Search Members

[Lightenup]

@Keith
In the 4 gospels, when Jesus was speaking to a crowd, did everybody who was there and saw Jesus, believe He was from God or did some of them, who were there watching Jesus, not believe that He was from God even after they saw Him feed thousands in there presence or raise Lazarus from the dead or heal the lame man and the blind man?

The answer is this:

Not everybody who witnessed Jesus doing miracles believed that He was from God, or that He was the Son of God, and/or that He was the Messiah.

Eventhough they saw with their eyes, they heard with their ears, they did not claim to see a man sent from God, the Messiah. The true reality of Jesus was blinding to the minds of the unbelievers. It wasn’t because Jesus was covering their eyes or doing his miracles behind closed doors. He was in full view doing many of His miracles.

Do you see, Keith, how the truth of Jesus can be blinding to people. If the heart and mind are not willing to see Jesus as the Messiah, they will look right at Him, even witness the miracles, and completely miss Him even to the point of having Him crucified.

Unless they turn their eyes on Him willingly to see Him as the Messiah, the veil remains.

He who now has all authority in heaven and on earth (Jesus), has blinded the eyes of the unbelieving, not because He covers their eyes but because they are unwilling to see with their eyes and believe in their heart and be saved.

Do you agree or not? If not, what specifically do you disagree with?

 

[Lightenup]

@Keith

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

[Lightenup]

@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

[Lightenup]

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 In whom the God of this world blinded the minds of the unbelieving, so that the enlightening of the good news of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, does not enlighten them.

I have come to believe that the God of this age is Jesus since this age referred to, is the Messianic Age, and Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth. Here is a book on the matter if you are interested in challenging your view that Satan is the god of this age.

Who is “the God of this Age”? Paul and the Sovereignty of God in 2 Corinthians 4:4

Ivor Poobalan

The author’s conclusion: “In conclusion, then, I submit that the most likely meaning that may be assigned to Paul’s expression ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου is that by it he was referring to the God of Paul’s Judeo-Christian heritage, and not to the devil. This conclusion is to be preferred because it is exegetically sound, traditionally attested, theologically uncomplicated, and missiologically significant.”

 

[Lightenup]

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 been made:

1. The Tanakh never says the Messiah must have a human biological father.
The passages quoted (Numbers 1, Numbers 2, Ezra 2:59) describe census procedures and record‑checking. They do not establish a law that God Himself must follow in bringing forth the Messiah.

2. The Tanakh shows God is not bound by normal human procreation.
Adam and Eve were fully human and had no biological parents. Their existence shows that God is not limited by the biological process He later gave to humanity. The claim that “God never bypasses natural procreation” is contradicted by the opening chapters of Genesis.

3. The Tanakh contains a prophecy of a miraculous conception.
Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a young woman conceiving in a way that is not ordinary. This is a sign from God, not a normal pregnancy. The idea that God cannot bring forth the Messiah in a miraculous way is not a Tanakh teaching.

4. The Tanakh does not require biological descent through Solomon.
The covenant is with David’s house, not Solomon alone. Solomon fulfills the immediate promise of building the temple, but the eternal promise is to David’s dynasty. The claim that “it must be Solomon” is not stated anywhere in the text.

5. The Tanakh actually creates a problem for biological descent through Solomon.
Jeremiah 22:30 curses Jeconiah’s biological line, saying none of his descendants will prosper on David’s throne. If the Messiah must be biologically descended from Solomon through Jeconiah, then the Messiah is disqualified by the Tanakh itself.

6. The Tanakh shows tribal identity can be assigned by legal fatherhood.
Genesis 48 shows Jacob assigning tribal identity to Ephraim and Manasseh by adoption. Their tribal identity does not come from their biological father’s tribe. This is tribal identity by legal fatherhood, not biology.

7. The argument being presented is based on assumptions, not on the Tanakh.
The repeated claims that “God never bypasses natural procreation,” “tribal lineage can only be paternal,” “the Messiah must be biologically from Solomon,” and “adoption cannot transfer lineage” are not stated anywhere in the Tanakh. They are personal rules being imposed on the text.

