesus) whom I (Yahweh) have chosen, the one I (Yahweh) love (Jesus), in whom I take great delight. I (Yahweh) will put my Spirit on him (Jesus), and he (Jesus) will proclaim justice to the nations. Mat 12:19 He (Jesus) will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. Mat 12:20 He (Jesus) will not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick, until he brings justice to victory. Mat 12:21 And in his (Jesus) name the Gentiles will hope."

Stating the obvious Old Jack; where do you get God-Man from this?

Only need to Google up the best Commentary on the Hebrew Text by August Pieper's Jesaias II., 116, etc. and have Google translate. Here the entire Trinity appears in working out our redemption, ie, astonishing, wouldn't you say? Remember I'm just of the lower paygrade in all of this.

The prophecy is speaking about God raising up a servant from among His people whom He will love and place upon him His Spirit (power and authority). Those Trinitarians surely are scratching their head thinking this testifies to Jesus the Son of Man more than Son of God and certainly nowhere is God the Son.

You will see Old Jack Isaiah's audience is unclear until Isa 42:9. The plural pronoun “you” implies that the prophet was speaking to the same general Israelite audience that was listening to Isa 40:12–41:29. Israel were meant to be the faithful servant but due to their transgressions God now introduces an individual called “my servant” (ʿabdî), and he draws their attention (hēn “behold, look,” NIV has “here”) to what he has done to empower this servant to accomplish God’s will.

Trinaterian issue below:


No "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" - it does not say "God was Christ reconciling the world to Himself) - we keep coming back to God manifestation don't we Old Jack?

Now the servant is a Jew (Salvation is of the Jews) and later you see God will give the servant the mission to restore Israel (Isa 49:6) and bring justice to all nations.

Smarten up those navigation skills Old Jack - the terrain is not that difficult.

Purity

Restores a remnant of Israel that believe and trust in the Godman Jesus Christ.

Old, not liking 'barren' terrain, Jack ^_^

 

[Purity]

See, we can agree to agree so far, ie, "the Messiah," ie, the Coming Savior.

Absolutely.

Only a head's up: O.T. passages do not govern interpretations of the N.T., ie, if fact we look to the N.T. appropriations to govern the O.T. passages, ie, basic Bible 100, ie, "1" less than Bible 101

No but they are the seed bed for the NT Apostles who drew on them for understanding and fulfilments.

Agreeing to disagree of course.

Agreeing to disagree that God raised up messiah out of David's loins?

Surely not!

Only need to Google up the best Commentary on the Hebrew Text by August Pieper's Jesaias II., 116, etc. and have Google translate. Here the entire Trinity appears in working out our redemption, ie, astonishing, wouldn't you say? Remember I'm just of the lower paygrade in all of this.

Ok so you enjoy reading Augusts work AND ?????

If the terrain is barren why not provide us with some fruit trees to fill the landscape!

At present you have given us only a name August Piepers, who currently holds the keys to your kingdom.

Do share.

What does this man force upon Isa 42?

 

[shturt678]

Absolutely.


No but they are the seed bed for the NT Apostles who drew on them for understanding and fulfilments.


Agreeing to disagree that God raised up messiah out of David's loins?

Surely not!


Ok so you enjoy reading Augusts work AND ?????

If the terrain is barren why not provide us with some fruit trees to fill the landscape!

At present you have given us only a name August Piepers, who currently holds the keys to your kingdom.

Do share.

What does this man force upon Isa 42?

Thank you for your response!

Ol' Mr. August and Isaiah go hand and hand, ie, Isa.42, (from German to English) "It must freely be admitted that taken all together, these are achievements which only Christ, the Savior, was able to accomplish, adn still does on a grand scale. At this point attempts to interpret the passage in reference to a collective object like Israel, completely breaks down." Ol' August.

Old lower paygrade Jack

 

[Purity]

Thank you for your response!

Ol' Mr. August and Isaiah go hand and hand, ie, Isa.42, (from German to English) "It must freely be admitted that taken all together, these are achievements which only Christ, the Savior, was able to accomplish, adn still does on a grand scale. At this point attempts to interpret the passage in reference to a collective object like Israel, completely breaks down." Ol' August.

Old lower paygrade Jack

I was asking how Isa 42 in "your" (and August) mind teaches God-Man.

 

[shturt678]

I was asking how Isa 42 in "your" (and August) mind teaches God-Man.

Thank you for your response and caring again!

Ol' Jack's rule: All that the N.T. passages borrows (more 'appropriations' than 'quotations') from the O.T. is used in an independent way sheding light on the O.T. and giving depth to the N.T. passages yet doesn't govern any interpretation in the N.T., eg, Isa.42 in light of Matt.12:17-21:

Matt.12:17, "in order that it might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah, the prophet saying, etc. All this activity of Jesus, plus the manner of it, is fulfillment of prophecy. v.17, "...I will place my Spirit upon Him,....." After this description of Christ's relation to His Sender we learn about His equipment, and His task, ie, "my Spirit" is His equipment - Acts3:16, 17, eg, by the baptism Jesus gives Himself to the work of sin-bearing; by the anointing and the voice from heaven the Father accepts Him for this work. Again, from me, here the entire Trinity appears in working out our redemption. Jehovah's Servant shall carry it out to all the world, which, of course, will be done by means of the Word of course only as an added tid-bit.

