NOT a messianic prophecy (Page 3)

JX Amaro:
“Answer the questions” demands the little dictator! LOL. DNC obviously got burned by his inept blundering above and is now trying desperately to save face. LOL. I will only “Answer the questions” to: A) avoid the appearance of evasion; and B) because I have a few more points to make in this joyful carpet-bombing devastation of DNC and the “Jewish POV.” LOL. (Note: I wouldn’t call it the “Jewish POV” as I am certain many Jews would disagree with DNC’s embarrassingly bad attempts at advocacy.)

On the virgin bit: I already stated that it is a controversial passage and highly debated with many commentators offering somewhat divergent interpretations. A fairly common one in Christian thought is that YHWH is making conditional promises – see verse 9 – and given Ahaz’s utter apostasy there was a partial fulfillment (saving Judah and the House of David) and a partial deferment to the future (to the time of Jesus – virgin birth and all the rest). (Note: I have my own views, but I am an amateur – so who cares.)

On the lions bit… Ughh. How many times do I have to explain the OBVIOUS! While “pierced” is the correct translation, the substitute of “the lions bit” hardly alters the meaning of the verse! This isn’t rocket science!!!! The verse calls attention to the fact that “something bad” is potentially going to happen to those hands and feet. Dogs or Lions can operate as allegorical “enemies” that are going to do the “something bad” to those hands and feet. Now what happened to Jesus, to his hands and feet? Oh, nevermind…

Needless to say, for DNC, and the “Jewish POV,” Psalm 22 is NOT, NOT, NOT a prophecy or prophetic in any way! Absolutely NOT. And nevermind that everyone else in the world can tell that verses 27-31 (at least (!)) are prophetic. Let’s quote them!

“27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, 28 for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations. 29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust will kneel before him – those who cannot keep themselves alive. Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: ‘He has done it’”

“Those are not prophetic verses; they do not look forward to the future; and 2 +2 = 6!” raves our little dictator DNC into a megaphone!!! LOL.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the “Jewish POV” (or “Dictatorship of the Rabbitariat” as I call it) wants you to believe. The Dictatorship of the Rabbitariat wants you to live in a fictive hyper-reality that the Witchdoctors of the Judaic faith created long ago. They pervert the text through subtle changes in the Hebrew and they give perverted – sometimes self-evidently absurd (!) – interpretations of the text. All this is done to undermine Christianity – obviously an existential threat to their sectarian cult and the supreme power of the wicked Rabbis over the deluded Jews (who have my sympathies). This is obvious to anyone standing outside the cult. Those who are brainwashed by the cult live inside a spiritual/psychological gulag and look out over the wall with paranoid eyes – such, sadly, is the brain damage. BTW, if you want to know who the true “enemies of the Jews” are, just look to the rabbis. Bang!

Still don’t believe me? Fine. Let’s look at Isaiah 9:6 (9:5), which DNC has alluded to in the above fire-fight. Here is a Judaic translation from Chabad:
9:5 “For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Here is the same verse in a typical Christian translation (NIV):
9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

The difference is plain and can NOT involve “poetic license.” Clearly there is a textual difference. Either “the child” is referred to by several titles, or “the child” is referred to by only one title: “Prince of Peace” (the others describing God). One of these translations is correct and one has been doctored.

If you have been following along, the answer is easy to guess. Yes, the Witchdoctors of the Judaic faith doctored the Masoretic text to undermine Christianity. The proof can be found in the Targum of Isaiah (the Aramaic translation from about the second century). Here it is:

“The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity wonderful, the mighty God who liveth to eternity, the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days.” Source:
https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Isaiah.9.5?lang=bi

Thus, the Christian translation is shown to display the true meaning, while the Judaic text has been subtly altered to advance it’s own theological agenda. That’s the TRICK.

To summarize: For the typical Judaic, Christian translations will read as wrong and filled with errors. The typical Judaic reader will just assumes they are reading the “pure Hebrew” and that the Christian dolts are depending on “horrible translations.” Unfortunately, even some Christians fall for “The TRICK.” The truth is otherwise. The Christian translations usually better convey the actual meaning of scripture while the Judaic Masoretic text is filled with artful distortions. Judaics, living in their group-think hive-mind, laugh at the Christian dolts who can’t read Hebrew. But, again, the Hebrew the Judaics are reading is the DOCTORED Hebrew of the Masoretic text! Once you understand this, the whole group-think “hyper-reality” that the apostate Judaic (death) cult is built upon falls apart.

Jews who are mind-raped victims of the Rabbitariat might want to think very deeply on this. What is it that the Rabbis don’t want you to see? Why do the “rabbis” and “sages” fight this fanatical war against Christ Jesus? The answer is obvious: Jesus is the Christ. And therefore Christianity is the true faith of YHWH.

DontNeedChrist:

Yet again you have failed to answer the questions.

According to your claim there were TWO virgin births. One in Isaiah/Ahaz's day and one over 700 years later. Who was the first virgin? Who was the child she gave birth to? Who was Emanuel? Were there two Emanuels? What became of them? We knew you'd use the "dual prophecy" card that has no biblical basis whatsoever. Time to explain this in full detail. We're still waiting...

With your empty explanation of the "pierced/lion" conundrum, you are claiming the word is pierced yet conceding it involves a lion. Why? You claim IT DOES NOT MEAN LIKE A LION so what difference does it make that a lion can pierce flesh? It's either pierced or like a lion. Which is it?

Amalek: "The typical Judaic reader will just assumes they are reading the “pure Hebrew” and that the Christian dolts are depending on “horrible translations.” Unfortunately, even some Christians fall for “The TRICK.”"

No tricks. We have better things to do than think of how to trick people. The typical reader that knows Hebrew simply reads it. No translation required. You deeply rely on translations and even hang your hat on them as more accurate than the "pure Hebrew" (whatever that's supposed to be.) How you can truly believe translations are more accurate than the original language is probably the most miserably absurd thing you state in these posts. It's beyond ignorant. You cannot be serious.

Amalek: "But, again, the Hebrew the Judaics are reading is the DOCTORED Hebrew of the Masoretic text!"

PROVE IT. You keep babbling this completely baseless claim. How would you know Hebrew text is doctored when you admit you can't read Hebrew? Because a christian website says so? Please.

What is Masoretic text anyway? Do you even know? Enlighten us.

