Ask me toughest question on Bible that will test the knowledge of theologian (not belief). I am attending Bible college and i will ask there. Hopefully they will give me answers and I will post here.Then give me further arguments on that answer.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Which of the two creation stories do you believe in? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?
I think you are referring to Gen 1:25-27 and Gen 2:18-19. I will ask this tomorrow. Thanks.
Please tell me why in Numbers 14:12-14:20, it says that Moses actually changed Gods' mind. (specifically 14:13) I'm dying to get an answer for this :)
Yes I got your point. I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks.
Stu. K. Numbers 14:12-14:20. In what Bible does that say?
Its from "The Book of Numbers" which is a book for Christians. Did I answer your question?
Stu. K. Let's see.
Numbers 14: 12-14:20 (New King James Version):
"12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.” 13 And Moses said to the Lord: “Then the Egyptians will hear it, for by Your might You brought these people up from among them, 14 and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, Lord, are among these people; that You, Lord, are seen face to face and Your cloud stands above them, and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.... 20 Then the Lord said: “I have pardoned, according to your word".
I don't read the phrase you put.
By the way, the book of Numbers is addressed to the Jews, not to the Christians.
It doesnt directly say that he changed his mind, but is shown very clearly he did. God said he was about to kill some people, but Moses said "The Egyptians would hear, so don't do it". So then in numbers 14:20, God said he pardoned killing people according to MOSE'S word where he said The Egyptians will hear about him killing people. Regarding the Jewish thing, shit I guess you're right on that. Thanks for the correction.
Okay. I had taken "mind" as "mentality, thought," but it is better as "opinion, point of view."
The first would be a theological nonsense, and the second also and contradicts Numbers 23:19; James 1:17, and many other passages.
First, we can say statements such as “the LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth” (Genesis 6:6) are examples of anthropopathism (or anthropopatheia). Anthropopathism is a figure of speech in which the feelings or thought processes of finite humanity are ascribed to the infinite God. It’s a way to help us understand God’s work from a human perspective. In Genesis 6:6 specifically, we understand God’s sorrow over man’s sin. God obviously did not reverse His decision to create man. The fact that we are alive today is proof that God did not “change His mind” about the creation.
Second, we must make a distinction between conditional declarations of God and unconditional determinations of God. In other words, when God said, “I will destroy Nineveh in forty days,” He was speaking conditionally upon the Assyrians’ response. We know this because the Assyrians repented and God did not, in fact, mete out the judgment. God did not change His mind; rather, His message to Nineveh was a warning meant to provoke repentance, and His warning was successful.
I'm sorry, but I am SO sick and tired of Christians twisting the bible like this saying things are "symbolic" or "metaphorical". If that's the case, then that means he's obviously trying to split his believers up and argue amongst one another about what his "holy words" say and mean. Which is interesting because Romans 16:17 says "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught;"
Stu. K. Please, compare Romans 16:17 with Mathew 18:15-17, Luke 17:3b-4 and 1 Corinthians 11:18-19.
1. "saying things are "symbolic" or "metaphorical"" - But they are.
2. "split his believers up" - I don't have any believers.
3. "argue amongst one another about what his "holy words" say and mean." - What is wrong with arguing?
Hello, UnKnown. Your verbosity is subordinated to the Biblical story. Out of the same one there neither exists the sin (only there exist crimes, infractions, faults, which are settled by human laws), not the conversion of the Assyrians, not a God who threatens Nínive nor is the Master of any History nor decides anything, is more, even neither said anything it and nor exists. You close the (pathetic) book in question, and there is nothing of all that, and if we are alive today it is because we breathe.
I did not understand that response, so I will answer the question of whether God changes his mind again. No, God does not change his mind – not in an eternal sense. However, we do see verses in the Bible that imply he does – in a temporal sense. We have to understand that God has revealed himself to us in what we call anthropomorphic revelation. This means that he has lowered himself to our level and speaks to us in a manner that is consistent with our understanding. Consider how God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden. God, who is the infinite being, who encompasses the entire universe, became like us so that we could communicate with him.
After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden and hid themselves, God said, “Adam, where are you?” (Gen. 3:9). Should we conclude that God who knows everything didn’t know where Adam was? Of course not. He was asking not just about Adam’s location, but also about his spiritual condition. This illustrates that at the very beginning of God’s communication with us, he spoke in a manner that relates to us in our time frame, from our perspective. That is why God, in the Garden, went looking for Adam – because he was working from our perspective.