In short: the foundational claim that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because He has no biological father is not a Tanakh teaching. The Tanakh itself shows that God is not limited by human biology, gives a prophecy of a miraculous conception, and never requires biological descent through Solomon. The argument being made rests on assumptions, not on what the Tanakh actually says.

[Lightenup]

@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 God’s creative act.

So your claim that “a human must have a biological father or he isn’t fully human” is not a Tanakh rule. Eve disproves it immediately.

Your argument collapses at the starting point.

If God can create a fully human woman without a biological father or mother, then your claim that “Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he has no biological father” is not a Tanakh argument. It is your assumption about how God must work. The Tanakh itself shows God is not limited by normal biology.

You asked, “When has God ever impregnated a woman?”
But that is not the right question. The right question is:
Does the Tanakh ever say God cannot bring forth a human without a biological father?

The answer is no.
And Eve is the proof.

If God can create Eve directly, then God can bring forth the Messiah directly. Your biological‑father requirement is not in the Tanakh. Eve’s creation shows that God is not bound by your rule.

So before we even get to Davidic lineage, your foundational claim fails. The Tanakh itself shows that God can create a fully human person without a biological father. Eve is the precedent you cannot get around.

[Lightenup]

@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 requires of the Messiah.
2) Whether Jesus meets those requirements.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. Descendant of David.
2. King who rules with justice and righteousness.
3. Empowered by the Spirit of the Lord.
4. Brings salvation, deliverance, and restoration.
5. Suffers, is rejected, and is vindicated.
6. Exalted by God.
7. Participates in God’s work.
8. Brings light to the

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 requires of the Messiah.
2) Whether Jesus meets those requirements.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. Descendant of David.
2. King who rules with justice and righteousness.
3. Empowered by the Spirit of the Lord.
4. Brings salvation, deliverance, and restoration.
5. Suffers, is rejected, and is vindicated.
6. Exalted by God.
7. Participates in God’s work.
8. Brings light to the nations.
9. Inaugurates a new covenant.
10. Reign is everlasting.

Those are from the Tanakh, not from later tradition.

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.

So here is the direct answer:

– The Tanakh does not require the Messiah to have a human biological father.
– The Tanakh does require the Messiah to be from David’s line. Jesus is, through Mary and Joseph.
– The Tanakh does not restrict lineage to biology alone. It uses legal fatherhood and adoption (Genesis 48).
– The Tanakh does not forbid God from acting directly in the Messiah’s coming.

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.

Those are from the Tanakh, not from later tradition.

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.

So here is the direct answer:

– The Tanakh does not require the Messiah to have a human biological father.
– The Tanakh does require the Messiah to be from David’s line. Jesus is, through Mary and Joseph.
– The Tanakh does not restrict lineage to biology alone. It uses legal fatherhood and adoption (Genesis 48).
– The Tanakh does not forbid God from acting directly in the Messiah’s coming.

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.

[Lightenup]

@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 fulfilled through Isaac by divine intervention, not ordinary biology. So even at the level of “zera,” God’s action is central.

2. Numbers and Ezra

Numbers 1 and 2 and Ezra 2:59 are about census and record‑keeping. They describe how Israel was counted and how genealogies were checked. They do not say, “God can never assign tribal identity except through a biological father.” They describe normal practice, not divine limitation. You are turning descriptive passages into absolute laws God Himself must obey. The text does not do that.

3. “Tribal lineage runs only through the father.”

You keep asserting this, but the Tanakh gives a counterexample: Genesis 48. Jacob adopts Ephraim and Manasseh and gives them full tribal status equal to Reuben and Simeon. Their tribal identity is assigned by Jacob’s legal fatherhood, not by their biological father’s tribe. That is tribal identity by adoption. You say, “We are only speaking of tribal lineage and not earthly possessions.” But Genesis 48 is exactly about tribal identity and inheritance. It is not just “earthly possessions”; it is about who counts as a tribe in Israel.