Are you going to answer the questions or continue to peruse your thesaurus hunting for insulting words and phrases? Not going to address your theatrics. Not worth the time and I'm over it. Answer the questions or fade away already.

DontNeedChrist:

Summary:
Two virgin-births. Who were the mother and child in the first one?

Pierced or like a lion? Can't be both.

Prove Masoretic text was "doctored."

What is Masoretic text?

JX Amaro:
My response to the unhappy, little dictator:
LOL.
Followed by:
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Followed by:
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, DNC is forced into reality denial, rather than admitting he has been utterly annihilated – we’ve seen this movie before. Several times.

On the virgin bit. ONE! ONE! ONE virgin! You see that? Can you read that? ONE!!!! Ahaz was made a conditional promise. Ahaz refused to return to the faith. The promise was then deferred to the Age of Jesus. ONE virgin! Got it???

However, a couple points remain for analysis. Note that the answer given to us by DNC and Poetry123 was that “the child” refers to Isaiah’s child. Really? Cite scripture on that. Where does it say that Isaiah had a son (or daughter!) named “Immanuel/Emanuel”? According to Wikipedia, Isaiah had two sons, neither named Immanuel. Is Wikipedia also part of some international antisemitc conspiracy? Or are DNC and Poetry123 giving us some crack-cocaine explanation straight from the Judaic Ministry of Disinformation? Also, when did this Messianic Age of Immanuel ben Isaiah take place? I don’t recall reading that. Perhaps DNC or Poetry123 would like to fill me in on that. But they can’t. There was no son of Isaiah named Immanuel/Emanuel and there was no Messianic Age in the days of Ahaz or Hezekiah or any of the rest. Only the Christian interpretation – a deferred Messianic Age – makes sense.

A second point – related – also calls for comment. It is clear that DNC thinks he has some “Gotchya” moment in hand. He thinks that I, or the Christian community, will have to concede to TWO VIRGINS and that will destroy the Christian position. This false conclusion demonstrates that DNC, for all his (faux) “Hebrew Scholar” boasting, didn’t even grasp the “plot-line” of the story being told in Isaiah! LOL. As I stated before, in verse 9 the issue is being put in conditional terms. The condition is that Ahaz “stands firm.” Ahaz does NOT stand firm. Thus, YHWH is NOT obligated to produce the virgin born child – the messiah. (This is why the Messianic Age did NOT occur at any time following Ahaz.) Perhaps in the future, DNC should bother himself to read the scriptures more carefully before making an ass out himself! LOL.

Then DNC misrepresents me on the Lions bit. I am not the one advocating the lions bit, YOU ARE! Oh puh-leeeeze. Spare me yet another strawman argument. My point is that if you want to insert the “lions bit” to obfuscate the verse it really doesn’t matter. The implicit meaning remains the same. The correct translation is the one with “pierced.” That is what the verse is getting at! Pierced, injured, wounded – call it what you will – hands and feet. Given the crucifixion of Jesus, it is easy to see why the Witchdoctors of the Judaic faith would try to obfuscate this! Everyone not stoned on the Judaic crack-cocaine can see through this attempted whitewash of scripture easily enough and the motivation thereof.

Then there is the issue of the doctoring of the Masoretic text. LOL. DNC goes into total reality denial. I quoted from the Isaiah Targum and gave the source. Readers can read it and see that it agrees with the Christian reading of 9:6. That’s objective, verifiable evidence. All DNC can do is deny reality, deny common sense, and deny objective evidence so as to pretend like he won. LMAO.

Now some questions for DNC:
One: Cite the chapter and verse where we are told that Isaiah had a son named Immanuel/Emanuel.
Two: When did this Immanuel/Emanuel ben Isaiah preside over a Messianic Age?
Three: Why does the Septuagint – written centuries before Jesus – translate 7:14 as virgin?
Four: Why do you keep changing your story on what the “sign” of 7:14 is? First it is correctly guessing the gender of “the child.” Then it is correctly predicting the name of “the child.” Then it is the defeat of two weak and failing powers by Assyria that you claim – in complete negation of scripture – to be significant powers. Then it refers to the non-existent child of Isaiah and so on. Why does your story keep changing, like a desperate person grasping at straws?
Five: How do you explain – contrary to the opinion of everyone on Earth – that the last verses of Psalm 22 do NOT look forward to a future time and are therefore prophetic?
Six: Why does the Targum of Isaiah accord with the Christian translation of 9:6 and NOT the Masoretic?
Seven: Why is it that Christianity has spread the Word of God and scriptures to every corner of the world while the cult of Judaism has utterly failed? Where are the Jewish Missionaries bringing the light of scripture to “the Nations”?
Eight: Why is Isaiah 53 NOT read in Synagogues? Why is it forbidden by the Rabbis?

I doubt we will get any substantive answers, but that – itself – will be a telling answer.

DontNeedChrist:

I'll answer your questions when you answer ALL of mine.

What is Masoretic text? Explain with detail please.

JX Amaro:
Yawn.
Answer: The Masoretic text is the Hebrew text used in most Jewish Bibles. It was created between the seventh and tenth century by the Masoretes and the oldest copy – the Aleppo Codex – is from the 9th century.

More to the point: There is great controversy about the reliability of the Masoretic text in relation to older texts like the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Academic level. For a non-tendentious overview of this, go here:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/controversy-lurks-as-scholars-suss-out-original-biblical-text/

Also note that Israeli scholar Menachem Cohen has pointed out that the Dead Sea scrolls have shown that “there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT." source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

Needless to say, you – DNC – are not an academic. You can indulge whatever delusion or fantasy of “antisemitism” you want, but this is a legitimate issue among serious scholars.

Now you can answer my questions. I am especially interested in #7.

(Note: I still don't think DNC will offer substantive answers - or, really, any answer - to my questions. I will be delighted to be proved wrong, though. Needless to say, I will assume any failure to answer as a white flag of total surrender. I have been more than generous with my time. I have been more than charitable in putting up with his control freak "little dictator" ("answer the questions"!) attitude. It's time for DNC to "put up or shut up."

JX Amaro: LOL, blame Wire for that emoji - I didn't put it there. Oh well...

DontNeedChrist:

It’s like trying to have an adult conversation with a 7 year-old. Now that you’re done with your self high fives, fake LOLs and pompous insults, I’ll take it to a rational level. Pay attention.