We know that God has, from all eternity, ordained whatsoever shall come to pass because he works all things after the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1:11). However, when he deals with us we see verses that say he changes his mind. Let’s take a look.
"So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people," (Exodus 32:14).
“Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and the Lord changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves," (Jeremiah 26:19).
The fact is that God knows all things (1 John 3:20) and he has known it all forever. To say that God would actually change his mind would imply that God, who is supposed to have known all things forever, decided to act in a manner that was different from what he has always known he would do. He would have known that he was going to change his mind, which means he isn’t changing his mind because he knew he was going to do it. So, how is he really changing his mind if he decided to do something all along that only appears (to us) that he changed his mind?
Consider how God would sometimes pronounce judgment on nations, saying he was going to destroy them; and sometimes those nations would repent. God then relented from judging them. In other words, he changed his mind and didn’t judge them even though he said he would. Are we to say that God didn’t know from all eternity that they would repent? Of course he knew. How do we know that he didn’t say he would destroy them to get them to repent, which was all according to his plan? Furthermore, God holding back his judgment is consistent with what he already said elsewhere:
“If that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it,” (Jer. 18:8).
So, what we’re seeing is God changing his mind from our perspective, but from the eternal perspective he never did. He’s not surprised by our choices, and he does not have to adapt to our mistakes or our plans. He works all things after the counsel of his will, and he does so eternally.
(Copied and Pasted: https://carm.org/can-god-change-his-mind)
That is gobbledygook; change always involves time. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
God's ultimate plan (Jesus saving us and coming back) doesn't change, nor does his nature. But how he gets there changes for what we do. God would have destroyed Nineveh if they didn't repent, but they did, so he didn't destroy them. However, this doesn't mean he didn't know that they were going to do it.
Gods nature changes, yet it also says it doesn't in the Bible. Contradiction?
There is God nature and Man nature. Basically Jesus had just God nature, then took on Man nature. He could only take on Man nature, is it didn't contradict with his God nature. It didn't. There are massive paragraphs which try to explain this. This is extremely simplified.
UnKnown. If you have not understood it ... I will say it with more clarity.
“God is not a man.” Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Job 9:32.
“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” Psalm 146:3.
Your arguments do not serve: God is not a man.
The "sin" does not exist: It is a Biblical religious concept that does not exist in real life.
The messiah does not save; it is a matter only of God.
The messiah only must come once. The "second coming" does not exist in the Jewish texts.
The Biblical tale has just fallen down.
Sorry (or not).
1. "Your arguments do not serve: God is not a man." - The reference to man is to sinfulness and inferiority, as inferiority to God. Jesus is described as being made a little lower than the angels.
2. "nor in the son of man" - The son of man, at least in the NIV, is said as "mortal men".
3. "The messiah only must come once. The "second coming" does not exist in the Jewish texts." - Many Old Testament prophecies foretell the ultimate triumph of Christ, which will occur at the second advent. These include statements from the books of Zechariah (Zechariah 9:14–15; 12:10–14; 13:1; 9:14–15); Amos (Amos 9:11–15); Jeremiah (Jeremiah 30:18; 32:44; 33:11, 26); and Joel (Joel 3:1); which describe the Messiah coming in triumph to lead Israel into salvation. Note that these are in the context of passages such as Deuteronomy 30:3–5 and so are predictions of the time of Messiah’s final victory. Also, Scripture records Jesus making direct comparisons to Old Testament prophecies when making His own claims to a second advent. For example, His words in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 parallel the descriptions of Isaiah 52:15 and Isaiah 59—62.
4. "The messiah does not save; it is a matter only of God." - The messiah (Jesus) IS God.
UnKnown. Classic in Christian "arguments": all wrong, all distorted by the "new revelation," the impossible revelation. (Tired of repeating it over and over again)
1A. "The reference to man is sinfulness and inferiority, the inferiority to God."
No: it is a Christian interpretation and misrepresentation, one of many: God is not a man, God will never be a man. Or is it that Christians know more about Judaism than Jews?
1 B. “Jesus is described as being made a little lower than the angels."
In the new revelation. Where is it prophesied in the Tanakh?
2. “The son of man, at least in the NIV, is said to be the "mortal men".
"Son of man": New King James Version; King James Version; 21st Century King James Version; Authorized King James Version; American Standard Version; Modern English Version ...