Your priest example fails because priesthood and tribal identity are not identical. A priest from Levi cannot make someone from Judah into a Levite by adoption because God restricted priesthood to Levi. But tribal identity itself can be assigned by God and by legal fatherhood, as Genesis 48 shows. You cannot use priesthood rules to override a clear tribal adoption example.

4. Mary’s lineage

You say Mary’s lineage “falls flat” because it goes through Nathan, not Solomon. But the Tanakh never says the Messiah must be biologically descended from Solomon. The covenant is with David’s house, not Solomon alone. Solomon is the immediate fulfillment; the eternal promise is to David’s dynasty. Your claim that “it must be Solomon” is not in the text.

Worse, Jeremiah 22:30 curses Jeconiah’s biological line, saying no descendant of his will prosper on David’s throne. If the Messiah had to be biologically descended from Solomon through Jeconiah, the Messiah would be disqualified by the Tanakh itself. That is why a biological line through Nathan (Mary) avoids the curse, and a legal line through Solomon (Joseph) preserves royal succession rights without violating Jeremiah 22:30.

5. Joseph, Jeconiah, and the curse

You say Joseph “fails” because Jeconiah is in Matthew’s genealogy. But the curse in Jeremiah 22:30 is about Jeconiah’s biological descendants sitting on the throne and prospering. Legal descent without biological participation in Jeconiah’s line does not violate the curse. More importantly, Luke’s genealogy does not go through Jeconiah; it goes through Neri. That means Mary’s line is not under the Jeconiah curse at all.

You then say both genealogies “fail” at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. But the simplest reading is that Matthew traces Joseph’s legal line through Jeconiah, while Luke traces Mary’s biological line through a different Shealtiel/Neri connection. The overlap at Shealtiel/Zerubbabel does not prove both lines are biologically cursed; it shows that both legal and biological lines converge at the post‑exilic restoration point. The curse does not say “no descendant of Jeconiah may ever exist”; it says “none will sit on David’s throne and prosper.” The restoration after the exile and the continued hope for David’s house show that God’s purposes for David’s line were not cancelled.

You demand a passage where God “restores Jeconiah.” But the point is not that Jeconiah personally is restored; the point is that God’s promise to David’s house continues despite Jeconiah’s failure. The existence of post‑exilic Davidic hope (Haggai, Zechariah) shows that God did not terminate the Davidic line.

6. “This alone disqualifies Jesus.”

No, it doesn’t. It disqualifies your assumption that the Messiah must be biologically descended from Solomon through Jeconiah. The Tanakh itself makes that assumption impossible. The solution is exactly what the New Testament presents:

Biological descent from David through Nathan (Mary).
Legal descent from David through Solomon (Joseph).
Divine appointment of the Messiah as David’s heir (Psalm 2; Psalm 110).

All three are consistent with the Tanakh.

7. “No biological father = demigod.”

Calling Jesus a “demigod” is rhetoric, not exegesis. The Tanakh does not forbid God from acting directly in the conception of His chosen servant. The Tanakh does not say, “If God acts directly, the result is a pagan demigod.” That is your label, not the text. The issue is whether God can bring forth His Messiah in a way that both fulfills Davidic descent and expresses His own unique involvement. The Tanakh does not forbid that.

So here is the direct answer:

Jesus does not have a human biological father.
The Tanakh does not require the Messiah to have one.
The Tanakh does not restrict tribal identity to biology alone.
The Tanakh itself shows tribal identity by adoption (Genesis 48).
The Tanakh itself curses Jeconiah’s biological line (Jeremiah 22:30).
The Tanakh itself maintains hope for David’s house after the exile.

Your argument depends on requirements the Tanakh never gives and ignores the ways the Tanakh itself handles tribal identity, adoption, and the Davidic covenant.

[Lightenup]

@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)

[Lightenup]

@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 messianic identity already established earlier in Christian proclamation. Your argument keeps assuming that unless Jesus is already proven to be the Messiah, none of the passages can be applied to Him. But that is circular. You are saying: “These passages cannot apply to Jesus unless He is the Messiah, and He cannot be the Messiah unless these passages apply to Him.” That is not how textual analysis works.