So funny you go immediately to Wiki. Never occurs to you to read a book or ask a learned human on these matters. Your only source is the internet. Whatever. We take all your so-called sources with a grain of salt and deservedly so.

Regarding the Masoretic text, the one thing your Wiki source barely touches on is it applied the vowelization to the scriptures. Tell me how vowels can erase supposed mentions of jesus from the Tanach. How do vowels altar the context? Again, that makes no sense and it's further proof of your ignorance of the Masoretic text and Hebrew in general. You missed the point completely...again.

Amalek: “Note that the answer given to us by DNC and Poetry123 was that “the child” refers to Isaiah’s child. Really? Cite scripture on that.”

We never claimed that. We stated it COULD in fact be one of Isaiah’s children. There is no verse that states such a thing so your gotcha moment misses by miles. Did you not read Isaiah 8:18? Here, I’ll post it again because it does address your question. “Behold, I and the CHILDREN whom the Lord has GIVEN TO ME are for SIGNS and for SYMBOLS to Israel from G-d Almighty, who dwells in Mount Zion.”

So again, Emanuel MIGHT be one of Isaiah’s children. NEVER made the claim that absolutely Emanuel is one of his children. Stop twisting words.

Amalek: “Also, when did this Messianic Age of Immanuel ben Isaiah take place? I don’t recall reading that.”

Again, NOBODY claimed there was a messianic age regarding Emanuel. Not sure where you got this but it was not from us. Moving on…

Amalek: “The condition is that Ahaz “stands firm.” Ahaz does NOT stand firm. Thus, YHWH is NOT obligated to produce the virgin born child – the messiah. (This is why the Messianic Age did NOT occur at any time following Ahaz.)”

You’re the only one here equating the messianic era with virgin births. Not us. There are no virgin birth prophecies in the Tanach and no connection between that pagan concept and the messianic era. You’re definitely confused on this one. You start with a non existent point and cause it to snowball into a BIG non existent point.

Amalek: “Then DNC misrepresents me on the Lions bit. I am not the one advocating the lions bit, YOU ARE! Oh puh-leeeeze.”

Yessir. because that’s what the Hebrew says. You wouldn’t know.

Amalek: “The correct translation is the one with “pierced.” That is what the verse is getting at! Pierced, injured, wounded – call it what you will – hands and feet.”

ALL PAST TENSE yet you claim this a prophecy of the future about someone else, not David who wrote it about himself. YOU and your buddy AA correlated lions as ones who pierce. Not us. You combined the MIStranslation (pierced) and the original text (like a lion). Seems you’re confused and cloudy on this one too but in your universe the evil Jews changed the text to cancel yoshke out of the narrative. We have better things to do. Puh-leeeeze indeed.

Amalek: “Then there is the issue of the doctoring of the Masoretic text.”

You don’t even know what the Masoretic text is and you have not shown proof of “doctoring.” A targum from a website? Do you know what a targum is? I’ll give you time to Google it. In any case, a targum does not prove “doctoring” of the text. This is beyond laughable.

Now, answering your questions directly one-by-one. (You should try it sometime without intentionally ignoring ones you have no clue about.)

“One: Cite the chapter and verse where we are told that Isaiah had a son named Immanuel/Emanuel.”

Already answered. NEVER made that claim and there is NO verse that states that. We never said there was.

“Two: When did this Immanuel/Emanuel ben Isaiah preside over a Messianic Age?”

Already answered. Emanuel has nothing to do with the Messianic age. Not sure where you’re getting this connection. Answer that one yourself since it seems to be a figment of your imagination.

“Three: Why does the Septuagint – written centuries before Jesus – translate 7:14 as virgin?”

A little education for you. The only thing that was translated for the Septuagint was the Torah. Any other translations of the Prophets and Writings were made by unknowns with unknown credibility. Go ahead and Google it. I don’t make things up. We know who translated the Torah. We do not know who translated the rest. And to answer the second part of the question, we don’t care what translations say Amalek. Why should we? We know what the Hebrew says. You want to believe a MIStranslation as gospel truth? Go right ahead. We know better. We don’t rely on translations like you do. Pity you need a crutch. Learn Hebrew and get enlightened.

“Four: Why do you keep changing your story on what the “sign” of 7:14 is?”

I haven’t. Go back and reread. The “sign” is more involved than just the prophecy of the child. All of it combined is the sign. A young woman IN AHAZ’S TIME will give birth to a son, name him Emanuel and in the time it takes the child to learn bad from good, Ahaz’s enemies will be defeated. A virgin birth 700 years later after Ahaz is cold in the grave does not fit. Makes NO sense. You claim the christian version is the only one that fits but you have mangled the narrative so much the only thing that seems to fit is the skewed christian conclusion.

“Five: How do you explain – contrary to the opinion of everyone on Earth – that the last verses of Psalm 22 do NOT look forward to a future time and are therefore prophetic? “

There’s a difference between actual prophecy and reiterating something that the prophets of old already predicted. Psalms is NOT prophecy. I stand by that firmly. What David wrote in those verses was already known. Just because David writes of things that have already been prophesied does not make his psalms prophecy. If I predict the sun will rise tomorrow am I a prophet? Learn the difference between actual prophecy and referring to how things will be in the future based on prior knowledge.

“Six: Why does the Targum of Isaiah accord with the Christian translation of 9:6 and NOT the Masoretic?”

It’s actually 9:5 but who cares right? A targum is an interpretation. This SINGLE targum you quote is of Yonatan (Jonathan). There are endless others but you stumbled upon one that seems to serve your agenda because you found it on the internet. Congrats! Obviously you only read that one paragraph. If you study things as a whole, in context you would see that this targum also says the suffering servant is Israel but I'm sure you would never use this targum as proof of the claim regarding Isaiah 53. Only when you think commentary is aligned with your belief do you ever bring it up. Why do you cherry pick interpretations and present them as proof of “doctoring?” Targums (interpretations) can be disagreed with just like midrash. They are not halachot. This is extremely weak. It proves nothing.

“Seven: Why is it that Christianity has spread the Word of God and scriptures to every corner of the world while the cult of Judaism has utterly failed? Where are the Jewish Missionaries bringing the light of scripture to “the Nations”?”