A) "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the BEN ADAM, in whom there is no teshuah (salvation)." Orthodox Jewish Bible; New American Bible Revised.
Ben Adam. "Jesus, the son of Adam": Luke 3:38.
B) "... in mortals." Complete Jewish Bible; New Revised Standard Version Anglicised; New American Standard Version. Was Jesus mortal?
3. "Many Old Testament prophecies foretell the ultimate triumph of Christ, which will occur at the second advent. These include statements from the books of Zechariah (Zechariah 9: 14-15; 12: 10-14; 13: 1; 9: 14-15), Amos (Amos 9: 11-15), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 30:18, 32:44, 33:11, 26), and Joel (Joel 3: 1), which describes the Messiah coming in triumph Lead Israel into salvation, Note that these are in the context of passages such as Deuteronomy 30: 3-5 and so are predictions of the time of Messiah's final victory. For example, His words in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 parallel the descriptions of Isaiah 52:15 and Isaiah 59-62.”
A) There is not a prophecy in the Old Testament that announces a second coming. It is Christian invention and misrepresentation, again and again, perennially, not to fulfill Jesus or a messianic prophecy. Where is it prophesied that the messiah would come, leave everything to be done and return again? Where, clearly, without bluntness or inventions?
Zechariah: It does not even refer to the messiah, and nothing to apply to Jesus.
Amos: refers to the restoration of the Davidic monarchy "upon the return of Babylonian exile," not sine die. It was not fulfilled.
Jeremiah: You can not move prophecies from here to there without meaning. All these prophecies had to be fulfilled in a concrete context: Babylonian exile and the return to Judah and Jerusalem. They were not fulfilled. See Joel 3.
Joel 3: "1 For behold, in those days and at that time, When I bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem, 2 I will also gather all nations, and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.”
Captives of Judah and Jerusalem. “My people and heritage: Israel,” the other nations are differentiated.
B) Deuteronomy 30: Directed only to the Israelites, to no one else, like all the Tanakh.
C) Matthew 24 and Mark 13: Do not be delusional. Matthew and Mark wrote what they wanted, and almost everything misrepresented.
4. “The messiah (Jesus) IS God.”
No, for many times you repeat it. Point 1A. “God is not a man.” The true messiah must be a man, without any divine connotation, son of humans (son of a King of the Davidic dynasty, not son of a carpenter nor of God): The Jewish god will never be part of a trinity of gods / people, Is not "composed" by three persons, whether or not consubstantial among they. Deuteronomy 6:4. Or is it that Christians know more about Judaism than Jews? Ask Jewish scholars, to see what they say.
Mr. UnKnown, you are being deceived, like all Christians, and for almost two thousand years.
1. "No: it is a Christian interpretation and misrepresentation, one of many: God is not a man, God will never be a man." - All the OT references to God not being Man is followed by "that he should lie" or "that he should repent", or the like. Jesus never did this. When he became Man, he was still perfect and untainted. When the OT references Man, it refers to Man's sinfulness.
2. "Where is it prophesied in the Tanakh?" - It isn't.
3. Since you didn't like those, here are some more. There are some 39 predictions of the Messiah in the Old Testament prophets. A sample of these announcements before they happened would include these facts. First, it was predicted that Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isa 7:14; cf. Mt 1:33). His birthplace would be Bethlehem (Mic 5:2; cf. Mt 2:1, 6), and John the Baptist would be his forerunner (Isa 40:3-5; Mal 3:1; cf. Mt 3:3, Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4-6). It was further announced ahead of time that Messiah would enter Jerusalem [what turned out to be Palm Sun- day] in Triumph as the crowd shouted “Hosanna” (Zech 9:9-10; Ps 118:25-26; cf. Mt 21:9; Mk 11:9; Lk 19:38; Jh 12:13). But in less than a week, he would be betrayed [by one of his own disciples, Judas, as it turned out] (Ps 69:25; cf. Acts 1:20). Messiah’s side would be pierced (Zech 12:10; cf. Jh 19:37), and he would suffer vicariously for the sins of the world (Isa 53:6, 9, 12; cf. I Pt 2:21-25; Rom 4:25). Even more dramatically accurate was the fact that Jesus would be killed with the “wicked” ones (Isa 53:9a, note the plural noun in Hebrew) [as he hung between two thieves], yet he would be buried with the rich one (Isa 53:9b, note its singular form in the Hebrew). But that was not the end of the matter for the predictions about Jesus in the Old Testament, for Messiah would return to earth a second time (Daniel 7:13; cf Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27), and he would one day rule in the city of Jerusalem as King of kings, as the nations would go up to that city to be taught in his ways, never more to “train for war anymore” (Isa 2:3-4).