Only Christ, the Savior, was able to accomplish Isa.42:5-9.

Old Jack this time, ie, lower paygrade for sure.

 

[Purity]

Thank you for your response and caring again!

Ol' Jack's rule: All that the N.T. passages borrows (more 'appropriations' than 'quotations') from the O.T. is used in an independent way sheding light on the O.T. and giving depth to the N.T. passages yet doesn't govern any interpretation in the N.T., eg, Isa.42 in light of Matt.12:17-21:

Matt.12:17, "in order that it might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah, the prophet saying, etc. All this activity of Jesus, plus the manner of it, is fulfillment of prophecy. v.17, "...I will place my Spirit upon Him,....." After this description of Christ's relation to His Sender we learn about His equipment, and His task, ie, "my Spirit" is His equipment - Acts3:16, 17, eg, by the baptism Jesus gives Himself to the work of sin-bearing; by the anointing and the voice from heaven the Father accepts Him for this work. Again, from me, here the entire Trinity appears in working out our redemption. Jehovah's Servant shall carry it out to all the world, which, of course, will be done by means of the Word of course only as an added tid-bit.

Only Christ, the Savior, was able to accomplish Isa.42:5-9.

Old Jack this time, ie, lower paygrade for sure.

Ok so Isa 42 & Matt 12 do not speak of any Trinitarian doctrine (language) - I can only assume because you see God...promised son and Spirit, you immediately infer the Trinity. I am not as gullible with my hope and salvation as Trinitarian's appear to be.

by the baptism Jesus gives Himself to the work of sin-bearing;

What need had Jesus (or God) to be baptised?
Did Jesus take part in his own baptism? If so, how...if not, why not?
What part of Jesus required redemption?
If Jesus is God why did he require God to anoint him?

here the entire Trinity appears in working out our redemption

I sense your conviction in the Trinity is not as strong as first thought?

Jehovah's Servant shall carry it out to all the world

Hold on don't you believe the servant is God?
How can God be a servant to Himself?

Purity

 

[shturt678]

Ok so Isa 42 & Matt 12 do not speak of any Trinitarian doctrine (language) - I can only assume because you see God...promised son and Spirit, you immediately infer the Trinity. I am not as gullible with my hope and salvation as Trinitarian's appear to be.

Matt.12:18, Trinity: "Lo, my Servant, whom I did select" "YHWH" "My Beloved" God-man Jesus" "My Spirit" God the Holy Spirit.


What need had Jesus (or God) to be baptised?
Did Jesus take part in his own baptism? If so, how...if not, why not?
What part of Jesus required redemption?
If Jesus is God why did he require God to anoint him?


I sense your conviction in the Trinity is not as strong as first thought?


Hold on don't you believe the servant is God?
How can God be a servant to Himself?

Purity

Old Jack

btw Jn.1:1c and v.14 confirm the Trinity grammatically and contextually.

Thank you again!

 

[Purity]

btw Jn.1:1c and v.14 confirm the Trinity grammatically and contextually.

Those verses confirm 2 simple points.

1. God used His logos to create in Gen 1:1 as he did Jesus in Luke 1 & John 1:1
2. God used the Logos to fill His Son with Grace and Truth in like manner as He is trying to do with you.

Christ was not literally the Word. He was the word "made flesh". (John 1:14). The Greek word "logos" translated "Word" expresses the divine intention, mind, or purpose. i.e "logos" as "a word, speech, matter, reason."

In the A.V. "logos" is translated by more than 20 different English words and is used for utterances of men (e.g., John 17:20) as well as those of God (John 5:38).

Your understanding has been darkened by human councils - your should read Isaiah and then John 9 - see if you can connect the dots.

Thanks
Purity

 

[shturt678]

Those verses confirm 2 simple points.

1. God used His logos to create in Gen 1:1 as he did Jesus in Luke 1 & John 1:1

Thank you for your response and caring for sure, ie, good job!

Only a head's up, iem, I'm an exponential "Co-substantial" & "Co-essential," ie, "Consubstantiality" sort of thing to the max.

Jn.1:1 & Gen.1:3, Since when was the Logos? You got it, since all eternity. Note the imperfect en "was" although all Greek to me reaches back indefinitely beyond the instant fo the beginning, correct? Consture\ this with Heb.1:3 and we're getting smokin hot connecting the dots, or is it lining up the ducks?



2. God used the Logos to fill His Son with Grace and Truth in like manner as He is trying to do with you.

Christ was not literally the Word. He was the word "made flesh". (John 1:14). The Greek word "logos" translated "Word" expresses the divine intention, mind, or purpose. i.e "logos" as "a word, speech, matter, reason."