LOL. Wow. No such thing as a Jewish missionary #1. #2, Jews don’t proselytize like christians. We lead by example. That’s how we are a light to the nations. We are not hellbent on taking over the world. There is no “failure.” I will hand it to christianity in its zeal to spread the word and the general knowledge of G-d. It will come in handy when the TRUE MOSHIACH comes so people will have some context. You see failure, we see thousands of years of survival despite the very thinking you embrace and we’re still here annoying the hell out of you.

“Eight: Why is Isaiah 53 NOT read in Synagogues? Why is it forbidden by the Rabbis? “

Another laugh out loud moment. A bit more education for you. Every week we read a Torah parsha (portion). Then we read the “Haftorah” which is a writing from the prophets that has correlation to that parsha. There is no parsha that has a correlation to Isaiah 53. That goes for hundreds of other writings from the prophets. 53 is not the only one that isn’t usually discussed. Forbidden? PROVE IT. I’ve seen this bogus claim before. There is not one Jewish text that is forbidden to discuss in the synagogue. How would you know? Ever step foot in one? Probably a messianic one. That’s pwhere you got this horse manure.

There’s ALL your substantive answers that you predicted would not happen. Do with them what you will. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

DontNeedChrist:

One more point. For some perplexing reason you seem to think you can intimidate by claiming victory after every paragraph and congratulating yourself for "annihilating" and "destroying" opposing points and arguments. The reality is you fail each time and every one of your so-called proofs have been debunked one-by-one surgically and accurately. You're in denial and think you cause a smoke screen by kicking up dust while dancing around claiming I'm ready to wave a white flag as you revel in your hollow victory. It's both funny and pathetic how you peddle your snake oil.

JX Amaro:
Wow! DNC answered my questions! As always, I give credit where credit is due. Yes, he did answer. I will try to keep my responses brief and “to the point.”

On Q1, DNC BOTH doubles down and then walks back the idea that the child is Isaiah’s (non-existent) child named Immanuel/Emanuel. In short, he wants to have it both ways and every way and who knows and whatever and… LOL. Total fail.

(Q1A: DNC calls attention to 8:18 where Isaiah’s two known children are referred to as “signs and symbols” apparently thinking this is a “win.” I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this – not gonna lie. Observe the plural!!!!!!!!! Obviously his two actual children ARE signs of the coming events, but equally OBVIOUSLY they are not THE SIGN of THE MESSIAH!!!!!! This by plain logic. Oooof. LOL.)

On Q2, DNC simply says he never said there was a messianic age of Immanuel/Emanuel. Well, duh… That’s the point: it was deferred. DNC then demonstrates remarkable biblical illiteracy by claiming “the child”/Immanuel/Emanuel of 7:14 has NOTHING to do with a Messianic Age. Apparently he didn’t read 9:6-7: “6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.” Of course there is nothing messianic about that, according to DNC. LOL.

On Q3, DNC really gets lost in the crack-cocaine haze of dazed confusion. Yes, DNC is going to claim that the word “virgin” found it’s way into the Septuagint because this particular section – according to DNC – was NOT translated by Jewish scholars but (ostensibly) by priests of Zeus (!!!) or somebody/anybody else! LOL. Too funny.

On Q4, DNC defends his potty idea that “the sign” is this, that and everything else but NOT a virgin birth – not anything miraculous. Of course, the whole point of “THE sign” is that it IS something miraculous – just read 7:10-11 for the context. SMH. LOL.

On Q5, DNC chooses to stand on his claim that there is NO prophetic element to Psalm 22. He points out that if he predicts the sun will rise tomorrow, that doesn’t make him a prophet. True. But that isn’t what Psalm 22 is saying! Here are but two verses. “27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, 28 for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations.” Remember, this is written before the Age of Alexander the Great. What might the Vegas odds-makers have given as the odds of this faith of the obscure David becoming a world faith? Zonk! Another total fail for DNC. LOL.

On Q6, DNC denies that the Targum proves anything. Ok. Whatever. Dream your own dream. LOL.

On Q7, DNC makes a most remarkable claim. Apparently he is happy that Christian missionaries are spreading the word of God to prepare the way for the Jewish “Moshiach.” This seems strikingly at odds with the fact that DNC claims that Christians get it all wrong! Needless to say, this story doesn’t add up. LOL. (I’ll let it go for the moment, but I might return to this point in the future…)

On Q8, DNC gives us the “Rabbi Tovia Singer” explanation of why Isaiah 53 isn’t read as part of the “Haftorah.” As scholars will tell you, there is no consensus on what was read long ago as the Haftorah. Curiously, our earliest testimony of the haftorah comes from – wait for it – the New Testament! In Luke 4:18-19 Jesus, in the synagogue, reads from Isaiah 61 (now under the haftorah ban, of course). And we get this in Acts 13:27: “The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning Him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath.” How curious! In later times it is believed that some synagogues included Isaiah 53, some didn’t. For those interested, go here:
https://www.shalomadventure.com/torah/articles/3702-the-forbidden-chapter-isaiah-53

Also interesting is this article:
https://www.haaretz.com/1.4930887

Finally, Jewish historian Raphael Levi (circa the 1600s – long before any “Messianic Judaism” movement) also confirms that Isaiah 53 was once read as part of the haftorah and then removed. Hmmm, looks like the laugh is on DNC. LOL.

Yes, this has certainly been a laugh riot. Of course, DNC claims I am “arrogant” or whatever. Who cares? As far as I can tell, I’m just a free-wheeling rolling stone – just a face in the crowd. The issue isn’t me. The issue is the “Full Spectrum Dominance” of the Christian perspective. This is explained quite simply: A) Jesus IS the Christ; and B) Christianity is TRUE. I may make a few blunders here and there, but I am defending the “true vine,” I’m drinking from the “living waters.” DNC splutters and fails (often spectacularly) simply because he is attempting to defend the counterfeit faith – apostate “Judaism.”

This discussion and this thread could go on forever, but you can already bet on who is going to win – moi. The reason has nothing to do with any self-indulgent or dive-bombing claims that I may make; and, in fact, I make no claim beyond being an amateur with a bit of a flamboyant style. The reason is this: The whole Old Testament/Tanakh is a prophecy. The whole thing is about the Messiah: it’s a story with a plot. You may not believe Jesus is the Messiah; but if he isn’t, then there is no Messiah, and no Salvation. Either/Or. There is NO third option, just read Daniel 9 – that door was closed long ago. It’s Jesus or Nothing. Take your pick.