4. "No, for many times you repeat it. Point 1A. “God is not a man.” The true messiah must be a man, without any divine connotation, son of humans (son of a King of the Davidic dynasty, not son of a carpenter nor of God)" - The messiah was both man and God. He was the son of Joseph (legally), and the son of Mary (biologically), who was also a decedent of David. He had his Godly nature and Man nature (before it was tainted by sin).
5. "Deuteronomy 6:4" - When is refers to God is one, I agree. One being, three distinct persons, but One nevertheless.
UnKnown. Well, you go right ahead.
Do not send me to discover prophecies; I have thirteen books written on biblical criticism, including all prophecies.
I have done what I could to awaken you from the biblical fraud. Sorry if you do not take advantage of it.
Then can you please rebuttal the above?
UnKnown. Of course it does. It is all refuted in my books (but only one is in Spanish and English: "Jesus, the False Messiah." The others are only in Spanish language).
Have you refuted what I wrote?:
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the BEN ADAM, in whom there is no teshuah (salvation)." Orthodox Jewish Bible; New American Bible Revised.
Ben Adam. "Jesus, the son of Adam": Luke 3:38.
Then don't put your trust in Jesus.
Christianity (and Judaism) is a jumble of nonsense, plagiarism, myths, erroneous translations of the Tanakh, a total fraud.
Please, do not take it badly but I can not waste time with people who do not want to know but just believe. Others take advantage of my books / refutations.
All I can say is they're putting you on.
Reading the context carefully shows that this Psalm in no way refutes the Deity of the Lord Jesus, or his function as Savior. The son of man in this particular Psalm is a reference to frail, mortal humanity collectively, that persons should not put their hope in mere mortals since they all die and fade away. Here is the entire Psalm in order to prove that this is what the Psalmist meant in context:
"Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD, O my soul! I will praise the LORD as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have being. Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish. Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; who keeps faith for ever; who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free; the LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down; the LORD loves the righteous. The LORD watches over the sojourners, he upholds the widow and the fatherless; but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin. The LORD will reign for ever, thy God, O Zion, to all generations. Praise the LORD!" Psalm 146:1-10. And what kind of Son of Man did Jesus proclaim himself to be? Is he an ordinary son of man like Daniel or Ezekiel that fades and dies? Or is he the Divine Son of Man of Daniel, the One who lives and rules forever? We will let Jesus and the NT answer that for us:
"And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then HE will send out the angels, and gather HIS elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven." Mark 13:26-27
"But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’" Mark 14:61-62
"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;’" Matthew 25:31-34
"But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’" Acts 7:55-56
"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so." Amen. Revelation 1:7
Basically, Jesus isn’t merely a son of man like the others; he is actually THE DIVINE Son of Man who lives forever:
"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I AM ALIVE FOR EVERMORE, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.’" Revelation 1:12-18
UnKnown. To defend your position, do you reply with an argument from Islam?
Why not consult with Judaism?
As neither Christianity nor Islam knows, I explain it to you: the Psalms are not prophetic, they have no prophetic value, it is not something that should be done or fulfilled by someone, one of the biggest Christian and Islamic errors, as far as I can see.
Check the Jewish canon of your sacred texts.
Please, though, I'm sorry, your credibility has dropped a lot, try another way.
1. "UnKnown. To defend your position, do you reply with an argument from Islam?" - It's a Christian site that refutes Islam arguments, not an Islam site.
2. "the Psalms are not prophetic, they have no prophetic value" - It must be noted that Psalms can most certainly be predictive prophecies. For example, the third chapter of Habakkuk, which predicts God's ultimate judgment on the wicked nations whom God will use to chastise His people for their sin, is actually a Psalm. One doesn't need to know much about Hebrew poetry to recognize that the chapter is structured through familiar musical terms like "Selah" (v. 3, 9, 13) that are common throughout the Psalms. It is also specifically addressed to the choir director to be performed on string instruments (verse 19).
