Search Members

[DesireTruth]

@Berean,

Proverbs 30 does?!?!?

We’ve been over this passage and the answer is G-d is the only who has done all of these things; however the question is rhetorical and obviously doesn’t need and answer. Even Agur, who claims to be the dumbest of the dumb, knows this…and you don’t??!?

“Who has ascended into heaven, and then descended?
…gathered up the winds in his fists?
…bound up the waters in his cloak?
…established all the ends of the earth?

The passage in summary, since you have forgotten, is Agur asking what man has done all these things and if there is a man who has, what is the name of their son. NOTHING ABOUT THE JESUS ANYWHERE!!! Christianity has made all this up.

Nice try, but the Jesus isn’t The Messiah; unless you have proof he descended from Solomon because what i read in the NT is the Jesus’ daddy is the spirit and the spirit is of no relation to David and Solomon. May want to go back a couple pages where Lightenup’s and I started this conversation and catch up…you’re a little behind!

[DesireTruth]

@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 learning what G-d said than you are currently spending to justify the Jesus.

The question, whether you like it or not, is when did G-d ever impregnate a woman because that is what the NT says G-d did. When did he ever step in and mess with the natural procreation process he created by physically inseminating anyone? HE said to be fruitful and multiply and sent man on his merry way to make babies. G-d’s design is the only proof needed that The Messiah is going to be biologically connected to David thru Solomon. To continue to say G-d impregnated Mary introduces paganism into the faith (criticize the Greek and Romans, but not christianity). You still haven’t given any passage that states G-d will impregnate a woman and you never will, because none exist. This immaculate conception was made up.

To justify the lack of finding this mystery passage of G-d impregnating someone, you counter with creation and Eve not having a biological father; do you struggle with what came first, the chicken or the egg? Nothing existed at the time of creation, no fish, mammals, insects, plants, HUMANS; so your justification falls apart immediately by trying to bring in creation. It would seem you are having an extremely difficult time justifying your beliefs and are reaching deep into the abyss of man’s reasoning to find an answer that could stick; however, the answers are in front of you and all you have to do is read!

Basically, we have strike one against the Jesus being The Messiah; you have provided zero proof or evidence the Jesus inherited his lineage or tribal lineage could come thru the mother. Are you ready to tackle the next item the Jesus never accomplished?

PS
The fact you responded to nothing I wrote didn’t go unnoticed!

[DesireTruth]

@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 Messiah and there is no reason to continue.

That is not a Tanakh argument; it is your assumption about how God must work.

Your right this isn’t a “Tanakh argument”, it’s a Tanakh fact! The Messiah will be a man who descends from David and Solomon (remember that dynasty forever thing and it was said about whom?!?!); I gave you the passages in black and white showing it and you rejected them.

Let’s separate two issues:

1) Wha t the Tanakh actually requires of the Messiah.

2) Whether Jesus meets those requirements.

What does the Tanakh say The Messiah will do and does the Jesus meet them? The first one I gave you was The Messiah MUST be Jewish and the Ezra passage gives this requirement as the Jewish men sent their non-Jewish wives and children away. Why would they send their children away if Jewishness can come from the father? So Jewishness comes from the mother. The Jesus meets this requirement of being Jewish; his mother was Jewish.

We’re on point two that I gave you; does the Jesus legitimately meet the requirement of being a descendant of David and Solomon?

You are trying to collapse them into one: “If he has no biological father, he fails everything.” The Tanakh does not say that.

Can The Messiah fail at a single point of who G-d said The Messiah will be and what he will do and still be called The Messiah? I would say no! Do you know what the Tanakh says The Messiah is suppose to do? I personally haven’t met a christian who does, pastors included; I didn’t know until a couple years ago.

 

1. Procreation “in the time of Moses”

You ask, “What would have been the understanding of procreation in the time of Moses?” Of course, normal procreation is biological father + biological mother. But the question is not what people normally understood; the question is what God is allowed to do. The Tanakh already shows God acting beyond normal procreation (Isaac, Samson, Samuel). You say “closing and opening a womb isn’t the same as impregnating a woman.” True. But that proves my point: God is not limited by normal biology. The Tanakh never says, “If God acts directly, the result is invalid.” That is your rule, not the text’s.

G-d performed miracles all the time that were beyond “normal understanding” to show the Israelite’s who HE is. Nowhere did I say “If God acts directly, the result is invalid”, you made that up. You agree closing and opening a womb isn’t impregnating a woman and obviously isn’t beyond what G-d can do. The question is, when has G-d ever physically impregnated a woman?

 

2. “If Jesus doesn’t have a biological daddy, how can his lineage be traced back to David?”

You keep repeating this, but you are ignoring how lineage and tribal identity actually work in the Tanakh.

