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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

1. ISAIAH 53
If the servant is Israel, then explain why the servant is righteous (53:11) when Israel is repeatedly called sinful (Isa 1:4; 48:8). Explain why the servant suffers for the sins of others (53:5–6) when Israel suffers for its own sins (Isa 40:2). Explain why the servant dies (53:8–9) when Israel never dies. Explain why…[Read more]

Calling Proverbs 8 “just poetry” doesn’t erase what the text actually says. Hebrew poetry uses personification to reveal truth, not to hide it. And the truth in Proverbs 8 is that Wisdom is portrayed as a real, pre‑creation figure distinct from God in role and relationship.

If Wisdom “is God,” then explain why the text says:
– “YH…[Read more]

You’re demanding that the Messiah fulfill every *end‑time* prophecy in His first appearance, but the Tanakh never says that. Not once. You invented that rule.

The Tanakh’s actual pattern is always the same:
first suffering/rejection,
then exaltation,
then worldwide restoration.

This is Joseph, Moses, David, the Servant in Isaia…[Read more]

You asked: “Can you show me anywhere in the Tanakh where the Messiah was going to die for the sins of mankind?”

Yes. The Tanakh teaches this in multiple passages.

1. Isaiah 53
The Servant dies as a substitutionary sacrifice:
• “He was pierced for our transgressions” (53:5)
• “The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (53:6…[Read more]

Regarding point 5:

You said that wisdom in Proverbs 8 is just a characteristic with human-like qualities, and definitely not a reference to Jesus. But the problem is that Proverbs 8 does not describe a characteristic. It describes a pre-existent, active, relational person.

1. Proverbs 8 uses verbs of personal agency:
Wisdom calls,…[Read more]

Regarding the dynasty concern:

SUMMARY: JESUS AND SOLOMON’S DYNASTY

Jesus did NOT come from Solomon’s dynasty biologically, but He DID come from Solomon’s dynasty legally. This distinction is essential for understanding how the Messiah fulfills both the biological and royal requirements of the Davidic covenant.

1. Biological Desce…[Read more]

1. “Battle of translations”? No — the issue is the Hebrew text itself.
Your Jewish translation is translating the same Hebrew verbs:
• קָנָנִי (qanani) — Qal perfect of קָנָה
• חוֹלָלְתִּי (cholalti) — Pual perfect of חוּל
The de…[Read more]

See Proverbs 8:24-25 and look at the parallel Bibles to see that the word “born” or “brought forth” is in nearly all of the versions. There you will see the evidence.

ACTIONS OF WISDOM IN PROVERBS 8 — FULL CHAPTER (NASB)

────────────────────────────────────────
PART 1 — PROVERBS 8:1–21
────────────────────────────────────────

1. Calls out publicly (v.1)
2. Takes her stand in prominent places (v.2)
3. Cries aloud at the city gates (v.3)
4. Calls to all humanity (v.4)
5. Commands the simple to…[Read more]

Proverbs 8:1 begins with the narrator of the chapter who quotes the person referred to as wisdom.

The Son was born/begotten before the creation of the depths and mountains. A birth is not a beginning of existence, a birth requires that which is born to have existed so that he could be born. The Son existed eternally within the…[Read more]

There is much more than the word “craftsman” that shows wisdom is referring to a person who was with God before creation.
The Tanakh itself uses these words to show that:

• “I was born” — Proverbs 8:24
• “I was born” — Proverbs 8:25
• “From everlasting I was established” — Proverbs 8:23
• “When He established the heavens, I was…[Read more]

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 Proverb…[Read more]

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 inani…[Read more]

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…[Read more]

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 act…[Read more]

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.

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…[Read more]

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 o…[Read more]

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 disco…[Read more]

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 c…[Read more]

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 S…[Read more]

Proverbs 30:4 is a riddle about the identity of a divine figure. Agur asks who ascends and descends from heaven, who gathers the wind, who wraps the waters, and who established the earth. These are all divine actions in the Tanakh. Then he asks: “What is His name, and what is His Son’s name?”

The “Son” cannot be Israel or Solomon,…[Read more]

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.

The Tanakh itself shows Solomon’s line collapsed: the kingdom split, the monarchy ended, foreign powers deposed kings, Jehoiachin was cursed, and no son of Solomon ruled after the exile. If “perma…[Read more]

It’s the desire and love of God and His truth that takes me where I go, not stubbornness nor fear.

I’m going to stay with the text and ignore the personal comments. You asked for Tanakh support for the statements I made, so here are the passages.

1. “God sent His Son” — Tanakh foundation
The Tanakh repeatedly speaks of a divine figure sent by God who is distinct from God yet shares His nature.

– Prov 30:4 — “What is His name,…[Read more]

God the Father sent His only begotten Son into the world as a bond servant, fully man while still remaining eternally divine,  as the promised Messiah. Born of the seed of Abraham through Mary who married Joseph. The Messiah is sitting at the right hand of the Father who will put all His enemies under His feet.

Jesus is a legal heir to the dynasty, Jesus is a biological heir of David.

Both are true.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Let’s slow the discussion down and keep it text‑based. You’re arguing that the passages in Samuel and Chronicles prove the Messiah must come *biologically* through Solomon and cannot come through any other son of David. I’m going to show, from the Tanakh itself, why that conclusion goes beyond what th…[Read more]

1. “Messiah must come through Solomon, not Nathan.”
The Tanakh never states that requirement. The promises to David in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 22 establish a dynasty, not a single-branch require…[Read more]

Jesus is biologically the seed of David through Mary whose father provides the tribal lineage.

You asked:

What is the Messiah to do when he comes and can you prove using the Tanakh the Jesus fulfilled what the true Messiah was to do when he came?

According to the Tanakh, the Messiah must be a Davidic king born in Bethlehem, a…[Read more]

Specifically what “thought” do you want addressed?

The info at your link gives 6 opinions, none of them are 100 % sure. I believe that Noah gave a curse that has caused every reader to think there must be something the text is not telling us. However, I am just going with the text. Noah got drunk, Ham saw him uncovered in his tent, the brothers covered their father up. Noah woke up…[Read more]

From my research, it is not uncommon for the wife to have her own tent. A wife needs a lot of closet space after all, haha. Anyway, I tend to lean towards the obvious, Noah was drunk and embarrassed and said the wrong thing. Many families are broken apart from careless words. The tongue is a dangerous part of the body.

Proverbs…[Read more]

Good question, everyone that I have listened to from YouTube has asked a similar question as you, “what did Ham do…”  That seems to be a common question because that curse on Ham’s descendants through Canaan seems pretty over the top.

The thoughts I have are these: perhaps Ham didn’t do anything wrong; maybe Noah had a lapse in…[Read more]

If Jesus was a Jew, what house would you place him?

Unfortunately the Jesus fails on being a member of the tribe of Judah; biologically he isn’t connected to the line of David because the spirit is the one who fathered him (Luke 1:26-35, Matt 1:18). It is of the seed of David the Messiah is to be born of (2 Sam 7:12-17, I Chron 11-14). Lineage is associated with the father and not t…

[Read more]