In the A.V. "logos" is translated by more than 20 different English words and is used for utterances of men (e.g., John 17:20) as well as those of God (John 5:38).

Your understanding has been darkened by human councils - your should read Isaiah and then John 9 - see if you can connect the dots.

Thanks
Purity

Old Jack

 

[Purity]

Jn.1:1 & Gen.1:3, Since when was the Logos? You got it, since all eternity.

Interesting you got it in one.

Logos has been from all eternity - correct! Now what is not from all eternity?

1. The earth
2. The Cosmos
3. Jesus Christ
4. Saints.

But Who determines the beginning and end of these created works?

Ah you say Yahweh Elohim and His Logos alone.

Well done!

Purity
Yes, even the angels must have been created beings at some stage.

 

[shturt678]

Interesting you got it in one.

Logos has been from all eternity - correct! Now what is not from all eternity?

1. The earth
2. The Cosmos

3. Jesus Christ

Thank your for caring and your response!

Let's see have far we can walk "Jesus Christ" back contextually?

He was kind of the Pre-incarnation of the Messiah mentioned about 40 times in the O.T,, eg, "Angel of the Lord." = God without any doubts taking us back to Gen.16:7-12.

Jn.1:14, "the Only-begotten from the Father..." meaning He was "begotten" before the worlds. The "God-man," our Lord Jesus Christ was from all eternity even before Gen.1:3, "and God said" (Heb.1:3), ie, the 2nd Person of the Trinity is seen involved in the work of creation.

4. Saints.

But Who determines the beginning and end of these created works?

Ah you say Yahweh Elohim and His Logos alone.

Well done!

Purity
Yes, even the angels must have been created beings at some stage.

Old Jackster

 

[Purity]

3. Jesus Christ

Thank your for caring and your response!

Let's see have far we can walk "Jesus Christ" back contextually?

He was kind of the Pre-incarnation of the Messiah mentioned about 40 times in the O.T,, eg, "Angel of the Lord." = God without any doubts taking us back to Gen.16:7-12.

If you replace the unbiblical word pre-incarnation with "promise" you would remain within the confines of inspiration...what you have inherited are the commandments of men.

Messiah is reveal as a future promise whose existence (shape and form) was reliant upon the Sons of men for he was raised up out of man.

That's you archillies heal in all this. You have a promised messiah spoken of through angels 100's of times but nothing else to hang the Trinitarian hat on.

Over here still being true to His Word.

Purity

 

[shturt678]

If you replace the unbiblical word pre-incarnation with "promise" you would remain within the confines of inspiration...what you have inherited are the commandments of men.

Messiah is reveal as a future promise whose existence (shape and form) was reliant upon the Sons of men for he was raised up out of man.

That's you archillies heal in all this. You have a promised messiah spoken of through angels 100's of times but nothing else to hang the Trinitarian hat on.

Over here still being true to His Word.

Purity

Thank you for your response and caring for sure!

This is above my paygrade thus will have to call upon a life line, ie, specifically who was it that was the spiritual rock that never allowed Israel to perish - water miracle sort of thing by a divine being for sure? Also gave manna and water daily?

Old Jack being true to our Lord God-man Jesus Christ.

 

[Purity]

Thank you for your response and caring for sure!

This is above my paygrade thus will have to call upon a life line, ie, specifically who was it that was the spiritual rock that never allowed Israel to perish - water miracle sort of thing by a divine being for sure? Also gave manna and water daily?

Old Jack being true to our Lord God-man Jesus Christ.

More like being true to early church fathers - they would be applauding your efforts here. BTW Jesus was not transformed in to lifeless rock to give them water ;) He hadn't been born yet!

 

[nothead]

More like being true to early church fathers - they would be applauding your efforts here. BTW Jesus was not transformed in to lifeless rock to give them water ;) He hadn't been born yet!

I meet many who actually believe Jesus was a ROCK which followed the Israelites around. I would say, "big or small, round or flat?" "Skipping along the ground, sliding or rolling after them?"

Moss covered or smooth? Conductive rock or non-conductive? First you made God an animal (Lamb). Now a rock. Whoo hoo.

 

[shturt678]

More like being true to early church fathers - they would be applauding your efforts here. BTW Jesus was not transformed in to lifeless rock to give them water ;) He hadn't been born yet!

Thank you for your response and caring again for the "Rock."

ICor.10:4, "and all drank of the same spiritual drink; for they were drinking out of a spiritual rock that accompanied them, and the rock was Christ." This is astounding! Wouldn't you agree? We agree to agree, the Godman Jesus wasn't transformed into a 'lifeless' Rock where this is in regards to His Pre-incarnation.

Where do you do your banking, ie, we can drop the following into your account and it will clear for sure: Christ, the Son of God (Godman), who later became Incarnate for our salvation. Provided water for the Israelites then, and provides living water for us today.

Old Jack's opinion

btw more of a spiritual Rock, supernatural Rock. I knew the light bulb would turn on. :)

 

[Purity]

So you believe a pre-existent Jesus turned into a lifeless rock.