– Biological descent: Jesus is descended from David through Mary (David → Nathan → Mary → Jesus).

– Legal descent: Jesus is descended from David through Joseph (David → Solomon → Joseph → Jesus).

– Divine appointment: God Himself appoints the Messiah as David’s heir (Psalm 2; Psalm 110).

You say, “Everyone counted was counted with their father’s house.” Yes, in the census. That describes how Israel was organized for war. It does not say, “God can never assign lineage except through a biological father.” Genesis 48 shows Jacob assigning tribal identity by adoption. That is lineage by legal fatherhood, not biology. You have not answered that.

Of course I keep repeating this, you have given zero scriptural evidence The Messiah can come thru anyone other than Solomon (dynasty forever); you keep peddling the reasoning and justifications of man. Additionally, where is your explanation of “how lineage and tribal identity actually work in the Tanakh”; please enlighten me. Again, Mary only passes on Jewishness, not tribal lineage; I have given the passages outlining this and you rejected them. Tribal lineage is paternal and I have given those passages to you also…yet rejected!

“Legal descent”, still waiting for the passage where tribal lineage can be passed down by adoption. You site Gen 48 and Joseph’s blessing from Jacob being passed onto his sons as “assigning tribal identity” except Jacob created that “tribal identity” over 400 years before the nation of Israel was formed and this census was taken; what are you talking about?!?!? Concerning the “biological” nature of this, Manasseh and Ephraim were the grandsons of Jacob and would belong to the “house of Jacob” thru Joseph. This was also before G-d said to NOT marry foreigners.

“Divine appointment” and you quote Ps 2, a Psalm about a Davidic king that can be applied to any king and is not strictly messianic. Ps 110 is Messianic appointment?!?! Have you ever taken the Hebrew of verse one and put it into a translator? It’s not a Psalm by David; it’s a Psalm to David. The first “Lord” is the Tetragrammaton for the name of G-d and the second is a lowercase “lord” (ladoni) meaning master or lord and is used in the context of one with authority or power over another; someone is writing about David. Nothing messianic about this chapter and is another christian invention. This is the same verse that supposedly tripped up the Pharisees so they no longer questioned the Jesus, hardly; do really believe the religious leaders didn’t speak Hebrew or know this passage from their scriptures? The mistranslation is what has been tripping up christians for centuries because no one speaks Hebrew.

 

3. “He’s only half human.”

That is rhetoric, not Tanakh. The incarnation claim is that Jesus is fully human and fully from David’s line through Mary, and legally heir through Joseph. The Tanakh does not forbid God from entering His own creation. The Tanakh does not say, “If God acts directly, the result is a pagan demigod.” You are importing Greek categories and then accusing Christianity of being Greek. The Tanakh itself never uses “demigod” language.

Ummmmm?!?! How exactly is this rhetoric, you admit the Jesus doesn’t have a biological father, which means only half of him is human and the rest is “god.” You are siting doctrines when you say the Jesus was “fully human and fully god”; a doctrine that was formalized and accepted at the Counsel of Chalcedon in 451 CE – I thought we were only using the Tanakh as our source. Again, when has G-d ever impregnated a woman in the Tanakh? The Greek and Roman religions were prevalent in the first century and a god impregnating a human woman was common in their religion; and with Greek philosophy merging into the early church thought, it opened the door for paganism to be incorporated into the gentile version of who and what the Jesus is.

Judging from the writings of Paul, who primarily made up the christian faith – the none Jew; this “christian” message was taken to the none Jew because the Jews recognized it was false and rejected it. How many of the “church fathers” were Jewish? Think on that one…

 

4. “Prove Jesus is the Messiah.”

You keep demanding this, but you refuse to engage the actual criteria the Tanakh gives. I laid out ten Tanakh‑based expectations:

And you have ignored the passages I have given from the Tanakh that say who The Messiah is to be and what he will do when he comes.

1. Descendant of David.

NO scriptural source for your “legal” basis or the Mary heredity claim that allows the Jesus to be a descendant of David AND Solomon.

2. King who rules with justice and righteousness.

The Jesus never ruled as king. No scripture source

3. Empowered by the Spirit of the Lord.

No scripture source

4. Brings salvation, deliverance, and restoration.

Salvation from what? Deliverance from whom? Restoration from what? No scripture source

5. Suffers, is rejected, and is vindicated.

Isa 53??? I have asked many times for anyone to explain verse 10, none have; who is speaking where in this chapter, one has tried but their response made no sense and they stopped replying.

6. Exalted by God.

No scripture source

7. Participates in God’s work.

Wisdom in Proverbs 8?? Been over this; it’s speaking of a characteristic personified, not the Jesus.