King David commissioned a group of priestly musicians who were "to prophesy with lyres, harps, and cymbals," (1 Chronicles 25:1). Among them was the household of Asaph who wrote 12 of the Psalms,1 Heman who wrote another,2 and Jeduthan who was involved in the composition of three.3 They were commissioned to prophesy through music, and from that came biblical Psalms. There is no contradiction between being a Psalm and being prophecy. Indeed, there is an important, positive relationship between the two.
Let's take Psalm 2 for example. Like Psalm 22, the author speaks in the past tense, saying things like:
"He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware," (Psalm 2:7-9).
In spite of the grammatical tense and the author speaking in the first person, interpreters have long understood this Psalm as a prophetic text speaking of the Messiah. Christians are not the only ones who see it this way. The Rabbinic tradition in the Babylonian Talmud treats Psalm 2 as a Messianic prophecy, saying:
"The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as it is said, I will tell of the decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance," (Sukkah 52a).4
An early Jewish Midrash also states:
"Three persons were bidden 'ask', viz.: Solomon, Ahaz, and the King Messiah. Solomon: Ask what I shall give thee (1 Kings III, 5). Ahaz: Ask thee a sign (Isa. VII, 11). The King Messiah: Ask of Me, etc. (Ps. II, 8)," (Midrash Rabbah Genesis, Chapter XLIV, Section 85
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the fragment 4Q174 explicitly identifies Psalm 2 as a prophecy against the nations in the Messianic age.6 The scroll 1Q28b refers to the Messiah smashing the nations with his scepter7 and testifies that all the nations will serve him,8 imagery that is also likely drawn from the Psalm as a Messianic revelation. Unsurprisingly, the New Testament writers also point to this passage as a Messianic promise (Acts 13:33. Hebrews 1:5, Revelation 2:26-27, etc.) as did other early Christian writers.9 The ancient interpreters, whether Rabbinic, Sectarian, or Christian, were united in understanding this Psalm to predict a future promised King. And why wouldn't they? Did David, Solomon, or any king after them receive all the nations as an inheritance? Did the whole Gentile world see in any of them the might of God declared in the King God had installed on His holy mountain? Indeed, it was clear to the ancient readers, and should be clear to us, that this Psalm pointed to a future Son of David, the Messiah to come.
This being the case, it is clear that Psalms can and do point forward prophetically to future fulfillments, at least sometimes messianic fulfillments.
Also "Why would Matthew (or any other gospel writer) have fabricated fulfilled prophecies and then have been willing to be put to death for following someone who he secretly knew was really not the Messiah? That wouldn’t make any sense. What’s more, the Jewish community would have jumped on any opportunity to discredit the Gospels by pointing out falsehoods. “They would have said, ‘I was there, and Jesus’ bones were broken by the Romans during the crucifixion,’” Lapides says. “And even though the Jewish Talmud refers to Jesus in derogatory ways, it never once makes the claim that the fulfillment of prophecies was falsified. Not one time.”
1. "It's a Christian site that refutes Islam arguments, not an Islam site." Sorry; I correct it: To defend your position, do you reply with an argument from Christianity to Islam?
The only ones allowed to interpret their sacred texts are the Jewish scholars themselves, no one else, including Midrash, Talmud, etc., and Psalms, of course.
Who gave authority to the Gentiles to interpret and take possession of them?
Do you know that Tanakh prohibits removing or adding a word o fact from your texts? That's what Jesus himself said!
I repeat: why not consult the Jews scholars? Is there fear of something?
2. Psalm 2, and 110, are messianic Psalms, but not messianic prophecies.
3. “the New Testament writers also point to this passage as a Messianic promise.”
What Christian scholars (or Islam) say has no value. They are texts that appropriated them without legitimacy, they are not theirs, they were directed only to the Israelite-Jews.
4. The messiah is a Jewish character for the Jews... “for the Jews.” It means anointed king of Israel (the priests were also anointed) ... “king of Israel.” When was Jesus king of Israel?
5. Psalm 22 is one of the most employees-distorted- to justify the messiahship of Jesus: this Psalm is part of the context of a prophetic canticle, and refers exclusively to who will happen to the Jews of Persia, and more specifically to the intervention of Esther and Purim, and has no ties with the messiah: translated from the Hebrew, the Psalm begins by saying “The Chief Musician. About Aielet hashajar. A Psalm of David.” Aielet hashajar was a nickname of Esther.
Written centuries after the fact, the Psalm, however, is attributed to David.
Christian “scholars” do not know it, nor do they want to know it.
6. First you must understand Judaism by legal means; Then you will understand Christian fraud.