Did you actually read the Proverb? In verse 3 it says “she cries out:” and what is she proclaiming? EVERYTHING AFTER THAT!! Grammar is your friend. Don’t forget to look out for those pesky quotation marks as she is continuing to “cry out.”

Guess again!

The Son was born/begotten before the creation of the depths and mountains. A bir…

[Read more]

Now begin reading from verse one; who is speaking throughout the entire chapter? Are you paying attention to the quotation marks? Apparently you didn’t read what I wrote on this chapter a few posts back.

Also, why are you starting toward the end of the chapter? I’ll ask again, do you begin reading a novel in the middle? If not, wh…[Read more]

Once again, what you are sighting is “polluted”; it is not based in the Tanakh. I do not base anything on the interpretive minds of man; to site Philo as an authoritative source falls flat; he was a GREEK PHILOSOPHER who happened to be Jewish…big whoop! To site this Jew or that Jew because they believed this or that, is it true Jud…[Read more]

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 p…[Read more]

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…[Read more]

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…[Read more]

Please explain the point you’re trying to make concerning Proverbs 8. Make a statement or ask the question.

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 poin…[Read more]

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 c…[Read more]

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…[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.

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 lat…[Read more]

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 o…[Read more]

You didn’t answer this question:

So 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”?

Who’s dynasty will be made permanent and who made the promise?

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, and what is His Son’s name, if you know?”

Explain how Prov 30:4 is a reference for God sending His Son; and how the Jesus is shown to be “a divine figur…[Read more]

My apologizes, I said things that you weren’t privy to in the past as you weren’t apart of those conversations. Most everything you just stated I have commented on. The only personal thing I asked was is it fear or stubbornness that keeps you where you are; nothing more, nothing less. If you feel this is a personal attack, it is not…[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.

You didn’t answer, is i…[Read more]

So 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”?

Please re-read “He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent.” The one who built the Temple is the same whose dynasty will be permanent…it is speaking of Solomon and no other son.

Again it says, “He will build a temple to honor me; he will become my son, and I will become his father. I will grant to hi…[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 requirement. Later prophets describe the future ruler as:
– “a shoot from the stump of Jesse” (Isa 11:1)
– “a righteous Branch for David” (Jer 2…

[Read more]

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

Now we’re going in circles and you’re parroting what you have been told is truth. You still haven’t explained how Mary can be used for lineage when her lineage is traced back to David thru Nathan and who did G-d say the Messiah was to be a…[Read more]

“what ‘thought’ do I want to address?”

That’s a loaded question!

When we previously left off we were discussing how the Jesus could be the true Messiah. He wasn’t conceived of man, but of the spirit according to Matthew and Luke. You claim that thru adoption the Jesus can be the Messiah; yet, it was G-d who said the Messiah wou…[Read more]

And that’s the point, there isn’t enough information given to make a 100% deduction of why Noah cursed his grandson. BUT, your happy with your “belief” to say Noah was “careless” in what he said in cursing Canaan because he was “drunk.” Except the passage doesn’t support Noah was “careless” in his speech; he knew something was amiss a…[Read more]

Your believing Noah “lashed” out after getting drunk is only a belief, it can’t be supported scripturally; but rather it would seem is a teaching of a religion and their condemnation of alcohol. Noah got drunk, did something stupid, past out, and when he woke was angry and lashed out – see how bad drinking alcohol is.

You say “all…[Read more]

For Ham to see his father naked but his child is the one who is cursed seems over the top, which is why I say Ham did something bad to his father; so bad that Noah would curse his son and why the fourth son and not his eldest. Ham did something to Noah and this is what we don’t get in this passage; we never learn what happened and t…[Read more]

I think the more important question is what did Ham do to Noah that he would curse Canaan (What land did the Israelite’s take possession of…hmm – coincidence). To be cursed because Ham saw his father naked doesn’t make sense as it doesn’t fit the punishment; besides, how would Noah have known he saw him naked? He was covered when…[Read more]

Explain what naming someone or being a parent to a child has to do with anything. You keep bringing this up as if it provides concrete proof for the Jesus being a decedent of Solomon. Did you skip reading what I provided in my last comment to you concerning adoption?

Adoption is allowed in Judaism; however, the only inheritance…[Read more]

You still aren’t reading the passages I have given you; reading them will fix every the pollution of christianity. Let’s go over what you wrote:

In Jewish tradition, naming a child was closely tied to the father’s legal role, and biblical examples show that the act of naming was considered a paternal responsibility that estab…

[Read more]

If, as you claim, Jesus is a demi-god, half god/half human then, according to your idea, the human side of him would be biologically related to David.

Demigod: “A male being, often the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god.” The Jesus was conceived by the spirit of G-d thru a mortal woman. Cou…[Read more]

To say that Mary’s Son isn’t a biological descendant of David because He didn’t have a biological father isn’t reasonable. The child was to be the seed of the woman and from a virgin.

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 on…[Read more]

I believe that the translation of NASB1995 is the most accurate and is what I use. I also believe that Isa 9:6 should be translated as in the NASB1995:

So, because you “believe” the 1995 NAS translation is the more accurate translation, it is?!!? What about the the Hebrew; is it less accurate? I would reason the Hebrew would be the mos…[Read more]

You asked if I have a favorite translation and if I compare them to others. Don’t have a favorite translation; but, when reading the Tanakh I read from a Hebrew translation as that is the closest I can get to the original until I learn Hebrew.