8. Brings light to the nations.

Who is to be a light to the nations? No scripture source

9. Inaugurates a new covenant.

When did the Jesus inaugurate a new covenant? No scripture source

10. Reign is everlasting.

No scripture source

Those are from the Tanakh, not from later tradition.

Site the source for everyone of your claims!

 

If you want an honest discussion, then pick one of these and we will examine whether Jesus fulfills it using only the Tanakh. If you refuse to do that and keep repeating “no biological father, therefore no Messiah,” then you are not arguing from the Tanakh; you are arguing from your own rule that the Tanakh never gives.

An honest discussion is what I have been trying to have for the last three years, but everyone keeps peddling their beliefs and not scripture. The answers I have given come from the Tanakh, you reject them because they don’t align with your religion. You have failed to provide any passages that confirm what you believe; therefore it would seem you are parroting what you have been told.

 

So here is the direct answer:

– The Tanakh does not require the Messiah to have a human biological father.

Except it does and I have given you the passages!

– The Tanakh does require the Messiah to be from David’s line. Jesus is, through Mary and Joseph.

Yes The Messiah is to be from David’s line thru Solomon and I have given you the passages! Mary is irrelevant, since she passes on Jewishness and Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of the Jesus and is also irrelevant. UNLESS, you can provide where the mother effects tribal lineage or adoption can pass down tribal lineage.

– The Tanakh does not restrict lineage to biology alone. It uses legal fatherhood and adoption (Genesis 48).

Over 400 years before the nation of Israel was formed and the blessing of Joseph was passed onto his sons, Jacobs grandsons by blood.

– The Tanakh does not forbid God from acting directly in the Messiah’s coming.

Where does it say G-d will act directly in the coming of The Messiah? So because it doesn’t say, therefore G-d will?!?

If you truly want to test whether Jesus is the Messiah “according to the Tanakh,” then stop repeating one assumption about biology and start engaging the actual messianic criteria the Tanakh gives.

Again, this is the starting point; the Jesus has failed to fulfill everything that was said The Messiah would do; except for being Jewish.

Stop superimposing the Jesus onto passages that aren’t about him. Your “ten base exceptions” are christian interpretations to fit the Jesus; who did G-d say The Messiah is and what he will do (don’t forget the passages)? You still haven’t proven the Jesus is of the lineage of David and Solomon (Solomon will always be included because that’s what G-d said) so we can move onto the next fail of the Jesus. If you can’t prove it, why do you believe the Jesus is The Messiah? Remove the Jesus goggles because once they’re removed, everything becomes clear.

[DesireTruth]

@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 reaching! (G-d closing and opening a womb isn’t the same as impregnating a woman)

If the Jesus doesn’t have a biological daddy, how can his lineage be traced back to David? You even said the census taken in Numbers was “how genealogies are checked” and ever one counted was to be counted with their father’s house (biological); now I am checking the Jesus’ and he’s only half human.

Prove the Jesus is The Messiah!

[DesireTruth]

@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 said,

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

You’re making assumptions; using the “Mary lineage” falls flat because tribal lineage runs only thru the father; I gave you scriptural passages to prove this. Where’s your scripture to support the Mary narrative? We are only speaking of tribal lineage and NOT earthly possessions being passed on. The other issue using Mary, is it goes back to Nathan and NOT Solomon. The next four passages I gave you explicitly state David’s kingdom will continue thru Solomon and not any other son. What did G-d say?

Next you bring up legally, “thru adoption”, Joseph passes on his “heritage”; can you support with scripture tribal lineage can be passed down by adoption? A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption; tribal affiliation is passed down biologically from the father; you have the passages.

Let’s theoretically say tribal affiliation can be passed down, Joseph fails to pass down this heir to the kingship because Jeconiah is included in this line of descendants in Matthew. Jeconiah was cursed and his kingship removed and he was to be remembered as having no sons (Jer 22:30, 36:30), no one in his lineage could sit on David’s throne. So what could Joseph pass down to the Jesus when he was in the Jeconiah line and part of that curse.

Going one step further, let’s look at both genealogies in Matthew and Luke and specifically where they match at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, son and grandson of Jeconiah; using the lineages of either Joseph or Mary, both fail at their overlapping points because of the curse on Jeconiah. Before you say the curse was lifted, provide the passage where G-d restored Jeconiah.

This alone disqualifies the Jesus from ever being the Messiah because he isn’t connected to David and Solomon (whose dynasty did G-d say will continue forever). You pointed out the Jesus doesn’t have a biological father and, by the definition, makes him a demigod – just like the Greek and Roman religions.

[DesireTruth]

@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, 2:2, 32; Ezra 2:59)? Is the Jesus’ biological father from the tribe of Judah?

Does the Jesus pass the requirement of being a descendant of David and Solomon (II Sam. 7:14; I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6)?

