@desiretruth,

No one who denies the Son has the Father. 1 John 2:23

@desiretruth,

1 John 2:23 says that whoever denies the Son denies the Father as well.

@desiretruth,

For me Isaiah 53 ist very clear.

The servant was suffering and dying on behalf of Israel’s sin.

Easy and simple.

@desiretruth,

The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is NOT described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: “Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!”

@desiretruth,

Oh, my…I was not accusing you.

Isaiah 1:16-17 is about Israel.

So, read it again.

Isaiah 1:16-17 KJV

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do EVIL;

17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Israel was not…[Read more]

@desiretruth,

Isaiah 53 is not a metaphor for the nation of Israel. It cannot be. It describes the servant as innocent.

“He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.”

The Israelites were certainly not innocent or blameless. I don’t think I have to quote…[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]

@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]

@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]

@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)

@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]

@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]

@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]

@DesireTruth
In response to post #948121

You still haven’t engaged the actual evidence.
You’re reacting to translations and modern opinions, not to the manuscripts, not to the pre‑Christian Jewish sources, and not to the logic of Hebrews itself.

Let’s go point by point.

————————————————————
1. SEPTUAG…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

You didn’t address anything I wrote.
You simply repeated your conclusion: “Hebrews isn’t about Jesus.”
But you didn’t engage a single textual point.

Let’s be clear about what actually happened in your reply:

1. You did not answer the Septuagint issue.
Every “corruption” you claimed was shown to be the LXX wording — the Jewish Sc…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

Your entire critique rests on a single assumption that is historically false:

You are comparing Hebrews to the medieval Masoretic Text (MT), finalized around 900–1000 AD.
Hebrews is quoting the Septuagint (LXX), the Jewish Scriptures used in the first century.
Every “corruption” you think you see is simply the LXX wording, not a Chr…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

In Psalm 102, the thing that “will be rolled up like a garment” is the created order itself—the heavens and the earth. Psalm 102:25–26 says that the heavens are the work of God’s hands, and that they “will perish,” and “will all wear out like a garment.”

The one who rolls them up (or “changes them like a robe”) is God—YHWH—the same…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

YHWH the Father of Jesus identified the Son as the YHWH as well in Hebrews 1:10-12.

Heaven and earth will be someday rolled up like a garment by the Son.

YHWH is both God and Lord

@DesireTruth

Below is a simple comparison of what the Tanakh says the Messiah must do, and how Jesus either fulfilled it already or is said to fulfill it in the future. This avoids going in circles and keeps everything text‑anchored.

Messianic Expectation (Tanakh) / Jesus in NT / Messianic Age Fulfillment

Born from David (Jer 23:5; 2 Sam 7…[Read more]

@DesireTruth

You’ve made it very clear who you believe the Messiah is *not*.
So let me ask the obvious question you’ve avoided:

Who do you believe the Messiah is?

Not “what the Messiah will do.”
Not “why Jesus isn’t the Messiah.”
Not “what Christianity gets wrong.”
I’m asking for a name.

According to your own reading of the Tanakh:

• Who is t…[Read more]