- This topic has 219 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Proverbs 30:4 is a riddle about the identity of a divine figure.
How did I know you were going to say it’s a riddle! Why do you believe it’s a riddle? What if there isn’t anything mysterious about the passage at all and it’s just Solomon using wisdom to express the power of G-d that no man possesses, no matter the level of power or intelligence they have.
Reading this passage we start with Agur speaking with two others and basically calls himself stupid. He then asks them four rhetorical questions; who has gone to heaven and back, who has gathered the wind in their hand, bound water in their coat, or has established the earth? Of course the only and obvious answer is G-d; only G-d can do all these things. Then the final question asks, “what is his name?” it’s not making the conclusion it’s G-d; it’s asking the two people what man can do these things and if there is someone who can, what’s his sons name. Since the answer is no human can, there is no son of this non-existent person, either.
You emphatically state “The ‘Son’ cannot be Israel or Solomon, because neither ascended to heaven, gathered the wind, wrapped the waters, nor established the earth” (noticed you capitalized Son to make it a proper noun when it’s not). Since you have heard these teaching of the son possibly being either Israel or Solomon, why do you reject these possibilities?
In Ex4:21-23 G-d explicitly states the people of Israel are HIS firstborn son; and throughout the Tanahk HE refers to Israel as a son; so reading the Proverbs passage and answering all the questions with G-d, wouldn’t Israel being the son fit? The same thing could apply to Solomon since G-d called him HIS son in I Chron 22:10, 28:6 and II Sam 7:14. What about Ps 89:20 where G-d calls David his firstborn? There are now three scriptural possibilities of who the son could be; now what?
Personally, I don’t think the “son” is a reference to Israel, Solomon, or David; they’re rhetorical questions that don’t require an answer because the answer is already known. Even Agur, who considers himself the dumbest of the dumb, knows the answer. Am I saying my thought is the absolute correct one, no; just a logical one. To say the son is the Jesus is interpretive because only the father performed the tasks and NOT the son; it only asks for the son’s name of the one who can, not that the son also possesses the same abilities.
Are there any passages in the Tanakh that say G-d has a “son” that HE will send to earth for the redemption of mankind’s sins?
When God says He will make Solomon’s dynasty “permanent,” He does not mean an endless biological chain of Solomon’s sons ruling on earth.
OBVIOUSLY!!!! Jecohiah had his kingship removed and the line of kings ended. Read Hosea 3:4-5 where G-d tells Israel they would be without a king until the end of days (that’s a good one for a later date). I never said the kingship was from one king to the next forever. The only stipulation G-d made in this promise was Solomon’s dynasty would be permanent and since lineages continue thru a biological process (not some pagan creation of a god impregnating a human woman), the true Messiah would have to be someone connected biologically to Solomon; NOT by adoption or thru another of David’s sons. Thus rendering the Jesus as a false messiah since his daddy was a spirit.
So “permanent dynasty” means an eternal king from David’s line, not an endless chain of earthly kings. The covenant is fulfilled in the Messiah, the final Davidic ruler who reigns forever.
How many sons have been born over the last 3500 years that are biologically connected to Solomon? You need to put it into a Hebraic mindset and not christianities. You’re almost there, let go of your religion and turn to G-d; HE’s waiting! It is freeing to not have to do mental gymnastics all the time to explain why you believe what you believe or to live under the shackles of religion, knowing it’s G-d and G-d alone who saves and forgives, and knowing you have a direct line to G-d and don’t need a “mediator” to get to HIM.
Stop and verify everything!
You keep asserting that God cannot have an only‑begotten Son, but you have not shown where the Tanakh says this. So let me ask directly:
Where does the Tanakh say that God cannot have a Son?
Where does it say God cannot beget?
Where does it say God cannot send His Son?
Where does it say God cannot reveal Himself through His Son?If this is your position, show me the verse. If the Tanakh never says this, then your objection is philosophical, not textual.
You keep asserting that the Messiah must be biologically descended from Solomon, and that God cannot have an only‑begotten Son. But you have not shown where the Tanakh says either of these things.