Hallelujah, Christ is Risen!!!

E s s e n c e: This guy is a joke, he certainly doesn't represent the Christian values but his own hiding behind his religion to act as he does.

JX Amaro: @Jaguar: Fact Check: The essential idea of Christianity is that Jesus is the Christ. Judaism rejects that. Ipso facto, Christian values NECESSITATE the rejection of anti-Christian (ie, unreconstructed) Judaism.

Needless to say, this “JX Amaro character” or “JX Amalek” is upsetting – triggering – some people. As I have said before, Judaism can’t withstand a radical criticism. It is a house of cards and it falls fast. And the appeal to Christ and “Christian values” to oppose Christians who criticize anti-Christian Judaism is just too rich in irony for words. LOL.

DontNeedChrist:

Amalek: “Wow! DNC answered my questions!”

As I always do. You on the other hand conveniently skip select questions you obviously have no answer for. Don’t think it goes unnoticed.

Amalek: “DNC BOTH doubles down and then walks back the idea that the child is Isaiah’s (non-existent) child named Immanuel/Emanuel. In short, he wants to have it both ways…”

Wrong. My answer has been the same since the topic came up. Once again I will reiterate so PAY ATTENTION. NEVER did the claim that Emanuel is definitely one of Isaiah’s sons come from my keyboard. I typed the words that he MAY be or COULD be. NOT that he was. This is a classic example of how you distort my words. This too does not go unnoticed.

Amalek: “Obviously his (Isaiah’s) two actual children ARE signs of the coming events, but equally OBVIOUSLY they are not THE SIGN of THE MESSIAH!!!!!! This by plain logic. Oooof. LOL.”

Not sure why I have to keep repeating myself on this. Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with the Messiah or the Messianic Era. Reread that sentence. Let it sink in. YOU keep harping on that. You have the burden of proof to support your claim of a “deferred” Messianic “promise,” not me. Isaiah 7 is not messianic. Never was, never will be regardless of your skewed claims.

Amalek: “DNC then demonstrates remarkable biblical illiteracy by claiming “the child”/Immanuel/Emanuel of 7:14 has NOTHING to do with a Messianic Age. Apparently he didn’t read 9:6-7”

Do you have amnesia? I covered this. It’s Isaiah 9:5 and it’s about King Hezekiah. Your trusted MIStranslations MISlead you.

Amalek: “Of course there is nothing messianic about that, according to DNC. LOL.”

Bingo. Isaiah 9:5 is about King Hezekiah whose reign was one of peace. He was referred to as the prince of peace. The first three names in that passage refer to G-d. This is what happens when you play the telephone game. In the end the true message becomes unrecognizable because of bad translation.

Amalek: “according to DNC – was NOT translated by Jewish scholars but (ostensibly) by priests of Zeus (!!!) or somebody/anybody else! LOL. Too funny.”

Amusing exaggeration. But it’s NOT according to me. It’s according to history. I never said it was not translated by Jewish scholars. I said they were unknown therefore their credentials were unknown. Another example of twisting my words. We DO know who the translators were for the Torah. We DO know their credentials. We DO NOT know who translated the Prophets and Writings.

Amalek: “DNC defends his potty idea that “the sign” is this, that and everything else but NOT a virgin birth – not anything miraculous. Of course, the whole point of “THE sign” is that it IS something miraculous.”

THE sign is the Prophet Isaiah’s prophecy of the time it will take for Ahaz’s enemies to be defeated. If you feel it necessary to belittle Isaiah’s prophecy of the timestamp of how long a war will last and who will prevail as something nothing short of miraculous then you have big problems. The explanations that debunk a virgin birth prophecy have been detailed here. Believe all the fairy tales you want. Good luck with that.

Amalek: “DNC chooses to stand on his claim that there is NO prophetic element to Psalm 22.”

Twisted words again. I specifically stated there is a difference between actual prophecy and reiterating prophecies already made. David repeats prophetic statements made by prophets before him. That does not make Psalm 22 prophecy. Can’t make it any more crystal clear than that.

Amalek: “DNC denies that the Targum proves anything. Ok. Whatever. Dream your own dream. LOL.”

Correct. There are other targums that disagree with Yonatan. The only one that proves anything is the one YOU agree with? Such delusion.

Amalek: “Apparently he is happy that Christian missionaries are spreading the word of God to prepare the way for the Jewish “Moshiach.” This seems strikingly at odds with the fact that DNC claims that Christians get it all wrong!”

Continued twisting of words. I stated that christianity at the very least spreads the knowledge of G-d to the world so there will be context when Moshiach comes. It’s the only redeeming value I can muster. The rest IS ALL WRONG as has been proven in these forums over and over again.

Amalek: “DNC gives us the “Rabbi Tovia Singer” explanation of why Isaiah 53 isn’t read as part of the “Haftorah.” As scholars will tell you, there is no consensus on what was read long ago as the Haftorah. Curiously, our earliest testimony of the haftorah comes from – wait for it – the New Testament! In Luke 4:18-19 Jesus, in the synagogue, reads from Isaiah 61 (now under the haftorah ban, of course).”

Such horse manure. Cannot stomach any of the above to comment. It’s trash. But you go further and….wait for it….you post a link to a MESSIANIC website video! Shocking. I have to say this is one of the most deceptive websites I’ve set eyes on. Sure looks Jewish. Everybody speaks Hebrew. Gotta be Jewish! Ah, but look further. What’s that little logo on the bottom right of the video? Clicking on it takes the viewer to another website titled “Tree of Life Ministries Israel.” The banner at the top in big bold letters proclaims ‘BRINGING LIFE TO ISRAEL THROUGH THE GOSPEL.” Click on the about tab and you read: “Online and street evangelism in Israel, equipping for harvest, saving lives from abortion, and international outreach. (formerly 'Yeshua Project' and 'Medabrim in English’)” MESSIANIC PROPAGANDA.

Nice try. Nothing Jewish about any of these links. There is no such thing as any forbidden chapter. This is christian propaganda and I just exposed it. You should be ashamed at the lengths of deception you and your ilk stoop to. You’re sources are no better than the missionary family that posed as Hassidim in Israel duping countless people and disrupting their lives with vile lies and deception. I call BS.

