@Keith

Show us specifically what the author wrote within the book that is a lie and then show us why it is a lie.

@Keith

You wrote:

All know it is satan spoken of at 2 Cor 4:4

The fact that you just wrote that should show the general reader that you are not concerned with being truthful. I just showed you a book that says

Hi Keith,

I moved your post to here for continuity purposes. You said:

“satan does not have the article, it happens The is the first word of the paragraph.”

I assume you are referring to 2 Cor 4:4. I’m not sure what you are saying there? Are you aware that there is the article with the first theos in that verse or are you not aware?

2Cor 4:4 I…[Read more]

To the general reader:

This discussion has circled around one repeated claim: that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because “the Messiah must have a biological father from Solomon’s line.” The problem is that this requirement is not found anywhere in the Tanakh. It is an assumption being treated as a divine rule.

Here are the key points that have…[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

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]

@Keith

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

@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]

@Keith

You said this

“So The true God=Jehovah gave Jesus(Word) authority. If Jesus were God he would already have had the authority.”

If within the unity of Jehovah there is one God and one Lord who are a father and son, then one can expect that the son would be perfectly under the authority of the father if it were a perfect father/son rel…[Read more]

@Keith

Do you have a response?

@Keith

“You missed that theos in 2 Corinthians 4:4 does have the article — but the presence or absence of the article never determines whether theos refers to the true God or a false god. Greek doesn’t work that way. The article marks specificity, not deity.”

@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

@Proclaimer

More from Origen:

1. Psalm 102 → Hebrews 1:10–12 applied to the Son
Source: Contra Celsum 1.67
“In speaking of the Son he says: ‘Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth…’”

2. Psalm 102 → The Son as Creator
Source: De Principiis 1.2.2
“The Son… is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews to have laid the found…[Read more]