Isaiah 53 speaks about ISRAEL, and not about the messiah.

but it doesn't contain the word "us". it contains the verb נַעֲשֶׂה, which is עשה ("make") in an imperfect, first person, plural tense. why does it use this verb this way? i honestly have no idea. but i can tell you some reasons why it probably doesn't mean very much at all.the first of which should be obvious. the next verse says,

quote:

---

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ

---

that god created (single, third person) mankind in his (single, masculine) image. it then goes on to say that this image is both male and female. whoever wrote genesis 1 is mixing gender and number all over the place. because they want to. they worship a man who is clearly not yahweh (that jealous god that there's only one of) but they clearly want to get around the rules of monotheism.the real truth, though, is that this is nothing new. when judaism was going through its rough formative years, there was apparently some debate about how to rectify the canaanite el(ohim) and baal with the possibly midianite yahweh. the northern kingdom (israel) was evidently much more in line with the polytheistic cult of el-whatever (elyon, shaddai, etc) and his son (baal) hadad, while the southern kingdom (judah) worshiped a god named yahweh, and post about 700 BCE, yahweh exclusively.the solution that J and E proposed was that yahweh and el were the same god, though they debated about when this fact was revealed. this is seemingly new information to E, who has the name revealed to his moshe, where as J's patriarchs had been yahwists all along. this may reflect that E is a more northern tradition.the god of the bible exhibits facets of multiple of canaanite and midianite gods. he is a bit more integrated than big-g "god" and jesus, but the principle is largely the same: multiple deities are being intentionally conflated under the pressure of remaining monotheistic. religion is fluid, and does this kind of stuff. i'm not especially satisfied by either of these explanations. i think it's just a simple idiom. we use a similar one in english all the time. talking to ourselves, we might say, "let's get started" or some other phrase. but who is the other person in "let us"? are we using a specific concept of ourselves as royals? are we speaking to anybody at all? or are we just talking to ourselves?there are few instances in the bible where god talks to himself, but in another case, he also uses plural:

quote:

---

הָבָה, נֵרְדָה, וְנָבְלָה שָׁם, שְׂפָתָם--אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ, אִישׁ שְׂפַת רֵעֵהוּ

---

in genesis 11. "come, let us go down," etc. he then does the actions in the singular. i'm not aware of any other cases, but i haven't really looked too hard. these two are both in the future tense, and both potential actions god might do. i think it might be expressing that god is of two minds about the action (creating humans caused a lot of trouble), but it could just as easily be an idiom we lack the cultural knowledge of.i do not think it's a royal "we" because god does not use this plurality elsewhere. whenever he talks to humans about himself, or his intended actions, the verbs are always singular. in the first thing he says to mankind, where he mentions himself:

quote:

---

הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת-כָּל-עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאֶת-כָּל-הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ פְרִי-עֵץ, זֹרֵעַ זָרַע: לָכֶם יִהְיֶה, לְאָכְלָה

---

note that "i have given", a simple, singular past perfect. not "we have given". so i do not think a "royal we" is quite the right analogy.nor do i think he is talking to angels. mostly because no angels are mentioned at all previously. you have to understand something important about genesis 1: it is the most intensely monotheistic text in the torah. J especially doesn't particularly care about other gods, and portrays a yahweh who seemingly doesn't either, except that after moshe brings the law to israel, they're not to worship any other god. but it stands to reason, reading J, that there could well be other gods. even D, written to drive on josiah and hilkiah's monotheistic revolution in judah, slips once and proclaims (at least in the older septuagint) that the elder god, el elyon (head of canaanite pantheon) numbered the kingdoms of the earth according to his sons (the benay elohim) and gave israel to yahweh. yeah. weird, right?P, however, is revisionist, post-revolution. and P is working from J's original account, which we no longer have. but we have hints at the missing text. job in particular contains strong allusions to the original myth, and it includes the morning stars (angels), and leviathan, which are conspicuously missing from P's account. P was written for the express purpose of excluding the heresies of J, and we can see this where J and P overlap. J has yahweh fail at creating a partner for the man, and creates man's better. J has yahweh lying, and being revealed by a serpent. P has god making man and woman equal, and making them (complete) in his image instead of becoming like gods by stealing from him. P has god give man and woman every plant, and leaves out the business about the tree of knowledge. and so these elements of creation, told in job and elsewhere in the bible, were intentionally left out by P.the dragon was left out because it implies god is non-universal, and not omnipotent. the angels were left out because they imply that there are other supernatural powers. that's also not what it says. בְּרֵאשִׁית is a construct, a complex preposition. and that makes the word that follows it, בָּרָא, a noun -- an infinitive construct that has been given the wrong points, for a perfect verb. for an example of how it should look, see genesis 5:1,2:

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם

---

with the correct vowel points, and the same structure: a complex preposition followed by an infinitive construct. the translation should read, literally, "in the beginning of god creating..." or more appropriately in english, "when god began to create..." see rashi on the subject matter. but the statement is not a catch-all summary of the chapter. it is an introduction.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

God is not a man, that he should lie;
neither the son of man, that he should repent:
hath he said, and shall he not do it?
or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

​

(Numbers 23:19) emphasis mine

---

i think you are mixing up the difference between god making mankind in his image, and god making himself in mankind's image. or, perhaps, mankind making a man into an image of god.in any case, the law is pretty clear about whether we should worship god, or the image of god.

well, not if atheism is the goal. how much of it, exactly, have you read? because i see a bunch of rather disjoint texts and subtexts, all with their own (sometimes conflicting) ideologies and theologies, and their own socio-political points to make. to see an overarching pictures is a bit like seeing pictures in the clouds. if you squint your eyes a lot and imagine really heard, it kind of looks like a jesus.but when you begin examining the details -- like looking for justification of jesus as the jewish messiah -- it just all kind of falls apart.for instance, jesus rode into jerusalem on a donkey (zecharian 9:9)... but then didn't sit on the throne, didn't end all wars, and didn't rule the world (zechariah 9:10). which part do you think is important for being the messiah? because i could totally fly to israel, rent a donkey, and ride into jerusalem if that's all it takes. i would say it's the other stuff that defines the messiah. wouldn't you?and it really just gets more troubling from there. for instance, the entire substitute sacrifice ideology is completely untenable (and worse yet, unnecessary) with a solid reading of the law, where no man may die for another's sin, death isn't demanded of anything except the most heinous social crimes, and offerings are offered instead of sacrifices demanded.so... no. don't go looking for prooftexts in the OT. because if you go looking, you'll only find disproof texts.

so, god lied when he said he wasn't a man? in fact, the text goes a bit further than that. the older story, genesis 2, has god literally breathing his own soul into man. in genesis 2, adam is literally part of god. is it kosher to worship adam?no, of course not. because adam is not yahweh. he is the dust of the earth as well.and christ, of course, is not even adam. he is ben-adam. the son of man. sure, but just as we are not worship any other gods, we are not to worship any man.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

to expand on ramoss's comment, the context and chiastic structure of proto-isaiah strongly indicate that this child is the future king, chezeqiyahu, "strength of/from yahweh", or hezekiah as you know him. it is hezekiah who rules when assyria is turned back at the walls of jerusalem, as prophesied two chapters earlier. in proto-isaiah, hezekiah is the messiah.here's a Ph.D. thesis in theology on the subject matter. this is not a radical view, just unusual to christians whose only exposure to biblical studies comes from a pulpit.note that these words have slightly different meanings and interpretations if you actually speak hebrew:

quote:

---

In the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 94a, Hezekiah is referred to as ―the one who
has eight names, these names coming from Isaiah 9:6-7: פֶּלֶא (Wonderful), יוֹעֵץ (Counselor), גִּבּוֹר (Mighty), אֵל (Judge), עַד (Everlasting), אֲבִי (Father), שַׂר (Prince), and שָׁלוֹם (Peace). (Chapter 2 of the above link)

---

which is why ramoss called it a "good old misunderstanding". if you believe the new testament, and ignore most of the old, where the two are fairly incompatible and become more incompatible the further man descends from adam. because the concepts of breath, life, and soul are extremely closely tied together in the hebrew bible. the text says,

quote:

