@ DT

You haven’t proven that Jesus is not the Son of God, even though the Old Testam@ent mentions Him in proverbs 30:4

@Lightenup,

Was it too much to read?

Soooooooo, you can’t prove the Jesus is The Messiah! I understand, I can’t make you see what you don’t want to see; I can only present it. The reality is, it’s up to you to make the choice and I can attest it’s a hard one…for months I kept what I was finding to myself. Also, you would spend less time lear…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

You keep insisting that the Messiah must have a human biological father because “that’s how lineage works in the Tanakh.” But the Tanakh itself gives you a direct counterexample that destroys your argument: Eve.

Eve is fully human.
Eve has no biological father.
Eve has no biological mother.
Eve’s existence comes directly from Go…[Read more]

@Lightenup,

You keep saying “Prove Jesus is the Messiah” and then narrowing that demand to one point: “He has no biological father, therefore his lineage cannot be traced, therefore he cannot be the Messiah.”

It isn’t just a “single point” where the Jesus fails; this is the beginning point. If the Jesus cannot/does not pass this, he ISN’T The Mes…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

You keep saying “Prove Jesus is the Messiah” and then narrowing that demand to one point: “He has no biological father, therefore his lineage cannot be traced, therefore he cannot be the Messiah.” That is not a Tanakh argument; it is your assumption about how God must work.

Let’s separate two issues:

1) What the Tanakh actually…[Read more]

@Lightenup,

In NONE of what your wrote did you prove the Jesus is The Messiah! I wrote on how the Jesus couldn’t be The Messiah starting with the birth narrative and you respond with criticism of what the Tanakh says, calling what I wrote assumptions; except what would have been the understanding of procreation in the time of Moses? Keep r…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

You’re stacking assumptions and then calling them “Tanakh.” Let’s untangle them.

1. “Zera means biological only.”

You say “zera” means biological only. But “zera” (seed) in the Tanakh is used both for physical descendants and for promised lines where God Himself guarantees the continuation. The promise to Abraham’s “zera” is…[Read more]

@Lightenup,

Jesus did not have a biological father.

Then we have a problem! The word for descendant used in the passages concerning David’s throne is “zera”, which means to produce after one’s own kind – making it biological. Did you not read Num 1:2, 18, 2:2, 32; Ezra 2:59? How is tribal lineage determined going all the way back to Moses? You sai…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

Jesus did not have a biological father.
Jesus’ tribal lineage is traced the same way the Tanakh traces tribal lineage in multiple cases: – biologically through Mary (David → Nathan → Mary → Jesus) – legally through Joseph (David → Solomon → Joseph → Jesus) – divinely through God’s appointment (Psalm 2; Psalm 110)

@Lightenup,

I didn’t ask about messianic references, as we’ll most likely agree on a fair number of them; I asked to PROVE the Jesus IS the Messiah and to begin with the birth narrative.

Who is the Jesus’ biological father and does this fit with what G-d said concerning tribal lineage and sons being counted with their fathers house (Num 1:2, 18,…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

Starting with this: “What does the Tanakh actually say about the Messiah?”

Let’s use only what the Tanakh itself says, not later rabbinic expectations, not Christian tradition, and not assumptions imported from either side.

If we are going to evaluate whether Jesus fulfills the Tanakh, we must first identify what the Tanakh act…[Read more]

@Lightenup,

Prove the Jesus is the Messiah! If that cannot be established, everything thing we are talking about is a waste of time. If the Jesus isn’t the Messiah, who cares what the unknown writer of Hebrews says or claims the Jesus is, or how it aligns or doesn’t align with the Tanakh, or if it fits a Messianic prophecy or not.

This takes us…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

You are now agreeing with the textual points but shifting everything back to one question: “Is Jesus the true Messiah?” That is fine, but you are skipping the necessary step that comes before that. Hebrews 1 is not trying to prove Jesus is the Messiah by quoting the Tanakh. Hebrews 1 is explaining who the Son is, assuming the mes…[Read more]

@Lightenup,

Point 1. I don’t disagree with at all; upon further study, Davidic kingship can be applied to mean Messianic. Now we roll back to my original question, is the Jesus the true Messiah and can this be applied to him.

Point 2. I agree with what you wrote, you articulated it better than I did; the main idea of what I said is that this c…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

You keep trying to change the subject from the actual question.

You asked:
“Does Hebrews chapter one claim all that is quoted from the Tanakh is applied to Jesus or not?”

Answer: Yes, Hebrews 1 applies those passages to the Son. That is explicit in the text.

Hebrews 1:1–2: God spoke through the prophets, but now has spoken in Hi…[Read more]

@Lightenup,

I can’t believe I allowed you suck me into this rabbit hole and away from what was originally said, stop wasting time; does Hebrews chapter one claim all that is quoted from the Tanakh is applied to the Jesus or not? If yes, then explain and support it with the Tanakh, not with the writings and musing of man; if no, then rip the b…[Read more]

@Keith

James 1:5 tells us that if we lack wisdom, we should ask God. With that in mind, would you be willing to sincerely ask God the Father whether His Son, Jesus, ever began to exist, or whether the Son has always existed in some manner? I am not asking you to accept my view—only to ask the Father directly and be open to whatever He shows you.

The writings about Jerome says he didnt like the sepyuagint and switched to a corrupted latin version to translate the OT. That is where i am that i am came from. From Hebrew it translates-i will be what i will be. But to mislead because Jesus said i am( he lived before Abraham) Catholicism used i am that i am to mislead.

Lightenup–The Father created his only begotten son-The Hebrew word-possessed at Prov 8:22 means created in Hebrew. = The firstborn of all creation-false religions twist these facts because it exposes them as false. Only a HE created, not a we.( Gen 1:27-Prov 8:27-28)-Gods master worker(Jesus) is the builder not the creator.