So let me ask directly:
1. Where does the Tanakh say the Messiah must come from Solomon specifically?
2. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot have an only‑begotten Son?
3. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot beget?
4. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot create a child without a human father?
5. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot send His Son?
6. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot reveal Himself through His Son?If these are your positions, show me the verses. If the Tanakh never says these things, then your objections are philosophical, not textual.
The Tanakh requires the Messiah to be from David — not from Solomon — and it never forbids God from having a Son or acting miraculously in a birth. If you believe these things are impossible, the burden is on you to show where the Tanakh says so.
Your response is bewildering! You can’t support what you believe so you’re going to use reverse arguments to support it; because to doesn’t say it’s not there, it is?!??? A pastor tried this on me once; we’re adults, not grade-schoolers on a playground. Either you can support what you believe or you can’t; if you can’t, why do you believe what you believe?
Where does the Tanakh say that God cannot have a Son?
HE does have a son, a firstborn; Israel (Ex 4:22-23; Deut 32:6; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1 )
Where does it say God cannot beget?
“In the Bible, “begat” means to father or bring forth a child, often used in genealogies to indicate lineage.” So the Jesus was fathered by the spirit, who is not in the lineage of David and Solomon and therefore the Jesus is not of their lineage. How is it you don’t see this?? It would seem it’s willful ignorance. You still haven’t answered: what does G-d mean when he says of Solomon “I will make his dynasty permanent” or “I will grant to his dynasty permanent rule over Israel”?
Where does it say God cannot send His Son?
Where does it say HE would send anyone to be the “propitiation/atoning sacrifice for our sins” (I John 2:2), the purpose of the Jesus coming according to christianity; especially when G-d said each individual is responsible for their own sins (Deut 24:16; Jer 31:30; Ezk 18:20). I say we are responsible for our own sin and will be held accountable for it as the Tanakh teaches; it’s chrisitanity who claims G-d sent a son into this world to atone for sin; it’s not up to me to prove “G-d cannot send HIS son”, that belongs to you to prove HE did!
Where does it say God cannot reveal Himself through His Son?
One has to first believe G-d has a “special son” with HIM in heaven; since G-d NEVER spoke of this “special son” in the Tanakh, why would I or anyone believe there was one? G-d spoke with the heavenly host (angels) and consulted with them (Gen 1:26; Gen 11:7; Job 1-2; I Kings 22:19-22), but never with HIS “special son”?!?! Hmmm!
Your second set of “if you can’t prove the opposite, your wrong and I’m right” childish arguments.
Where does the Tanakh say the Messiah must come from Solomon specifically?
II Sam 7:12 and I Chron 28:7 are the two passages I already gave you; unless you don’t understand the “birds and the bees.” Every person up to Solomon was conceived thru a man and woman copulating and there after, all the way to the Jesus (designed by G-d); but suddenly G-d says HE’s going to impregnate a woman for the first time in the history of mankind. Wake up!!
Where does the Tanakh say God cannot have an only‑begotten Son?
Been over this!
Where does the Tanakh say God cannot beget?
Remember the definition above; because HE told man to “be fruitful and multiple” (Gen 1:28) why would HE get involved in impregnating a woman.
Where does the Tanakh say God cannot create a child without a human father?
Now we are entering pagan territory, recall Greek and Roman gods. Israel is G-d’s chosen people and set apart from the rest of the nations (Gen 17:7; Ex 19:5-6; Deut 7:6; Amos 3:1-2, etc.); so why would G-d create a baby like other religions of the world do? Even if G-d did father the Jesus, what was the mission of the Jesus: “I was sent only to help God’s lost sheep—the people of Israel.” (Matt 15:24); read that again, the ONLY purpose of the Jesus was for the lost of Israel, the 10 tribes scattered and of which lost tribe did the Jesus return to God? Not one! According to Isa 11:10-16 the “root of Jesse” will “assemble the banished of Israel, And gather the dispersed of Judah” and please don’t tell me the Jesus will do this when he returns, this is NEVER once mentioned in the NT! The Jesus when he returns is only to judge those who rejected him. The Jesus fails to fulfill what the Messiah is to do when he comes; what else didn’t the Jesus do? Could this be why the religious leaders rejected him as the true Messiah?