[DesireTruth]

@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 straight back to one of my original questions, is the Jesus the true Messiah. Christianity says he is, PROVE IT beginning with the birth narrative. I have given you multiple passages showing the Jesus couldn’t be the true Messiah, what did you do with them?

[DesireTruth]

@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 can be used as a title of authority and isn’t reserved to address G-d. However, where we differ is this passage being applied to the Jesus. One has to establish first whether or not the Jesus can be or is the true Messiah to have this title given to him. Again, we roll back to my original question, is the Jesus the true Messiah and can this single verse in a marriage Psalm be applied to him.

Point 3. We are in complete agreement when you say Ps 102 explicitly states G-d created the heavens and the earth, remains the same, and HIS years have no end; where we’re going to take a turn from agreement is when these statements are applied to the Jesus. There is nowhere in the Tanakh where G-d says there is anyone who is equal or has the same “divine” qualities as HE does; this writer makes an assumption and applies it to the Jesus because it’s who he wants the Jesus to be.

You say this theology is built on the earlier text of the chapter; so it’s the opinion of the unknown author that has created this theology. Can this idea of a “co-equal” participant in creation or this additional “divine being” who is an exact copy of G-d be supported within the Tanakh? If not, this is a lie and the book needs to be removed post haste.

You say it’s not a misuse of Psalms 102, but a theological conclusion; again, the writer made an assumption at the beginning of the chapter and from that created the conclusion Psalms 102 is about the Jesus. Where’s the proof in the Tanakh that confirms this “son” was appointed by G-d as heir of all things? Is this suppose to be a reference to the Messiah? Where do we find G-d saying this “son” is the “radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”?

I’m not jumping ahead to “atonement and incarnation”; the end of verse 3 says, “When He had made purification of sins”; does G-d need a “helper” to atone and forgive sins, does HE require a blood sacrifice to forgive, and when did HE make an exception and allow for a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins?

Nowhere does the Tanakh say G-d has a “helper” of sorts; nowhere does the Tanakh say HE is sending this “helper” for a sacrificial (human sacrifice) purpose for the remediation of sins; nowhere is a divine “son” mentioned in the Tanakh and is why I keep asking for evidence the Jesus is the true Messiah. Did he do what was prophesied the true Messiah would do, beginning with the birth account?

Point 5 & 6. You said quoting me also,

Me: Did Jesus fulfill all that was said the Messiah is to do?

You: That is a legitimate question, but it is a different debate.”

– First question: Does Hebrews misuse the Tanakh?

– Second question: Is Jesus the true Messiah according to the Tanakh?

Your question order should be reversed; but to get your first question out of the way, does “misapply” work better for you? Most of these passages quoted in Hebrews have a Davidic king tone, but does that mean they are automatically Messianic or simply a reference to future kings? The writer applies these passages to the Jesus, and for the christian it resonates. For the one who doesn’t believe the Jesus is the Messiah, there is a twist, or more appropriately, a misapplication. The writer makes the assumption the Jesus is the Messiah, but in his writing offers no support for this conclusion; only passages they believe are pointing to the Jesus.

You say the Jewish writing support a Messianic figure, and you give many examples; but do they support that figure being the Jesus?

You say a discussion of the Jesus being the Messiah is a different debate; however, without first establishing the Jesus as the true Messiah, every other topic of debate is a waste of time; did the Jesus fulfill what was spoken of the Messiah when he came? The Tanakh gives specifics of what he is suppose to do when he arrives. To use the argument the Jesus will accomplish them when he returns falls flat; nowhere in the Tanakh does it ever state the Messiah will come and do nothing, but in the future will return again to do what was said (THIS is an entire topic by itself as the Jesus said he would return in their lifetime and didn’t – Matt 24; how does one tell a false prophet – Deut 13:1-3; 18:20-22).

I have given a list of passages from the Tanakh of who the Messiah is and what he’ll do, what did you do with them?

[DesireTruth]

@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 book of Hebrews out of the Greek Testament and throw it into the trash.

Are these passages correctly being applied to the Jesus or have they been taken out of context? If they are rightfully applied, then explain how each are – once again, support with the Tanakh in the context it was originally written.

If these passages quoted are Messianic in nature (wouldn’t they also be Davidic since the Messiah is to be a descendant of whom…hmmm), we come right back to my original question of whether or not the Jesus is the true Messiah; did he fulfill all that was said the Messiah was to do while he was here, beginning with his birth account? Additionally, find the passages where G-d said a single man was to be the propitiation for the sins of mankind by becoming a human sacrifice, where the innocent could take on the guilt of another, or where G-d said he would come to earth as a man and freely sacrifice himself because of sin.