---

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה

​

and yahweh god shaped the man [ha-adam], dust [afar] from the earth [ha-adamah], and breathed [yefech] into his nostrils [afayu] the breath [nishmat] of life [chayim]. and so it was that the man [ha-adam] became a living [chayah] soul [nefesh]

---

i've included the transliterations because the similar sounds are used to tie the verse together poeticall and conceptually. that "soul" (nefesh) sounds like "breath" (nishmat) and "dust" (afar)/nostril (afayu) but together is not an accident. this is a poetic construction by J, and the reason she chose to dust and earth instead of the sumerian clay, which marduk similarly shapes the first man from. it is "the breath of life" that makes someone a "living soul". in this, it is literally the breath of yahweh -- his soul -- that animates the dust.in any case, i know you probably won't agree with this reading, but i hope it has at least helped you better appreciate the linguistic poetry in the text that you almost certainly have overlooked before.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

i agree. jesus was descended from adam through his mother. there's always buts, even when you acknowledge a more realistic subject. not really, no. the pharisees of the new testament are frankly strawmen, easily knocked over the hero of the text. if this confounded anyone, it's because they were using אדֹנִי (adonay, "my lord") in place of יְהוָה (yahweh, god's name). in fact, your version is less confounding, most translations say "The LORD said to my Lord..."it's pretty clear in hebrew:

quote:

---

נְאֻם יְהוָה, לַאדֹנִי

​

yahweh said to my lord

---

and lest you think that right hand business means anything messianic, look that phrase up elsewhere in the psalms. it's used all over the place, and it just means a favored position in someone's (anyone's) eyes, probably drawn from actual courtly positions. of course, yahweh having (or being a member of) a court is a hotly debated concept in the bible, as it implies polytheism. oh, and...

quote:

---

...until I make Your enemies Your footstool.

---

doesn't really sound like jesus, does it? as for the question of "who's son is he?" the text says,

quote:

---

לְדָוִד, מִזְמוֹר

​

to david, a song.

---

which was almost certainly added by whomever redacted all of these psalms together. think about your chapter headings in your bible translation. are those part of the text? these function the same way. there's some debate about what the phrase actually means (it says to david, not by david), but it's clear that this attribution is traditional and not canonical.

this questions kind of backwards, if you think about it. the messiah was defined further down the road based on restoring the unified kingdom of david and solomon. there weren't qualifications for being the messiah until after solomon was dead, because he and his father were models for that messiah. as was moses, and the patriarchs etc, but the concept didn't really come to fruition until something needed to be restored: until judah and israel needed to be "saved". this is a common and powerful literary theme in ancient jewish scripture. the idea is that no character should be perfect, because no human is deserving of worship. only yahweh should be worshipped, so his earthly stand-ins, the kings, should have frailties and shortcomings. it works because it makes them human, and realistic. it's also notable that yahweh typically still calls them righteous after their frailties and shortcomings have been exposed.in contrast, look at christ's role in the literature: as a "perfect" man who is elevated to the status of god. this is specifically what the jewish authors were trying to avoid. their kings were not gods.and if jesus was a god, that would actually exempt him from the role of messiah. the messiah must be human for this reason. otherwise, it's just god, and we already have one those. his name is yahweh, and he is one.

quote:

---

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד

​

hear o israel: yahweh is our god, and yahweh alone.

​

(deuteronomy 6:4)

---

messianic prophecies typically speak of ruling the entire world, which is one of the reasons that modern jews reject the idea of jesus as a messiah. world peace and domination? nope, no messiah yet. this is, in fact, the very same prophecy given to david, that his seed would sit on the throne forever.but remember how god sometimes changes his mind? where assyria failed, babylon succeeded, and judah was carried off into exile. it's not really right to look back on this and assume that god's word then held forever so this must mean something else... not when you just got done arguing that the business about god not being a man, well, he reneged on that one. in fact, they are both speaking about davidic kings -- something jesus christ was not. psalm 2 is a coronation psalm. jesus was never crowned. isaiah 9 says he will sit on the throne. jesus never sat on the throne. so... no. it can't be about jesus. not if jesus didn't do any of the stuff it talks about.Edited by arachnophilia, : edit: oh, and let me know if you ever get around to reading that doctoral dissertation on the role of hezekiah in proto-isaiah. but i won't hold my breath.