Let me answer your points directly.

Point 1. Psalm 2
You now agree that Psalm 2 is Davidic and can be messianic. Good. That is the foundation. The question is not “Is Psalm 2 originally about Jesus?” The question is whether Psalm 2 is part of the Davidic messianic pattern that can legitimately be applied to the Messiah. You agree it can. So the only remaining question is whether Jesus fits the Davidic messianic identity. That is a separate discussion, not a refutation of Hebrews.

Point 2. Psalm 45
You agree that “elohim” can be a title of authority for the Davidic king. Good. That is exactly why Hebrews uses it. Hebrews is not claiming Psalm 45 is originally about Jesus. Hebrews is claiming that the royal language used for the Davidic king reaches its fullest meaning in the Messiah. That is how Jewish interpretation works: a text can have an original historical referent and a later messianic application. You keep saying “But first you must prove Jesus is the Messiah.” That is fine, but that is not an argument against Hebrews. That is simply your prior rejection of Jesus. Hebrews is not misusing the text. You are rejecting its conclusion.

Point 3. Psalm 102
You agree the passage is about God as creator, eternal, unchanging. Good. Hebrews applies this to the Son because Hebrews has already stated that the Son is the agent of creation (Hebrews 1:2) and the exact representation of God’s nature (Hebrews 1:3). You say this is “the opinion of the unknown author.” But the question is not “Do you agree with the author?” The question is “Is the author misusing the Tanakh?” The author is not misusing Psalm 102. He is applying a YHWH passage to the Son because he believes the Son shares in the divine identity.

You ask, “Where does the Tanakh say there is a co-equal participant in creation?” The Tanakh contains the foundation for this idea in the Jewish wisdom tradition: Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, Wisdom of Solomon 7–9. These texts describe God’s wisdom or word as pre-existent, active in creation, and sharing divine attributes. Hebrews is drawing from that Jewish conceptual world. You may reject the conclusion, but you have not shown misuse.

You ask, “Where does the Tanakh say this son is the radiance of God’s glory?” That is not a misuse question. That is a theological disagreement. Hebrews is interpreting the Son in light of the Tanakh, not quoting a verse that says those exact words. Jewish interpretation does this constantly. You are demanding a kind of literal proof-texting that Judaism itself does not require.

You also brought up purification of sins. You ask, “Does God need a helper?” That is not what Hebrews says. Hebrews says the Son made purification of sins. The Tanakh does not forbid God from acting through His chosen agent. The Tanakh also does not forbid God from providing a once-for-all atonement. You ask, “Where does God allow human sacrifice?” The answer is: the death of Jesus is not described as a human sacrifice in the sense forbidden in the Torah. It is described as the offering of the Messiah, the righteous servant, which is consistent with Isaiah 53. You may reject that interpretation, but again, that is not a misuse question.

Point 5 and 6.
You say the order of questions should be reversed. But that is exactly the problem. You are trying to force Hebrews to prove Jesus is the Messiah before it can apply any text to Him. But Hebrews is not written to skeptics. Hebrews is written to people who already believe Jesus is the Messiah. The question “Is Jesus the Messiah?” is not the same as “Does Hebrews misuse the Tanakh?” You keep collapsing the two. You say “misapply” instead of “misuse,” but that is still your theological disagreement, not a textual argument.

You admit the passages are Davidic. You admit they can be messianic. You admit the language can apply to the Messiah. Your only objection is that you do not believe Jesus is the Messiah. That is not a misuse argument. That is your prior conclusion.

You ask whether Jewish writings support the messianic figure being Jesus. That is a different debate. Hebrews is not appealing to later Jewish writings to prove Jesus. Hebrews is using the Tanakh in the same way other Jewish interpreters used it: applying royal, divine, and wisdom themes to the expected Messiah.