Do I compare translations, the short answer, yes. My study aid ranges from software to o…[Read more]

If the questions you ask AI are christian geared, don’t you think the response will also be christian geared? Try a compare and contrast between the Hebrew and christian understandings and what type of answer you will receive. Ask:

What is the difference in understanding of Isaiah 9:6 in the Tanakh and KJV?

ChatGPT’s sum…[Read more]

Regarding Jesus’ qualifications for the eternal throne:
Jewish Messianic Criteria
Must be a descendant of David through Solomon (based on 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 22).
Must be biologically descended from David, not just legally adopted.

Nothing disagreeable here; your next statements are where the problem lies. You know the Jesus is…[Read more]

AI is your source…like I said before, what could go wrong!!?? AI is programmed by man and can only do what it’s programmed to do; a search engine that can look at more information in a split second than you could in a month and give it back in a readable format. If the only information it finds is based in christianity, what do y…[Read more]

Not speaking of “messianic” Jews – that’s “christianity” with Jewish customs thrown in; I’m speaking of Orthodox Judaism.

Yeshua (Jesus) as the divine Messiah and Son of God

The Jesus can’t be the true Messiah as he wasn’t born of the seed of David and Solomon (he did have a biological daddy), he was conceived of the spirit. Do you…[Read more]

Memra means “word,” in the sense of “the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind”; a term used in the Targum as a substitute for “Lord” when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.” Basically it is a substitution for YHWH and its derivatives.

Outside of the Targums, whe…[Read more]

Once again we aren’t on the same page; you aren’t quoting from the Targum (click here for your Targums – Onkelos and Jonathan are the most used), you’re quoting Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho. It’s no wonder there’s mass amounts of confusion; you aren’t quoting scripture; you’re quoting the musings of man.

If this is what your…[Read more]

At least you now know that the belief of two powers in Heaven, held by enough people as a legitimate interpretive framework drawn from biblical texts as early as 560 BCE, is not a modern interpretation.

Have you heard of the Targums?

Did Moses, Joshua, the Judges, or the prophets teach G-d as a “bi-unity” or more importantly, did G-d…[Read more]

I asked for scriptural proof and NOT writings of a scholar christianizing the Jewish scripture with his thoughts.

Daniel 7:9–14: Describes the “Ancient of Days” (God) on a fiery throne, followed by “one like a son of man” who approaches on clouds, receives everlasting dominion, and is served by all peoples. Early Jewish interpret…

[Read more]

We can take a slight pause on the Deut 10 :17 after you give me an analogy that is not comparing apples to oranges and shows that you are grasping the pattern.

Not trying to grasp a “pattern”; I’m looking at the grammatical structure of the sentence…facts. Did you not read the grammar break down of the sentence? This concept is from…[Read more]

So, let me ask you if you know about the belief that enough early Jews (before Jesus came), believed that the Tanak was speaking about two powers of God, so much so, that the orthodox Jewish rabbis made a declaration about that belief?

Don’t be a tease, back up what you say; provide proof to that statement and the “two powers” of G-d.

You are making no sense, obviously the nation of Israel came from Jacob and his sons; where does G-d claim to be more than one. Please provide the passages that support this “trinitarian” claim (do you notice how you are avoiding the question??).

Can we please finally put G-d/the Jesus “unity” of Deut 10:17 to rest; I understand gra…[Read more]

If I were to say: Israel is Jacob and sons. Would you agree that the statement shows that Israel is more than one person?

You’re reaching and your analogy doesn’t work; you’re using an example of two physical separate identities and trying to make them one. Whereas G-d NEVER refers to HIMSELF as a multi “being”; christianity created t…[Read more]

“For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who does not show partiality, nor take a bribe.”

I understand that verse to show that YHWH is God and Lord, two persons.

If I were to say my shirt is black and white, does that mean I have two shirts? Absolutely not!!!! It mea…[Read more]

You realize “Yahweh” is translated to “Lord”…right? So wouldn’t “Lord” also be an appropriate name to use?

When you understand that YHWH is a name for the fullness of God as well as the name of each presence of God, i.e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit

YHWH is yud, hei, vav, hei (Hebrew) and is the “unpronounceable” name of G-d; wher…[Read more]

Let’s start here:

There is a theme of unity throughout scripture. Do you agree?

Unity in relation to what? Please be more specific.

Your original statement of G-d being “two persons” is false (some will say three – that trinity thing…huge false). I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion quoting Deut 10:17. This passage states G-d is G-d and Lord (don’t throw out the conjunction) and when read in context (verses 12-22) HE is telling Israel they are t…[Read more]

At this point, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’ll leave you with a FACT, not a theory:
“If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics—no matter its size—as a small globe that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must also the large one…[Read more]

My answer to your objections:

Here’s an argument by William Carpenter from the year 1885:

If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be—if we could imagine the thing to be peopled all round—“antipodes:” “people who,” says the dictionary, “living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves, have their feet op…[Read more]