Where does the Tanakh say God cannot send His Son?
Did this already!
Where does the Tanakh say God cannot reveal Himself through His Son?
Another already answered!
The evidence against christianity is mountainous and all any christian has to do is read and study the Tanakh to find the truth and one will find the NT doesn’t align with the Tanakh. I am not here to convert or change you; you have to that. The Tanakh has everything you need; it’s written in black and white. Verify everything you have been told is truth!
I want to start by acknowledging something important about your story. You’ve shared that you spent forty years in Christian churches, raising sincere questions about the relationship between the Tanakh and the New Testament — and that your pastor and fellow churchgoers didn’t give you meaningful answers. I can understand how discouraging that must have been. When someone is honestly wrestling with Scripture, they deserve thoughtful engagement, not dismissal.
I’m not here to repeat the mistakes of the people who let you down. I want to represent the kind of believer who actually listens to your concerns and takes them seriously. And to do that well, I think we need to focus on one issue at a time, instead of trying to solve everything at once.
From everything you’ve said, I sense that the crux of the matter — the point where everything else hinges — is creation.
More specifically:
• Was the Son present before creation?
• Was the Son active during creation?
• And does the Tanakh allow for the Son to be an agent of creation?If the answer is “yes,” then many of the other questions fall into place.
If the answer is “no,” then your concerns make sense.So let’s look at the one New Testament chapter that most directly honors the Tanakh on this point: Hebrews 1. I’m not asking you to accept the New Testament as authoritative — only to see whether Hebrews 1 is consistent with the Tanakh’s own categories.
Here is the concise comparison:
1. The Tanakh teaches that creation happened through God’s Word and Wisdom.
– “By the Word of the LORD the heavens were made.” (Psalm 33:6)
– “The LORD by Wisdom founded the earth.” (Proverbs 3:19)
– Proverbs 8 describes Wisdom as existing before creation, being brought forth before the world, standing beside God, and acting as the master craftsman.2. Hebrews 1 uses the same categories the Tanakh uses.
The Son is described as the one “through whom God made the worlds,” the radiance of God’s glory, the exact imprint of His nature, and the one who upholds all things. This matches the Word/Wisdom pattern of the Tanakh.3. Hebrews 1 quotes Psalm 102 — a creation psalm addressed to YHWH — and applies it to the Son.
Psalm 102 says of YHWH: “You laid the foundation of the earth,” “The heavens are the work of Your hands,” “You are the same,” and “Your years have no end.” Hebrews 1:10–12 applies these words directly to the Son.4. Hebrews 1 also quotes Psalm 45, where the king is called “God,” and applies it to the Son.
This matches the Tanakh’s pattern of a divine, enthroned ruler (Psalm 2, Psalm 45, Daniel 7).5. Hebrews 1 distinguishes between ceremonial Sonship and eternal Sonship — just like the Tanakh does.
Psalm 2 (“Today I have begotten you”) is ceremonial of the induction of a king and applies this to a promised king which Hebrews 1 identifies as Jesus who is also identified as the YHWH who was the active agent of creation.Please don’t try to psychoanalyze me…it won’t end well 🙂
The “crux” has nothing to do with creation (although what I understand today is opposite of chrisitanity); the “crux” is the christian church lied to me for 40 years and I have only recently come to realize it. My journey started with asking my pastor questions to the point it angered him and later almost got me kicked out. I was told I was studying to much and needed to pray more…what the what??!??! (most every church I’ve attended the pastors has said to verify what they’re saying; I did, and now I need to stop questioning what they’re teaching and stop questioning doctrine??). I left christianity because of the lies I was discovering.
The three questions you ask concerning creation are ALL an emphatic NO! The Jesus never existed before or during creation And he had no part in it. G-d did it all
You site Proverbs 8 and in that you will find the Jesus where he doesn’t exist. I would presume you are referring to Prov 8:22–31, where wisdom is said to be personified as God’s co-creator, begotten before creation, and delighting in humanity…the Jesus.