You say everything is a waste of time unless Jesus is first proven to be the Messiah. But that is not how textual analysis works. First you determine whether Hebrews is using the Tanakh in a way consistent with Jewish interpretive patterns. Then you determine whether Jesus fits the messianic identity. You are reversing the order because you want to dismiss Hebrews before examining it.

You say you gave a list of passages about the Messiah and asked what I did with them. If you want to move to that discussion, then we can. But that is a separate debate. The question of Hebrews 1 is whether the author misused the Tanakh. You have not shown misuse. You have only shown that you disagree with the author’s conclusion because you reject Jesus as Messiah.

If you want to move forward, then let’s do it in the correct order:

1. What does the Tanakh actually say about the Messiah?
2. Which expectations are Tanakh-based and which are later rabbinic?
3. Does Jesus fulfill the Tanakh-based expectations?
4. Does the Tanakh allow for a suffering, rejected, vindicated Messiah?
5. Does the Tanakh allow for a Messiah who is exalted to God’s right hand?
6. Does the Tanakh allow for a Messiah who participates in God’s work?

[Lightenup]

@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 His Son.
Hebrews 1:3: The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature.
Hebrews 1:5–14: A chain of Tanakh quotations applied to “the Son” in contrast to angels.

So yes, Hebrews is intentionally applying those passages to Jesus as the Son. That is not in dispute. The question is whether that application is consistent with the Tanakh in its own context and with Jewish interpretive patterns.

Let’s go through the key passages.

1. Psalm 2 in Hebrews 1:5

Hebrews 1:5 quotes:
“You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” (Psalm 2:7)

Your objection was:
“Psalm 2 isn’t about Jesus, and Jews didn’t interpret it messianically before Christianity.”

The issue is not “Is Psalm 2 originally about Jesus?” The issue is:
Is Psalm 2 part of a Davidic/messianic pattern that later Jewish and Christian writers legitimately extend?

Psalm 2 in its original context:
– A royal psalm about the Davidic king.
– The king is called “My Son” by God.
– The nations are promised to him as inheritance.

This fits the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7:
– God promises David a son who will sit on his throne.
– God says, “I will be his Father, and he will be My Son.”

So Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 together form a royal, Davidic “son of God” theology.

Now, on Jewish messianic interpretation:
You challenged my claim that Jews interpreted Psalm 2 messianically before Christianity, and you tried to dismiss the sources I mentioned.

Let’s be precise.

Dead Sea Scrolls:
4QFlorilegium (4Q174) is a Qumran text that cites 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 together and applies them to “the Branch of David,” a messianic figure. This is a pre‑Christian Jewish text. It shows that Psalm 2 was already being read messianically in the Second Temple period.

Targum Jonathan:
You are correct that Targum Jonathan is on the Prophets, not the Writings. I should have specified the Aramaic Targum tradition more carefully. The point remains: later Jewish targumic tradition does apply royal and messianic language to Davidic figures, and Psalm 2 is part of that trajectory.

Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a:
Yes, this is post‑Christian (3rd–6th century CE). But it preserves earlier traditions and explicitly applies Psalm 2:7 to the Messiah. That shows that Jewish tradition, not just Christian, saw Psalm 2 as messianic.

So:
– Pre‑Christian: Qumran (4QFlorilegium) uses Psalm 2 in a messianic way.
– Post‑Christian but Jewish: Talmud preserves messianic readings of Psalm 2.

Hebrews is not inventing a new use. It is participating in a Jewish pattern of reading Psalm 2 as part of the Davidic/messianic promise.

2. Psalm 45 in Hebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8:
“But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…’” (Psalm 45:6–7)

Your objection:
Psalm 45 is just a wedding song for a Davidic king, not messianic, and “elohim” there doesn’t have to mean God.

Let’s deal with the text first.

Psalm 45 in its original context:
– A royal psalm celebrating the Davidic king’s marriage.
– The king is praised for justice, righteousness, and military strength.
– The psalmist addresses the king in exalted language.

The key phrase:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”

The Hebrew:
Kis’akha Elohim olam va’ed.

There are three main options:
1) Vocative: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”
2) Construct: “Your throne of God is forever and ever.”
3) Predicate: “Your throne is God forever and ever.”