Your other link to Haaretz is behind a paywall so I could not read it. I’m sure I’m not missing a thing. More shtuyot.

Then you go even further and post another MESSIANIC source regarding Raphael Levi. A cursory search reveals this so-called claim from this “Jewish historian” is from a site called ONEFORISRAEL.COM (https://www.oneforisrael.org/?s=raphael+levi). Click on the about tab and big, bold blue letters proclaim: “THE BEST WAY TO BLESS ISRAEL IS WITH JESUS” MESSIANIC!

Every one of your website links are christian propaganda. It’s sickening. What a sham.

The rest of your diatribe is just further insults and sermons to me and Judaism in general. Big yawn. So this will be my last post. I’ve taken a long enough ride in this clown car but it’s time to exit. You will have your last word and you’ll vomit up more propaganda. So be it. Notice not once did I delete any of your posts. As a matter of fact they will stay up for the readers to see how you twist words, post deceptive web links and demean the very religion your god subscribed to. In closing I will state that you are no ambassador to christianity. If your man/god were to return he would be absolutely revolted by your words, attitude and behavior. You claim victory but you only succeeded in showing utter ignorance. Shalom.

JX Amaro:
Not much new here, just a rehash of talking points and damage control with more of DNC’s selective anti-semitism (ie, dehumanizing Jews who don’t go along with the reactionary dogmas of dark-age, unreconstructed “Judaism”). As I’ve said before, the real enemy of the Jews are the control-freak Rabbis and their toxic little attack dogs (eg, DNC).

Additionally, I can’t help but note that now even DNC – totally out of ammo – has to turn to the very Christ he denies and spits on to oppose me. It is breath-taking and astonishing. A Hollywood screenwriter would be hard pressed to come up with a better “plot-twist” than this. Yes, DNC, shot down and burned to a crisp, has to call out to Jesus for salvation – to condemn me. That fact, alone, demonstrates who won the shoot out. You don’t see me calling out to the creepy Rabbi Schneerson or basketcase kooks like Rav Michael Laitman, do you?

It’s “neither here, nor there,” but perhaps a brief note on Christian praxeology is in order. Christian service is predicated on the Eudaimonian practice of Christian Arete. That is, the Christian is attempting to self-actualize their potential in terms of Faith, Hope, Charity, Temperance, Courage, Justice and Prudence. This is Christian service and it allows the disciplined Christian to fly high and to such heights as where only eagles dare – and sometimes beyond. Conversely, Judaism enslaves Jews to the endless chains of “Halakha.” Good luck with that – the Judaic Abyss.

Another issue apropos to something is this: As Martin Luther points out, relative to the attitude of blessed St Paul, there is a difference between spiritual pride/“holy boasting” and sinful pride/arrogant egotistical boasting. As I have previously said, I’m just a face in the crowd – though I do wear sunglasses. If I boast the Christian truth, so be it. No apologies.

What this is really about is the divide between Christianity and Judaism. That is the issue, not me. Let me quote scripture:
1 John 2: “22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”

I say the rabbis are the liars and Judaism is the apostate cult that blinds the Jews – and others – to the truth, the Way to Salvation. Condemn me if you like, I stand on solid ground.

And needless to say, I still have “bullets to spare,” in fact entire ammo boxes. What we have with DNC is a pretty typical case of “Stockholm Syndrome” – the effect of living in the spiritual ghettos of the Judaic Gulag. “Anti-Semitism” is just a fail-safe, the firewall that keeps the blinded blind. This statement doesn’t deny that there are REAL anti-semites, but those are vulgar bigots. What we are dealing with here is the total annihilation of Judaism as a theological construct. And in fact, the very words of DNC above betray him and prove this to be the case. He vilifies “Messianic Jews.” That FACT concedes that this has nothing to do with Jews as an ethnic group. This has to do with the bonkers cult created at the Yavne School and their Man-Made Mythology of the Oral Torah (which replaces the real Torah) and the deeper apostate theology that developed therefrom – the War Against Christ.

Pax vestra revertetur ad vos

DontNeedChrist:

Back to the topic.

Genesis 3:15 –

"And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."

Christians conclude that Mary was special -- the one and only woman to ever have "seed." They jump to the conclusion that this verse is about jesus and makes him unique because Chava (Eve) had "seed."

The passage actually does NOT say seed. Repeat, NOT "seed."

The word mistranslated as "seed" by so many christian translations is the Hebrew word זַרְעֲ / zĕra. It should be translated as "OFFSPRING," not seed. It literally means the living offspring from the parent. It makes no sense that a christian could somehow conclude that jesus was special because he, and only he (and his followers?) came from the seed of Eve. After all Eve was the mother to ALL humans.

This error is all based on mistranslating the word זַרְעֲ / zĕra .

Since זַרְעֲ / zĕra does not mean "seed" what does it mean? זַרְעֲ / zĕra is a collective noun, which means all of the offspring who come from a parent. When used to speak of humans זֶרַע / zĕra means the totality of all a person's descendants, considered collectively as a group. Instances of this word in the sense of one specific person are rare, and when it is used in this way the person referenced is invariably identified in the actual text.

Zĕra is invariably a compound noun that denotes the totality of all the progenitor’s progeny (descendants) considered as a whole group or class.

For it to refer to one person (aka jesus) he would have to be listed BY NAME in Genesis 3:15 -- BUT HE ISN'T!

The verse does not say anything about one individual or a "group" of people -- it speaks of ALL people. After all Eve was the mother to every single human who ever lived! If the christian claim that zĕra refers to ONE person, aka jesus, then it would also refer to ONE specific offspring of the serpent as well, no? But we see nothing in the text that remotely refers to that.

Since the subject here is Eve it should be translated as her living offspring or descendants. The verse is simply about the OFFSPRING of Eve (all of humanity's) repulsion of the serpent's OFFSPRING (all of the serpent's progeny) that will exist from that moment on.

It's not messianic. It has nothing to do with jesus or Mary or the devil or "seed."

(Edited to get rid of winking emoji)

poetry123:
DNC said:
Christians conclude that Mary was special -- the one and only woman to ever have "seed." They jump to the conclusion that this verse is about jesus and makes him unique because Chava (Eve) had "seed."

You know who else had 'seed'?

