Basically we should be establishing precedents, not presuppositions.

We shouldn't look for presuppositions to simplify our method to stupidity, that then everything becomes a complexity. - Instead we should analyze the text by its own methods, and adjust our precedents to match.

We adjust a precedent, when more understanding comes along, that gives us a more logical reasoning.

If we just read the Tanakh without biases from the varied Abrahamic religious presuppositions, the text can be seen that Yeshua is prophesied to be the flesh of David, with the spirit of the Lord placed within him.

Many get confused with this, as they no longer accept the Divine Council we find in Psalms 82:1, due to bad language comprehension on EL (H410) and Eloh (H433 + H430).

The God Most High (EL Elyon) is above the Divine Council of Elohim (Deuteronomy 32:7-9), and is the Source of Reality like a CPU in a simulated reality, manifesting it at a quantum level, where it is beyond form.

El (God) is the Source, and Eloh is a being made manifest by El (Isaiah 46:9); adding 'h' meant God breathed, like Abram became Abraham, and Sara became Sarah when blessed by God.

The Biblical authors recognized these differences, and even prophesied that mankind would get confused by this structuring due to other religious cultures; even tho it is the same as the Dharmic comprehension.

Yah + Havah (Lord + To Be - H3050 + H1933) means similar to Brahma (To Be), and Brahma's Source (Father) is Brahman (God Most High - El Elyon).

The Lord said he would become our salvation (Yeshua) by the prophets (Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118:14-21, Isaiah 12:2), and when we read all of Psalms 118, we're not to put our trust in the Son of Man; yet in the one who made the Chief-Corner Stone.

The naming of Yeshua is a continued symbolic naming that goes back to Moses calling Hosea son of Nun, Yehoshua son of Nun... Then we see Yehoshua son of Yehozadek leading the people back after the Babylonian Exile... Thus Yehoshua son of Yoseph is a natural continuation of the naming, that he will be the one who leads us back into the promised land.

Psalms 89:19-21 is paraphrased in Isaiah 52:13-14, where there is an additional yod on the word blemished in the Dead Sea Scrolls making it 'I anointed'.



Psalms 89:19-21 Then you spoke in vision to your saints, and said, “I have given strength to the warrior. I have exalted a young man from the people. (20) I have found David, my servant. I have anointed him with my holy oil, (21) with whom my hand shall be established. My arm will also strengthen him.

Isaiah 52:13-14 Behold, my servant will deal wisely. He will be exalted and lifted up, and will be very high. Just as many were astonished by him, for I anointed him more than others appearance, and his form more than a son of man.

Isaiah 52:10 is the start of the Isaiah 53 passage, as it starts with the Arm of the Lord, which we find repeated in Isaiah 53:1, which then identifies it as a header.

At the end of Isaiah 52:10 we find that we will see 'Yeshuat Eloheinu', which is 'the Salvation of our Lord'; this is also in Psalms 98:3, where the Gentiles see the Right Arm of the Lord interacting with mankind.

Thus the symbolism implies that the spirit of the Lord is put in the vessel of David's flesh, to fulfill what we see in Isaiah 53; so that the Lord could make intercession, as he saw no man who could (Isaiah 59:16, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 53:12).

Therefore Yeh-oshua (Lord + To Save - H3050 + H3467) being the Son of the God Most High in the Synoptic Gospels (Luke 1:32), fits with what was prophesied in the Tanakh.

It is always best to try to establish a premise on data first, and if not, then it can become a presupp.

We don't make up presupps, if the data can be supplied.

In analysis - data comes before presuppositions; in debate - we start with the most accurate information first i.e. data, premise, presupp.

A presupposition should be examined by logical deduction to show the structure of the claims, to establish if data can be supplied in the first place, to then replace it with a logical premise.

We don't take the minimum illogical presupp, with many pressups contained.

We don't match criteria to something with many contained presupps.

Is it logic if we can tell ourselves presupps, so we don't have to deal with the facts?

To be continued....