well, no. it uses the words "law of moses", sure. but it bears very little relation to it. and in fact, much of the concepts are utterly antithetical to the law of moses. like, uh, sacrificing your only begotten child. there's a word for that in the law, and it's "abomination". note, btw, that the gospel of john does not include an infancy narrative. there is no virgin birth in john. or mark, for that matter, the oldest gospel. it first appears in matthew, but... well, matthew's an argument for another day. luke seems somewhat skeptical of matthew's claims, because he changes them around a bit. and yet, the satan is never actually judged until revelation. i want to tell you a story.to the north of israel was a city called ugarit, where they worshiped the canaanite pantheon. the head of the canaanite pantheon was the highest god, el elyon. he had many sons, who formed a council, the elohim. i hope you're recognizing some of these words already. his heir, his "begotten" son, was hadad who is called "baal" in some sources, including the bible. hadad is a storm god, he comes and goes from the holy mountain riding on the clouds. in the baal cycle, hadad fights mot (hebrew for "death"). hadad loses, and dies. hadad is resurrected, conquers mot ("death"), and then goes on to rule from the holy mountain.does this narrative sound at all familiar? admittedly, i'm stretching this a bit. but those terms are really in common with the hebrew mythology, and this myth was extremely influential to judaism, both by way of imported imagery (the storm cloud on the mountain = yahweh at horeb/sinai) and in terms of actual mythical content. earlier in the story, hadad slays the serpent yam ("sea")/lotan, just like yahweh slays leviathan (see psalm 74/job) or jesus will slay the great dragon (revelation).i doubt that this story had any direct influence on christianity, but it certainly has a lot in common with ancient judaism. canaanite temples and altars are virtually identical to jewish tabernacle/temple. and when israel splinters off and places "golden calves" at their temples in bethel and dan, that is probably el elyon and his son hadad (represented by a bull) that they are worshiping. and remember, el elyon is another name for yahweh in the bible. so it's no surprise that the authors of golden calf narrative during the exodus chose to have israelites claim it was the same god. it might as well have been. note that the authors of the bible are highly critical of similarities between yahwism and the canaanite pantheon, so that: things like this, where the serpent is a humble garden snake, is probably a shot at hadad's struggle with lotan. if you see christ's victory over death in this, why not hadad's victory over death, or over yam/lotan? the stories are really pretty similar, except that one of them actually existed when genesis was written.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

indeed, so why do you doubt them when they say the messiah will sit on a physical throne, being king of a united israel, and bring world peace through earthly domination? i mean, all that stuff is messianic prophecy; it's what defines the messiah. er, no, like literally sit on the throne, forever. so, i guess we're coming up against the reading comprehension difficulties again. the bible says one thing but you really want it to say something else. when the cursed king rules, yahweh says this:

quote:

---

Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

---

do you not see the contrast between this and what yahweh says to david?

quote:

---

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

---

no, read this is about something completely different. you are putting the cart before the horse, as it is only a few verses later in jeremiah that defines the messiah:

quote:

---

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth

---

note: in the earth. he is an earthly king, and this is the direct answer to yahweh breaking the royal lineage at jeconiah. and yet, neither of us apparently believe this verse. afterall, both of our bibles say that yahweh repents, and yours also says that god became man. you get to criticize my disregard for this verse when you actually pay attention to it. well, they've been waiting for the messiah a lot longer than christians.

yes, it's a doozy. i take it you think child sacrifice isn't an abomination, utterly abhorrent to yahweh, in the bible? no, i think it's interesting that they have their own focus. but i also think it's not entirely appropriate to gloss over that focus, where it differs from the focus of others. john was trying establish jesus as divine. the synoptic gospels were trying to establish christ as a real human being (contrary to the gnostic teachings). because they're obviously writing from different theological standpoints? i'm just saying you can use an argument from matthew when you're talking about john. no, not at all.in fact, we have basically two gospels, john and all the others. matthew, mark, and luke are essentially the same, with a few differing details. this is solid demonstration that they are working from the same source material, whether you think that source materials was Q and some shard narrative document, or matthew and luke were copy mark, or even that they all knew jesus the real person. they are obviously related documents.that the oldest of them apparently was unfamiliar with the miracle of jesus's birth, and this bit suddenly comes from the middle source who so frequently and hilarious misreads prophecy, and then the later source backs off a bit on the claims... you don't find that at all odd? fantastic. how come in the bible he's not defeated until the end times? more importantly, how come in the old testament he isn't even something that should be defeated, but an agent of god. you mentioned balaam above. did you notice this in the story, right before the donkey speaks?