Hagar

Genesis 16:10 And the angel of Hashem said to her- I will greatly multiply your 'seed'...

JX Amaro:
Ah yes, yet more ignorance and biblical illiteracy coming from the Judaic Ministry of Disinformation. Let’s “Reality Check” DNC’s latest blunder and folly.

First, as I have said before, the whole OT/TNK is a prophecy. The whole STORY has a PLOT and that plot is the coming of the Messiah.

Second, the “Garden of Eden” story is a prologue, an overture to the “Rise and Fall of Israel” story. Observe: Adam and Eve are given a law and a land. They violate the law and are kicked out of the land. “Israel” (the House of Jacob) is given a law and a land. They violate the law and are kicked out of the land. Do you see the parallel construction???

Third, after the fall of Israel/Judah, Daniel established a timeline for the punishment of “Israel” and the coming of the Messiah. And note well that this timeline just happens to lead to the first century, which is why there was so much messianic activity in the first century! I won’t rehash the Daniel debate here, but interested readers can find it in the thread entitled, “Why do the Rabbis defame Daniel the prophet?”

Fourth and finally, observe that Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15 states that a prophet will come some time in the future; and he is to be followed; and he is to be like Moses – but greater. Now what made Moses unique among the prophets? Answer: He was a lawgiver. And what was Jesus? A lawgiver. Jesus created a New Law and a New Covenant – as per Messianic expectation. Are you following this?

Long story short: Moses knew “Israel” would fail. But in that failure, the remnant of “Israel” (the Hebrew Jews) would succeed in bringing about the Messiah – the one of whom Moses spoke of in Deuteronomy 18:15. Get it?

So what does this have to do with Genesis 3:15?

Simple: Genesis 3:15 tells us what the Messiah is chosen to do. He is chosen to “stomp the the snake” and undo the Fall! That is the “secret” that has been known from the beginning!

Thus we see that the essential PLOT of the Biblical STORY is YHWH’s redemptive PLAN for ALL HUMANITY – not just “Israel.” The MEANS to that redemptive END is the Messiah. If you doubt this, review Genesis 12:1-3 and note particularly:“...I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you...and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” That’s the Promise. That’s the Plan. The salvation of ALL Nations coming not from the Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks or the Romans, but from the seemingly insignificant and despised nation of Israel. YHWH’s Plan was to use “Israel” as a means to that end. It’s the essence of Judaic ethno-narcissism and false theology to think that “Israel” IS the end. Ixne. (Review St Paul’s Ephesians letter if you are still confused.)

Of course, DNC and the whole Judaic Ministry of Disinformation (ie, the “counter-missionaries”), will deny this. They will play Hebrew word games (as though Hebrew words are immune to the “problem of definitions” (cf, Plato)); and they will pull out any other rabbit from the hat to oppose Christ Jesus – Christianity. “Christiani Delenda Est” (“Christianity Must be Destroyed”). Such is the war-cry of the “dirty war” fought by Judaism. And in this “dirty war” they are willing to trample on Holy Scripture to do so. This is the Sampson Option. We have seen this “Sampson Option” played out again and again in these debates. To oppose Christianity, DNC and friends will desecrate Daniel, Psalms, Isaiah and now Genesis with purposeful misreadings.

In sum: 1A) Adam and Eve violated the law and were expelled from Eden. 1B) But they were told (the prophecy!) that a singular person of their seed/offspring (ie, the Messiah) would someday crush the snake – the principle of evil that cost them eternal life. 2A) “The House of Jacob” violated the law and were expelled from Israel. 2B) But they were told of a coming Messiah and that Messiah – Christ Jesus – came and “crushed the snake” (at the cost of His life) and is the means to eternal life. Parallel construction. Promise and fulfillment. Mystery and revelation.

Now let’s verify that this isn’t just some form of twisted Christian interpretation that is being forced awkwardly onto the text. Here is a Genesis 3:15 text and commentary from a Jewish source:

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha.”
Source: https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Genesis.3?lang=bi

Yes, the Eden Story is a Messianic Prophecy! And yes, DNC is proved wrong yet again!

E s s e n c e: This guy is a non Hebrew speakers who doesn't know the language of Root and Branches; yet, he believes his pseudo theological education found at websites that only suit his narrative is correct.

DNC, THANK YOU for sharing the information, some of us seek to learn.

DontNeedChrist:
Oh, him again. Not going to waste much time with this hack.

Interesting how you blatantly disregard the crux of the discussion which is the Hebrew word זַרְעֲ / zĕra.

I’ll reiterate since you glossed over the main point. Zĕra is invariably a compound noun that denotes the totality of all the progenitor’s progeny (descendants) considered as a whole group or class.

For it to refer to one person (aka jesus) he would have to be listed BY NAME in Genesis 3:15 -- BUT HE IS NOT!

In other words Hebrew matters.

As poetry123 pointed out (which you chose not to comment on) the same word zĕra is used just a few chapters ahead when referring to Hagar. Why? Because women as well as men have progeny, descendants, offspring, etc. We are all from the “seed” of Eve. The verse in no way exclusively points to one person and you have epically failed to show proof otherwise.

As for your Reader’s Digest interpretation of what the Tanach is:
“First, as I have said before, the whole OT/TNK is a prophecy. The whole STORY has a PLOT and that plot is the coming of the Messiah.”

I wouldn’t expect a christian to approach the Tanach in any other way because of what you’ve been spoon fed your whole life. Believe what you will. Jews do not view the Tanach as a big book of messianic prophecies. On the contrary, there is very little mention of the messiah in the Tanach. But you read translations of translations with the preconceived christian notion of everything pointing to your yoshke so you can’t help yourself. All roads lead to yoshke right? We know better.

Also, I get big belly laughs from the “proofs” you submit. They’re either always messianic (christian) or a commentary which is not absolute. In the same breath you bash the ‘traditions of men’ but have no trouble reaching for something they may have written that seems to align with your christian dogma. You’ve done this time and again. You don’t even know what a targum is. Hypocrisy!

The rest of your post is just more vomitous drivel that doesn’t merit a response.

JX Amaro:
LOL. I’ll take that as a total concession.