This entire chapter is personifying wisdom and has nothing to do with the Jesus. A Jewish sage wrote:
Wisdom’s Speech: The previous sections offered mainly practical wisdom, including counsel to young people on how to conduct themselves and what to avoid, as well as a description of seductive wisdom using the imagery of a strange woman. This section depicts a different aspect of wisdom and consists mainly of a poetic soliloquy delivered by an anthropomorphized wisdom. This is a unique speech in the book of Proverbs and, indeed, in the Bible as a whole. Wisdom is described here from its greatest heights down to its lowest levels, from subjects that go beyond metaphysics and the upper worlds to everyday advice given to a young man venturing forth into the world.
You bring in the book of Hebrews; please read this previous posting (link) where I pick apart the first chapter. The passages sited in this first chapter are not used in the context they were written; thus twisting G-d’s word and rendering it as a false book and should be torn from the pages of the NT. How many ever go back and verify passages quoted from the Tanakh? NOT A SINGLE ONE! It took me 40 years to do it; I sat in a church hitting the “I Believe Button”, trusted every word coming from the monologuing individual standing behind a podium and never question a thing, until I did and what happened…
I am here until Dec 31, 2032 midnight or when this site shuts down (which ever comes first), the Jesus is suppose to return by this date as someone here claimed (others of this teaching say 2033). What’s crazy is this is a rising teaching; and when the Jesus doesn’t show up for those who believe it, what then? It will be like the Adventists “Great Disappointment” of the mid 1800’s. Unfortunately, if people only had a brain, the “pretrib rapture” would have occurred and we would be in the tribulation now.
You seem like an intelligent individual, what’s preventing you from verifying passages you were told are about the Jesus in the Tanakh? Read the entire section the verse is embedded in and ask if christianity is using it in its original context. Once you see the lies, you can never unsee them; this is when you realize you’ve been duped and you walk away from christianity and turn to G-d only.
PS The shift away from what we were talking about to analyzing me didn’t go unnoticed.
@DesireTruth
I hear what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to analyze you or your journey. I’m only trying to stay focused on this specific textual question to establish a foundation from which to build on.You said the answer to all three creation questions is “no,” so let me stay with that one point. My goal isn’t to defend church tradition or the New Testament as a whole — only to look at whether the Tanakh itself presents a co‑creator figure.
Proverbs 8 does use poetic personification, but the content still has to be dealt with. The passage describes a figure who:
• existed before creation (“before the depths… before the mountains… before the earth”)
• was “brought forth” before anything was made
• was “beside” God
• was the “master craftsman”
• rejoiced in the creation of the worldLabeling it “personification” doesn’t remove those claims — it just names the literary device. The question remains: what is the Tanakh describing here? This figure is not an angel, not Israel, not Solomon, and not a human king. It is a pre‑creation participant in God’s creative work.
That’s why I brought up Hebrews 1 — not to argue NT authority, but because Hebrews 1 quotes Psalm 102 (a creation psalm addressed to YHWH) and applies it to the Son. My point was simply that Hebrews 1 is using the same categories already present in the Tanakh: a divine figure who is with God and active in creation.
I’m not shifting away from the topic or trying to analyze you personally. I’m staying with the single question that seems foundational to everything else: does the Tanakh present a co‑creator figure distinct from God yet active with Him?
If you want to continue, I’m happy to stay on that one issue alone for now. If we can’t come to an agreement on that foundational issue, it is really pointless to continue and take each other’s time.
Please explain the point you’re trying to make concerning Proverbs 8. Make a statement or ask the question.
Thanks for asking. Here’s the follow‑up question I’m trying to get to:
If Proverbs 8 describes a being who comes forth from God, is with God before creation, stands beside God, and participates in creation as a craftsman, then how do you interpret that figure within the Tanakh?
In other words: what is this being, according to your understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures?
I’m only asking how you explain the figure Proverbs 8 itself describes.
What is this being, according to your understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures?
There’s your misunderstanding, wisdom is not a “being”; wisdom is a characteristic. Wisdom is a gift from G-d given to mankind before G-d created everything, as Solomon writes. Wisdom in this chapter is personified and given man like qualities; does this make it a man – NO!