For Psalms 2 you site Targum Jonathon except this Targum was the Torah and Prophets and not the Writings and it was written in the second century CE; you also site a passage from the Babylonian Talmud (Sukkah 52a) which was compiled between the 3rd and 6th centuries CE. Both writings were after the Jesus not before, little confused how this supports “Jews interpret Psalms 2 as Messianic before chrisitanity”.

You continue on with “You keep repeating, “Psalm 102 is about Jerusalem.” Yes — in its original context.” and that is where we stop! A theological explanation after that are interpretations. You say “Midrash Rabbah (Numbers 14:1) applies Psalm 45 to the Messiah.” Except Psalms 45:6-7 isn’t mentioned anywhere in this Midrash only verses 9, 14,& 17 are mentioned and none are messianic…hopefully this was a misprint and you can give the correct source or provide exactly where in this Midrash you’re reading and getting your information.

The only question to be asked is whether or not the Jesus is the true Messiah, according to the Tanakh he NEVER fulfilled a thing that was spoken the Messiah is to do. Let alone come from the line of David. Whether or not the Jesus is the true Messiah is the only question that requires an honest and truthful answer.

[DesireTruth]

@Lightenup,

In response to post 948112

No, I’m reading the words written and the words written, don’t match…can’t have the 60+ different interpretations in front of me at all times. I’m comparing your translation of choice (NASB) to the Jewish Study Bible. If you need to justify your belief by using a translation that has fallen into obscurity, more power to you.

Point 1. I find it funny how you conveniently bring in the Septuagint to prove your stance. If the Septuagint was the scripture used during the first few centuries of the new millennium, why isn’t it accepted as the authority on which all translations are based? The reason is it has become unreliable today; to many changes have been made since it was first written. The “Septuagint” was originally translated from the Hebrew to the Greek in the third century BCE and consisted of the Torah. Over the course of the next two centuries the rest of the Tanakh was translated. The book we have today, isn’t the same book the Jews originally translated. So the book we have today ISN’T the same book of the first century!

Point 2. Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 – the question isn’t whether they are pointing to a Davidic king or not; the question is to whom they are pointing, and they aren’t pointing to the Jesus. The Jesus never served as king, the Jesus never ruled in Jerusalem, the Jesus ISN’T even qualified as the Messiah because he did nothing the Messiah is to do. Since tribal affiliation is pasted down from the father and the Jesus was conceived of the spirit and NOT a man, PLEASE PROVIDE the biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line thru adoption.

Point 3. Psalm 104:4 read first paragraph above.

Point 4. Psalm 45 How is this a Psalm pointing to the Messiah? Notice how YOU haven’t explained a thing!! Then claim this is Jewish tradition; please provide your source! If you had bothered to read the Psalm in its entirety there is NOTHING messianic about it, it’s a “poem celebrating the Davidic king’s marriage to a lovely princess. The psalmist praises the king for his military prowess and commitment to justice, urges the bride to be loyal to the king, and anticipates that the marriage will be blessed with royal offspring.”

You make the assumption the “your throne, O G-d…” is correct; the Hebrew translations of this passage say “your throne is from G-d”, “your divine throne”, “your throne, O judge.” The word here is “elohim”, but is it ALWAYS a reference to G-d? No! Ex 21:6, 22:8-9 judges are called elohim; in Ps 82:1 little “g” gods are called elohim; Ps 82:6 rulers are called elohim; I Sam 28:13 a “spirit” is called elohim. The term “elohim” ISN’T reserved to G-d. Why would you presume in this Psalm the reference is referring to G-d Almighty and NOT a title of authority as the Psalm implies, a king? The entire first chapter of the book of Hebrews equates the Jesus to be equal to G-d and is G-d. Talk about blasphemous!

You go on to say: “Hebrews applies the royal psalm to the Messiah exactly as Jewish tradition did.”; provide the source for this “Jewish tradition”! There is nothing Messianic in Ps 45; it’s to/for/about a Davidic king. When did the Jesus get married as described in this Psalm? She is to leave her homeland, forget her family, and submit to the king. What about the sons she is to bare to carry on this dynasty (what dynasty will be carried on by the offspring of the Jesus)? Prove this is a messianic prophecy pointing to the Jesus; the text DOESN’T SUPPORT IT! Copy and paste theology doesn’t work; context does!

Point 5. Psalm 102 is a Psalm “lamenting the de­struction of Jerusalem and praying for its restoration”; who is said to restore Jerusalem throughout the Tanakh? Somehow this Psalm now becomes the Father applying who HE is to the Jesus?!!? You then say “This is not “corruption.” It is a theological conclusion”; so theology is the basis for your belief, shouldn’t it be scripture? Where’s your scriptural proof G-d said HE needed anyone to help HIM? How small is your god that HE requires a helper; my G-d created everything, from the seen to the unseen, and did it all be himself by speaking it into being?