quote:

---

וַיִּֽחַר־אַף אֱלֹהִים כִּֽי־הֹולֵךְ הוּא וַיִּתְיַצֵּב מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְשָׂטָן לֹו וְהוּא רֹכֵב עַל־אֲתֹנֹו וּשְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו עִמֹּֽו

​

And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him

---

i'd bold the word in hebrew, but this board isn't very hebrew friendly. in any case, the bolded word is "satan". the angel of yahweh stood in the way to be a satan. no, read more closely. i think you tuned out the part where i said that i don't think there's any direct link. but there is a direct link between canaanite religion and ancient jewish (and especially ancient israelite) religion. in fact, most of these "copy cat jesus" arguments (i'll be honest, i'm not going to watch any these right now due to real life happening) are totally bullshit. and if you dig through my post history here, you'll find that i'm the first to argue against them.but they're bullshit because little or no actual connection can be shown between the two mythologies, and because the details are often being obscured. for instance, in my story above, i obscured that hadad is resurrected by his wife anat (a canaanite version of the hebrew asherah, who was said to be yahweh's wife, and who had an idol in the temple in jerusalem even according to the bible). most of these arguments are discussing horus or other "solar" gods (quotes because horus is not exactly a solar god) and a tenuous connection to solstice cycles and such that people living at those latitudes simply didn't care about. their death/rebirth cycles were about rainfall and dry seasons, or the flooding of rivers (eg: the nile, as isis's tears flood it when horus dies). note that hadad is a storm god. and note also that this is a culture that people of the bible actually had extensive contact with, and even sometimes let their religion into the country as the bible recounts. note also that they call their father god the same thing: el. these are much more related than the "christ conspiracy" pagan nonsense arguments. faith that is afraid of scrutiny is not faith at all. moses? no, not moses. textual criticism and analysis makes it impossible that anyone like the biblical moses -- or any single person at all -- wrote the torah. rather, there are several distinct voices found in the torah, and the one we've been talking about above, in genesis 2-4, we call "J". J has perhaps the strongest voice, and separated from the others, it's clear to see that J frequently employs known mythology for the express purpose of turning it on its head. J was so good at this that even though later works tried to revise J, much of it still remains. and why do you think your story is the right one? because it says so? let me be clear here: these particular themes are so similar that they use the same root words between slightly different languages. the father god in canaan is el elyon. the bible calls yahweh this quite a few times. el's pantheon is the elohim. do i need to give you a link for that one?they're speaking a semitic language that shares common cultural origins with hebrew, and they're worshiping gods that do as well. i know, and they're mostly nonsense. if anything, this particular story, the baal cycle, influenced judaism. i'm largely skeptical it had any influence of christianity, because there's a fairly large disconnect between ancient judaism, first century judaism, radical judaism, and christianity. the myth had a long way to go before reaching christian ears. i suspect it's a coincidence, or more likely that death/rebirth was a common theme in the area. for instance, death and rebirth shows up in ezekiel, where yahweh resurrect the bones of israel (metaphorically, return from exile). hadad. baal hadad. not osiris, not horus. that particular argument is completely bullshit.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

so, just the one time was okay, then? help me out here: what is your position on killing your only begotten son for the purposes of atonement?Edited by arachnophilia, : missing tag