Stop being vague, ask your question or make your statement. What do you believe?
I believe that the “wisdom” in Prov 8:22+ represents the literal only begotten Son of YHVH who YHVH the Father identifies as the YHVH who all things were made through and for. They are united as one Holy Spirit that is sent to dwell in all true believers, bringing the fellowship of both the Father and the Son of God to them.
Here is my clear statement about Proverbs 8:
Even if we acknowledge that Proverbs 8 uses poetic personification, the text still describes “wisdom” as something that comes forth from YHWH, exists before creation, is with YHWH before anything is made, stands beside Him, and participates in creation as a craftsman. Those are the actual claims of the passage.
So my position is simply this: Proverbs 8 presents a divine figure who is not the Father, yet is with the Father before creation and active in the creation of the world.
That is the point I’m making about the text itself.
That’s an interesting interpretation of Prov 8:22-31; except there is more to this chapter than nine verses. Does believing something make it truth or do you believe what you believe because it fits your religious beliefs?
To understand these nine verses, one MUST start at the beginning of the chapter. Do you start in the middle of a novel or do you start at the beginning? If you don’t begin reading in the middle, explain why you are doing it here in Proverbs 8; you’ve missed what was said prior and in doing so, have missed the context of this chapter.
Starting in verse one:
1 Does not wisdom call, and understanding lift up her voice? 2 On top of the heights beside the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; 3 beside the gates, at the opening to the city, at the entrance of the doors, she cries out: (NASB)
Wisdom is a woman; not a man or sexless deity. The Jesus was a man – huge big hole.
Next, one will notice at the beginning of verse 4 a quotation mark signifying she is saying something and the words preceding this punctuation gives the reader the explicit indication she is going to “cry out” with something. She is talking to all mankind, whether smart or simple, to listen to what she has to say because it’s truth, righteous, and her instruction is better than the most valuable item. That took us thru verse 11. (A sort of a call to attention; listen to what I have to say.)
In verse 12 there is another quotation mark, she is continuing to speak. She lives with prudence and finds knowledge and discretion; however, she hates pride, arrogance; evil ways, and a perverted mouth. When rulers govern justly, they do so because of wisdom. To gain wisdom, one must love it; one must seek after her and in doing so, will find her. Wisdom promises material rewards, but she also says she is superior to material things and she endows wealth to those who love her. That took us to verse 21. (Speaking in the present to mankind and what she offers him.)
Did you notice the quotation mark at the beginning of 22, this would mean wisdom is still speaking. Verse 22 is an interesting passage, “The LORD created me at the beginning of His course as the first of His works of old” (some translations say “possess” as in to acquire or gain). Verse 23: “In the distant past I was fashioned, at the beginning, at the origin of earth” (wisdom was fashioned before the earth was created). This isn’t a preexistence that has always been around, this isn’t a “unified spirit”; this is a characteristic G-d created before the world. Wisdom was there when G-d placed the heavens and established the earth and everything in it. Nothing about a “spirit being” that existed from eternity.
Moving onto verse 30 is what I find interesting and is where the christian gets this wisdom is logos is the Jesus theology; virtually all christian interpretive translations have wisdom as “the craftsman” beside G-d as if wisdom is the one doing the creating. King Jimmy says wisdom is “as one brought up with Him” and the NIV says wisdom “was constantly at his side”; looking at the Hebrew it calls wisdom a protege, nursling, or confidant. The two translations I dislike with a passion align with the Hebrew.
Using a Hebrew translator for verse 30 “And I will be a trust in him” a “confidant” NOT a craftsman; more corruption by the christian translators trying to push a narrative? Appearing to insert the Jesus again where it was never meant to be. This section is more of wisdom reminiscing of the past and what she saw at creation than pointing to a deity like figure (aka the Jesus).
In this final section, please note the quotation mark again – she’s still speaking, wisdom again says to listen; for those who do, they will find happiness and will become wise themselves. Those who find wisdom, find life and life comes from G-d. She also gives a caution to those who reject/hate her, they love death.