You continue on saying: “You haven’t refuted the argument. You’ve only assumed the conclusion is impossible.” Wasn’t my original statement of the sited passages not being about the Jesus and offering my thoughts not good enough, what more did you want? If you would place G-d’s word in the context it was written, you wouldn’t be so confused by what it says and have to perform mental gymnastics to make what you believe sound like truth.

Then you say: “If the Son shares the attributes of YHWH (eternal, unchanging, creator), then the Son participates in the divine identity.” REALLY!! If my son “shares the attributes” of me, then my son is me??!? I think my spouse may have something to say about that!

Point 6. I am NOT taking the Masoretic text and calling it superior to the Septuagint. I’m reading the words written in modern translations and comparing them to the Hebrew texts. To say the Septuagint is widely used by Jews is laughable; if you were saying in the first century, do you really think the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem didn’t read, write, or speak Hebrew and didn’t teach from their texts but used a Greek translation instead?!? The book of Hebrews is authored by an unknown and was rejected in the original canon of the Greek Testament.

The bottom line, the argument isn’t over the reliability of the text, it’s the application of the text; the unknown writer of Hebrews has misused and twisted the text from the Tanakh and applying it to the Jesus. When the Jewish text is placed in context, there is NOTHING about a Jesus to be found anywhere.

I find it interesting how the Jewish thought is only important when it confirms your beliefs; everything else, useless and wrong – like who their Messiah is and how they interpret their scriptures.

 

PS

I have a copy of the Septuagint Bible published in 1954 that I am willing to part with; let me know in a PM if you’re interested. I have no use for it anymore.

[DesireTruth]

@Keith,

Desire truth. Psalm 45:7 did not call Jesus Elohim, It stated that he has an Elohim( God)

“You love justice and hate evil. For this reason God, your God has anointed you with the oil of joy, elevating you above your companions.”

Who is the “you” that is being anointed? The Jesus??? If so, you’re going have to tell me when the Jesus is getting married and all the sons he will have to “carry on the dynasty of your ancestors.” It’s the previous verse where this king is called elohim and does elohim automatically signify it’s a reference to G-d? NOPE!! It can refer to judges, kings, spirits, or other gods. Knowing this, why would it be unusual for the writer of this Psalm to call the king “god”?

The point of this is how the writer of the book of Hebrews corrupts this passage by applying it to the Jesus and equating the Jesus equal to G-d.

This Psalm has nothing to do with the Jesus and it’s NOT messianic. It is a royal wedding Psalm meant for a Davidic King. Context is everything!

[DesireTruth]

@Lightenup,

In response to post 948115, would you like some cheese with your whine?

When you answer every question I ask, then you’ll have grounds to stand on to lecture me! Besides, does reading and comprehension fail you? I originally stated “I initially started a long response to what you said, but abandoned it.” What part of that do you NOT understand?

You then whine about me saying to listen to Skobac, Federow, Hajioff, and Singer. You don’t want to know what the Jewish perspective is on their scripture or are you one of those who believes the Jews are liars? The meaning behind “change your world” is to stop looking a one perspective and see what other views are out there, to expand your mind or are you afraid you may learn something that contradicts what you have been told is truth? We may be getting somewhere…

– The LXX is a Jewish translation. Was originally just the Torah and was written in the third century BCE for the Jews living in Alexandria who no longer read or spoke Hebrew and is NOT the same Septuagint we have today.

– The DSS preserve the longer Deut 32:43. Not sure what your point is with this passage; if it’s simply to prove the LXX is superior to the Masoretic…yeah!! Even some Hebrew translations point this out and say it should be “heaven.” Now ask yourself why a majority of translations today have “nations” vs “heaven.” Sounds like corruption and you should get on this ASAP so it gets changed. Then again you have to make the assumption the DSS are the originals and we aren’t looking at a tainted copy.

– Jewish tradition applied Psalm 2 to the Messiah. Please provide a source for this and not Jews for jesus.

– Jewish royal theology calls the king “Elohim.” Sure does; BUT does that mean they are equal to or are G-d (the creator of heaven and earth, the Almighty), as the writer of Hebrews does? Only when corrupt translators capitalize it to make it say what it was never meant to.

– Jewish wisdom literature presents a pre‑existent co‑creator. Again, no source provided; does scripture “present a pre‑existent co-creator”? We’re NOT looking at the musings of man, but what G-d said.

Is this your false “two powers in heaven”? As I dig into this, it was a thought held by some and NOT the majority of the Jewish people in the first century; and how much of this idea was influenced by other religions? This “two powers” idea was something the fledgling christian faith latched onto and later used to developed the false trinity doctrine and by the second century Judaism flat out reject it, calling it heresy. To continually push this was born from Judaism as a whole and was common among the religious leaders, is false; it was an idea held by some. No different than the multiple christian religions out here today; everyone having their own version of truth.