oh. then you doubt that jesus is the messiah, because that prophecy is unfulfilled? so... not literally on the throne of a united israel, in jerusalem? you are using justifications that don't make sense. this is a bit like the "you won a car... in spirit" argument again. no, see, there's no problem. the car exists within you, and you'll get it when you die! what do you mean you don't see a car? you're looking for problems where none exists. indeed, he can only be king if he is a literal son of david. sure. but not being a son of david, through the patriarchal lineage does. being the physical son of mary just makes him jewish; it can't make him king. except that the right to the throne does not go as far back as nathan. zedekiah, the last rightful king of judah, would have passed that right onto his children, but they were all put to death. the line then backs up to the next available son of josiah (after jehoahaz, jehoiakim, and zedekiah), which would be his firstborn, johanan. as far as i'm aware, that's the name you'd have to see in the genealogy of the messiah, presuming he had kids before he died. if not, you start looking for the next available son in the previous generation. someone had kids before they died... and nathan would be before the israel/judah split. meaning you'd have to consider all the unrighteous kings of israel and their sons before nathan. and after then, all of solomon's children by his, what was it, 1000 wives? nathan's lineage is like 10,000 places away. arguing with christians: everything that's not about the messiah is a messianic prophecy, and the verses that specifically define the concept aren't. okay, so jesus will be the messiah? it does if jesus is a son of jeconiah, yes. note that he appears in matthew's genealogy.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

no, i was accusing you of glossing over the individual focus of the different gospels. i wasn't denying that they overlap. they are not totally foreign and independent works. in fact, part of what tells us about the different emphases is sections where they do overlap. not exactly, no. and chalking it up to "it's a mystery" is the opposite of knowing. don't you want to know how these stories came down to us? isn't the history of your sacred text interesting to you? i find it fascinating, but you claim to value it far more than i do. perhaps it's because you value it, and you'd rather not know? Q is a hypothetical source document for the quotations of christ. for the record, i don't happen to think Q was ever a real document. i think matthew is basically an extensive re-write of mark, and luke used matthew/mark and some secondary sources. you think they'd just leave out something that fantastical? that's almost worse: it means they either thought it was unimportant, or thought it was false. "unfamiliar" was charitable. that's a post for another day. matthew seemingly intentionally misquotes prophets, misattributes lots of quotes to isaiah, and tends to only quote the parts of the prophecies that emphasize the "average" qualities the messiah will have prior to being king. for instance, he has jesus ride two donkeys in jerusalem. if you read zechariah, it tells you that the messiah will ride a donkey into jerusalem (just one, but it says it twice in standard poetic style), to emphasize that the messiah will be unknown and average. matthew doesn't quote the very next verse, which says the messiah will end all wars and rule over the entire world. so the messiah checklist for jesus goes like this:[X] average guy
[ ] ruling the world
[ ] ending all warwhat's matthew saying? that jesus is an average guy... and not the messiah. matthew is a satire, that to jewish eyes emphasizes all of the things that disqualifies jesus as being the messiah, designed to lead you back to source texts that specifically contrast things the messiah will do with things jesus didn't do. pretty much every prophecy in matthew is screwed up in one of the ways i listed above. okay, so, the satan is not defeated yet? wrong serpent. the serpent in revelation, "the devil" is a great dragon. you're looking for a dragon in a garden snake. look a chapter earlier, there's a mention of a dragon there. there's also one in job, and in the psalms (try number 74). these speak of a great serpent defeated by yahweh at the beginning of time. and this serpent if the model for the story in revelation. like, with your eyes? have you talked to someone about this? check's in the mail. sincerely, the christian god.man, at least the jewish god keeps his promises on a relatively short time scale, or just outright breaks them and usually tells you why. but this christian god, he sure likes to keep us on the hook. those are the same words.the definite article, in hebrew, just means "this particular adversary" and shouldn't really be inferred to act like a name. there are thoughts, based partly on the above verse, that many angels would step in to fill this role, as it became necessary. that is, being "the" or "a" satan was a task (it's used as a verb here) and not a title. good, because he's not the devil. he's a satan. are you starting to appreciate the difference now?

progress! one of many reasons. okay. ah. okay.this is decent logic on some stuff -- yahweh controls life and death, and we're not supposed to go killing people without his command. things in the mosaic covenant are binding only for the people of israel, yes, and not god. but you really think that god does stuff that he says, "this disgusts me" about? whoa, did we just get so far off topic that we got back on topic? that's... never happened before.in any case, the suffering servant will,

quote:

---

see his seed, prolong his days,

---

so, no. isaiah 53 speaks about israel, and not about the messiah.