This is poetry not a call to the Jesus. Wisdom is a gift freely given by G-d to those who seek it and when it’s found, one begins to make decision and choices that are good and in some cases, profitable. It’s not the elevation in wealth that makes the man; it’s the wisdom from G-d that does. Listen to Solomon and not man.
Let me just start here with my reply. You don’t seem to understand how Hebrew works when using gender specific nouns.
The Hebrew noun for “wisdom” (חָכְמָה) is grammatically feminine, but grammatical gender in Hebrew
belongs to the noun, not to the real identity of the figure being represented.
Hebrew routinely personifies feminine nouns—even when the underlying referent is male, divine, or non‑human.
So Wisdom’s feminine grammar tells you the gender of the word, not the gender of the speaker.
It’s a linguistic feature, not a theological limitation.Do you think you can find “wisdom” personified as male when referring to a male in the Tanach?
@Lighten up,
Do you understand how grammar works? Quotation marks signifies speech and that speech is attached to the one who is speaking; can you explain why suddenly in the middle of the chapter there is a paragraph that shifts away from the original speaker to point to another in meaning and context?
Why did you ignore everything else written to focus on the gender of words. While I do applaud you for knowing that (most languages do), the main point of the entire page was focused on the fact of christianity parachuting on a small piece of the whole and ignoring the context of what is written so they can find the Jesus. Especially verse 30, the main focal point to why you believe what you believe – wisdom being the “craftsman.” Wisdom being the logos of John 1:1 and the logos being the Jesus…christianity does like their merry-go-rounds.
Additionally, have you looked at the Jewish thought on anything written in the Tanakh that you believe points to the Jesus or what they say their scripture means; or does christianities interpretation take precedence? Do you know Hebrew?
Be back Monday…
I mentioned the part of the chapter that was dealing with the topic of creation because that is what we were discussing.
Also I addressed your point about “wisdom” being feminine to tell you that just because Hebrew words have a gender for their grammatical construction doesn’t really mean anything significant when the noun is inanimate. It is not a valid reason that “wisdom” can’t refer to the Son of God.” The passage in Proverbs is commonly accepted as referring to Jesus.
I hope you are having a nice weekend!
Just to clarify: the idea that Proverbs 8 describes a divine, pre‑existent figure who participates in creation is not a Christian invention. Multiple ancient Jewish sources — long before Christianity — interpreted it that way.
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC–AD 50), a Jewish philosopher, explicitly identified the figure in Proverbs 8 as God’s first‑born Son, the divine Logos, and the agent through whom God created the world.
Jewish texts like Sirach 24 and Wisdom of Solomon (both pre‑Christian) describe Wisdom as pre‑existent, coming forth from God, dwelling with God, and acting in creation.
The Aramaic Targums speak of the Memra (“the Word”) as a divine intermediary who creates and stands beside God.
And early Jewish tradition included the “Two Powers in Heaven” — a second divine figure who shares God’s authority and participates in creation.
So the idea of a divine co‑creator in Proverbs 8 is not foreign to Judaism. It was part of Jewish interpretation long before Christianity existed.
We’re going in circles.
Philo was a Jewish Greek philosopher (Hellenized Jew) and if that is your proof for wisdom being divine and the creator of the world, you need to find another source as his perspective is from Greek philosophy and NOT Judaism.
You then site a book (Sirach) that is not in any biblical translation as proof?!?! Seriously!!
We have been over “memra” already and I don’t recall you having countered it with any reasonable argument. In the Targums it is used as a substitute for YHWH.
You then bring up the “Two Powers in Heaven” and again you have NOT supported this nonsense with scripture that G-d exists in two forms, one invisible as a spirit, and the other visible in human form.
You aren’t doing a good job of convincing me to come back to the idolatry of christianity.
Concerning your other post and specifically when you said:
The passage in Proverbs is commonly accepted as referring to Jesus.
Just because something is “commonly accepted” doesn’t make it truth. All you have to do is read the passage without the Jesus goggles on and you will see you have been duped into believing a lie. This passage has NOTHING to do with the Jesus no matter how much you believe it does. The Jesus did zero creating and fashion of the earth; only G-d did that and HE needed no help.
Nice try, but guess again!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