Then you accuse me of avoiding your “evidence”; first you have to have “evidence” and second, you don’t get to control when, where, or how I respond. You have zero idea what’s happening or going on in my life. This place of discussion is a side note to all of it and I’ll spend the time I’m willing to give it at my discretion. To say I’m avoiding this discussion is precious; especially coming from the one who ditched our last conversion because you couldn’t come up with a reasonable response (remember that dynasty and adoption thing)!

[DesireTruth]

@Lightenup,

I initially started a long response to what you said, but abandoned it. I will say this in response to what you wrote, in none of your response did you address the core issue; nothing written in Hebrews chapter one is about the Jesus! It’s a twisting of the Hebrew scripture to fit the Jesus.

When have you looked into the Jewish response to what you believe is truth? In all your responses you have given the christian rote answer, you’re like a parrot squawking; what is the Jewish response? The Tanakh belongs to them, it was given to them because it’s about them and NOT christianity; yet, you believe you understand it better than they do. Listen to Michael Skobac, Stuart Federow, Lawrence Hajioff, or Tovia Singer.

Change your world or sit and be stuck in your rut.

[DesireTruth]

@ lightenup,

You understand Psalm 102 perfectly; why are you corrupting the meaning of it by applying it to the Jesus? It seems you are using the Hebrews 1:10-12 passage to claim G-d of the Tanakh and the Jesus of the NT are the same. To unpack what is being said in this chapter one needs to begin in verse 5, where this dialog begins? G-d is supposedly to have said in reference to the Jesus:

Verse 5a “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You” a quote from Ps 2:7; a Psalm referencing the individual David, NOT his descendants, and MOST DEFINITELY NOT the Jesus…corruption

Verse 5b “I will be a Father to Him and He shall be a Son to Me” a quote from II Sam 7:14; and G-d is speaking of David’s son Solomon, NOT the Jesus…corruption

Verse 6 G-d is speaking of bringing “the firstborn into the world” and says “And let all the angels of God worship Him” and this is suppose to be a quote from Ps 97:7; EXCEPT that’s NOT AT ALL what Ps 97:7 says “All who worship idols are ashamed, those who boast about worthless idols. All the gods bow down before him.” Finding another lie, twist, and rewriting of the Tanakh; completely changing what was actually written. Never mind the FACT the Psalm is about G-d being the sovereign, just king of the world who comes in power to vindicate his people…corruption

Verse 7 the writer claims G-d says of the angels “Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire” a quote from Ps 104:4; except we find another passage twisted and rewritten (what is actually written), “He makes the winds his messengers, and the flaming fire his attendant.” It’s the winds that become G-d’s messengers, NOT angels. Another Psalm that praises God as the ruler of the world and who sustains all life…corruption

Verse 8 is an interesting passage as it is suppose to be G-d is speaking about the son “But of the Son He says” and in this next part HE calls the Jesus “Oh God” and “God, your God”; G-d is calling the Jesus G-d?!?!?! That’s right the Jesus is “the god of the OT.” Looking at the passages quoted from the Tanakh, the passages have nothing to do with the Jesus let alone claiming the Jesus is equal to or is G-d.

The first part “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.” is quoted from Ps 45:6 and is speaking specifically of G-d who’s “kingdom is a scepter of justice.”

Verse 9 continues with Ps 45:7 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness” is a reference to David who loved righteousness and hated lawlessness AND it’s “For this reason God, your God has anointed you (David) with the oil of joy, elevating you (David) above your (David’s) companions.” However, according to the writer of Hebrews it was G-d who anointed HIMSELF.

Verses 10-12 we’ll combine together as they are from a single passage; and according to the unknown writer is suppose to be another reference to the Jesus, but this time as the creator of heaven and earth, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands” a quote from Ps 102:25. According to Genesis it was G-d who did all creating, not by or thru anyone; but HE, HIMSELF did it all.

Verse 11 we continue with, “They will perish, but You remain; and they all will become old like a garment” a quote from Ps 102:26 which references G-d’s creation as being temporary when compared to G-d; which leads us into the next verse.

Verse 12 “And like a mantle You will roll them up; like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.” a quote from Ps 102:27 and confirms this existence we call life can end and G-d will still remain.

The psalmist in 102 laments his oppressed state, but longs for a day when G-d will restore Jerusalem and vindicate his suffering people. When is the Jesus planning on doing this; when he “returns”??? The Jesus only speaks of judgment and condemnation on those who failed to believe in him.