Only one point remains: DNC – and then Poetry123 – made some noise about the Hebrew word “zera” or whatever. Apparently that was the “crux” of the argument. Zonk. The crux of the argument is: Is Genesis 3:15 (and the Garden of Eden story in general) a messianic prophecy or not! That’s what this thread is about. The meaning of “zera” and/or Hagar’s “seed” is immaterial – a distraction. And quite frankly, I had no idea what point DNC was trying to make! Moreover, the NIV and ESV translations both use “offspring.” So if there is some Christian attempt at deception here, I am not aware of it. “Seed” or “Offspring” – who cares? Not me.

Returning to the REAL “crux” of the issue, let’s review the OBVIOUS parallel construction between the Eden story and the Israel story.

1A) Adam and Eve are given a law and a land. 1B) Adam and Eve break the law and are expelled from the land (eastward!). 1C) Adam and Even are told that an offspring will arise that, in the future, will crush the snake.

2A) “Israel” is given a law and a land. 2B) “Israel” violates the law and are expelled from the land (eastward!). 2C) “Israel” is given a prophecy that the Messiah will come and and crush the wicked – “crush the snake” – (ie, “The Day of the Lord”).

And finally, note that Adam and Eve were NOT prohibited from eating from the Tree of Life, only from the Tree of Good and Evil. Thus, Adam and Eve HAD immortality, but lost it – due to the snake. Recovering that lost immortality is the positive side of the messianic mission and the essential plot to the story! Aqua Vitae. Living Waters! Redemption!!

The parallelism is OBVIOUS. Clearly, any objective reader will recognize the prophetic implications of the Eden story. And if the Judaic death cult wants to deny this, they can. They will fool no one but themselves. LOL.

DontNeedChrist:

Such a child.

In no way was my post a concession. It was a direct response to your propaganda. There is nothing messianic about this verse except in the wishful thinking of a desperate jesus freak.

Amalek - "DNC – and then Poetry123 – made some noise about the Hebrew word “zera” or whatever."

"or whatever"

Your dismissal of the native language Genesis was written in is where you stumble miserably. Regardless of your ignorance, Hebrew matters. Words matter. Context matters. Your "parallels" are nothing but christian spin caused by your christian goggles. Every verse is about yoshke so you can't see anything else and we're called blind. The irony.

I’ll type this one more time slowly so you can follow easier.

Zĕra is invariably a compound noun that denotes the totality of all the progenitor’s progeny (descendants) considered as a whole group or class. For it to refer to one person (aka jesus) he would have to be listed BY NAME in Genesis 3:15 -- BUT HE IS NOT!

“1C) Adam and Even are told that an offspring will arise that, in the future, will crush the snake.”

“AN” offspring? That doesn’t even make sense in English. Who says “an offspring?” The proper word would be a descendant because that is singular. But the verse uses the word offspring which is PLURAL. That rules out your would-be messiah. You’re grasping at straws. It’s embarrassing. Please stop.

The christian claim is Eve’s “seed” is jesus the so-called messiah which is ONE person. The context and the Hebrew refers to “OFFSPRING” which means ALL of Eve’s descendants meaning every human ever born…NOT ONE PERSON! So it’s not about jesus, it’s not about the messiah, therefore IT’S NOT A MESSIANIC PROPHECY. Same goes for the ZERA of the serpent. There will be enmity between humans and ALL OFFSPRING of snakes/serpents. Not one serpent. Not some imaginary devil with a pointy tail and pitchfork making people do bad things. This derails all your shtuyot right out of the gate. That is what this thread is about. Proof positive. Mic drop.

Learn Hebrew and learn proper English while you’re at it, open your mind, then we’ll talk. Nothing more needs to be said.

E s s e n c e: Poor schmuck, he thinks is as a concession, when in reality is like the Christians say, "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you."

DontNeedChrist:

There's no getting through to him and his ilk. He'll just heap self-praise all over himself in a vapid celebration only having proven nothing but complete ignorance. Then he'll sprinkle various insults against rabbinical teachings. Nothing new under the sun.

E s s e n c e: Exactly, DNC.

JX Amaro:
LOL: It’s deja vu all over again. DNC has decided, once again, to go “Full Masada” on an arbitrary – and self-evidently absurd – dogmatic claim. Yes, we are told that “zera” (ie, offspring/seed) can only be understood in the plural and not the singular! Let’s test that out.

1 – The Kennedy Brothers are the offspring of Joseph P and Rose Kennedy. (Plural)
2 – JFK is the offspring of Joseph P and Rose Kennedy. (Singular)

Gee, I don’t see any grammatical problem here. But wait! We are talking about “zera”! That’s Hebrew, so it must be different!

Of course, my opinion doesn’t matter. But let’s look at what scholars say on the issue. Here is a summary from an academic paper on the subject:

“This article addresses the question whether the woman’s ‘seed’ in Genesis 3:15 is an individual (as LXX interprets) or her posterity, by an empirical study of how Biblical Hebrew used its pronouns and verb inflections when they are associated with zera, ‘seed’, when it has the nuance ‘offspring’. Syntactically Genesis 3:15 exhibits the pattern found when zera refers to an individual. The article concludes with some suggestions for following the exegetical consequences of this syntactical result.”
Feel free to read the whole paper: https://www.goodsoil.com/docs/resources-files/Seed_of_Woman_-_Singular.pdf

Once again, DNC’s dogmas are refuted by actual evidence and professionals in the field. So much for “zera.”

In short, there are five takeaways from this debate: 1) “Zera” can be singular or plural depending on the context. 2) The parallel between the “Rise and Fall of Adam” story and the “Rise and Fall of Israel” story can not be missed by any objective observer. 3) The parallel of a prophesied singular person who will crush the snake and a prophesied Messiah who will crush the wicked can not be missed by any objective observer. 4) The parallel of the Fall of Adam with the loss of eternal life and the mission of the Messiah to restore that eternal life can not be missed by any objective observer. 5) The Christian Holy Bible is a complete story with a logical, consistent plot and that plot is how eternal life was lost (in Eden) and how eternal life was restored by the Messiah (on the cross) – in an act of self-sacrifice for the benefit of ALL humanity.

Yes, the Eden story and Genesis 3:15 represent messianic prophecy. And yes, that prophecy points directly – and exclusively – to Christ Jesus. And yes, the Judaic Ministry of Disinformation denies the former so as to reject the latter. This, too, is obvious. Very obvious.

Final Score on Genesis 3:15: Yet another blundering fail for DNC. LOL