Prove verses 6, 7 aren’t phantom verses, because I didn’t find in the Tanakh; the unknown writer cut out what he didn’t like and inserted what he thought could make the Jesus into G-d. Verses 8-9 make zero sense; G-d is calling “the son”, “G-d” and speaking of “the son” as if HE (G-d) is below him (“the son”, this is language of subservience, not authority). Verses 10-12 are stripped from the Tanakh and twisted by the unknown writer to falsely point to the Jesus and then you back track this to John 1:1-3 calling it proof the Jesus is G-d?!?!? What you’ve done is taken one piece of corruption, applied it to another piece of corruption, and called it truth.

I am dumbfounded how no one sees this or how all turn a blind eye to the corruption that is written in black and white! The NT is suppose to be the “infallible word of G-d” and we have this!

[DesireTruth]

@Berean,

Wow what an intellectual response; you have made me more aware of who the jesus is…loads of sarcasm!

I explained the passage, how come you can’t give your thoughts on it? Repeating the words of the passages DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE PASSAGE IS A REFERENCE TO THE jESUS!!!! How do you NOT understand that?!? Why does the “christian” have such difficultly in explaining what and why they believe what they believe?

It’s almost like “christians” have been brainwashed into believing everything they have been told…tell a lie long enough and it becomes truth!

[DesireTruth]

@Berean,

Not Proverbs 30…AGAIN!!!

Have you not read the passage with comprehension? Are we really using “pointy fingers” without explaining what you’re talking about?!!!?

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.

This is a simple proverb; why make everything complicated? Now it’s your turn to explain how this passage relates to the Jesus.

[DesireTruth]

@Lightenup,

I guess you kind of answered the question of who or what will be rolled up; but who or what is the “they”? If it’s simply heaven and earth as the Psalm says, what is the writer of Hebrews getting at? The Psalm is speaking of G-d lasting longer than HIS creation as HE is eternal AND what does this have to do with the Jesus?

[DesireTruth]

@ lightenup,

You didn’t answer the question; who or what will be folded up like a garment and be changed?

How can YHWY be both the Father and the son (aka lord)? Keith is onto something…

[DesireTruth]

@Lightenup,

The theos of John 1:1b identifies the theos of John 1:1c as the YHWH who laid the foundation of the world and the heavens were the work of His hands and not only that but that as YHWH, this theos who is the Son, will at a future time, fold them up like a garment and they will be changed in Hebrews 1:10-12.
Amazing!

The Jesus is G-d of the “Old Testament”?!?!?! Did the Jesus ever claim to be G-d, the Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth? Never ONCE does he say it! I suppose you will claim the “I AM” statement in John was a reference back to Exodus 3; which couldn’t be more false, but we’ll leave that for a later time.

Who or what will be folded up like a garment and be changed in the Hebrew passage?

[DesireTruth]

@Keith,

Its called justice– A perfect mortal man sinned and lost a good standing with God for all his descendants.

Adam was punished for his sin, but did G-d reject him for it? NO!!

Justice = A perfect mortal man lived a sinless existence, yet paid in full the wages of sin he did not owe= the ransom sacrifice.

Are you saying the Jesus lived a “sinless” life?!?!? Did he honor his father and mother by disappearing? How about destroying a heard of hog by running them into the sea to drown (a cities food source), or how about over turning tables in the Temple court and driving the people and animals out. G-d has something to say about destroying other people’s property. Sinless…LAUGHABLE!

Let’s go back to where we left off, where did G-d say the innocent are responsible for the guilt of another? I’ll give you a hint, YOU are responsible for your wickedness and NO ONE can be a substitute for your wrong doings! In fact Moses tried it and G-d said NOPE!! (Ex 32:31-24 READ IT!!)

This opened the door to all mankind to go in through the narrow gate and have an opportunity to live forever in Gods kingdom. God applies justice to all his dealings-perfect justice.

When G-d said to repent, turn from your wickedness, and HE’LL remember it no more wasn’t good enough? Sounds simple to me; why would I need anyone other than G-d?

Check your religion, are they telling you truth? Verify everything!!!

They rejected Jesus because they had haughty hearts and he told them they were wrong on many counts. A mere carpenters son telling the elite spiritual leaders they were wrong.

Or maybe (start nodding your head) the Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah and failed on every account and they knew it. Like in Ps 110 where the Jesus supposedly confused the religious leaders with “the Lord said to my lord”; you don’t think a Jewish religious leader didn’t speak Hebrew and know what this passage meant?!? This is a Psalm to/for David NOT by David. The modern translations intentionally changed the meaning.

Jesus healed on the sabbath- They thought it was not allowed. The apostles picked grains of wheat on the sabbath, they thought it was not allowed. They twisted things.

Do we ever get in the Tanakh where it defines what work is or are we getting the writers interpretive take on the situation?

[Author]

Posts