Most major lexicons and many Jewish and Christian commentators recognize the vocative reading as grammatically valid: the king is addressed as “Elohim” in a royal, exalted sense.

You correctly noted that “elohim” can refer to judges, rulers, or spiritual beings, not only to God Himself. That is exactly the point: royal theology in the Tanakh can use “elohim” language for the Davidic king as God’s representative.

So what is Hebrews doing?

Hebrews takes this royal psalm, where the Davidic king is addressed with “elohim” language and an eternal throne, and applies it to the Son as the ultimate Davidic king. That is consistent with:
– The Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7).
– Royal psalms (Psalm 2, 45, 72, 89, 110).
– Jewish messianic expectation of a Davidic king whose reign is everlasting.

You asked for a specific Jewish source that applies Psalm 45 to the Messiah. You are right to call out the need for accuracy.

Midrash Rabbah on Numbers:
You are correct that Psalm 45:6–7 is not explicitly cited there. My earlier reference was imprecise. What matters is not that one specific midrash mentions those exact verses, but that Jewish tradition recognizes royal psalms as part of messianic expectation.

There are Jewish sources (including some medieval commentators) that see Psalm 45 as having messianic overtones, but even if you reject that, the core point stands:

Psalm 45:
– Exalts the Davidic king.
– Uses “elohim” language.
– Speaks of an eternal throne.

Hebrews:
– Sees Jesus as the ultimate Davidic king.
– Applies that royal language to Him.
– Uses it to argue for His exalted status.

That is a theological extension of a royal psalm, not a random misuse.

3. Psalm 102 in Hebrews 1:10–12

Hebrews 1:10–12:
“And, ‘You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands…’” (Psalm 102:25–27)

You said:
“Psalm 102 is about Jerusalem. That’s where we stop. Anything after that is theology.”

Psalm 102 in its original context:
– A lament of an afflicted person.
– A prayer for the restoration of Zion.
– In the latter part of the psalm, the speaker turns to YHWH as the eternal creator whose years never end.

The verses Hebrews quotes are explicitly about YHWH:
– YHWH created the heavens and the earth.
– YHWH remains the same.
– YHWH’s years have no end.

Hebrews’ argument:
– In verse 8, the Father speaks to the Son.
– In verses 10–12, the Father applies a YHWH passage to the Son.

You say that is “just theology.” Yes, it is theology. But it is theology built on the text:
– The Son is already described in Hebrews 1:3 as the “radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature.”
– The Son is already said to be the one through whom God made the world (Hebrews 1:2).
– Therefore, applying a YHWH‑creator passage to the Son is consistent with the claim that the Son shares in the divine identity.

You ask:
“Where did God say He needed help? Where did God say He would come as a man and sacrifice Himself?”

You are jumping ahead to atonement and incarnation. Hebrews 1 is not yet arguing about sacrifice. It is arguing about who the Son is:
– Pre‑existent.
– Agent of creation.
– Sharing the attributes of YHWH (eternal, unchanging).

That is not a misuse of Psalm 102. It is a theological conclusion drawn from:
– The YHWH language in Psalm 102.
– The Son’s role in creation as stated in Hebrews 1:2.
– The broader Jewish wisdom tradition where God’s wisdom or word is described as pre‑existent and involved in creation (Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, Wisdom of Solomon 7–9).

4. Your demand: “Support it with the Tanakh, not with the writings of man.”

You keep saying:
“Explain and support it with the Tanakh, not with the writings and musing of man.”

But the very things you are rejecting as “writings of man” are:
– Jewish interpretations of the Tanakh.
– Jewish textual traditions (LXX, DSS).
– Jewish wisdom literature.
– Jewish messianic expectations.

You cannot demand “Tanakh only” and then ignore how Jews themselves read the Tanakh in the Second Temple period and beyond. Hebrews is not operating in a vacuum. It is part of that Jewish interpretive world.

5. “Did Jesus fulfill all that the Messiah was to do?”

Now you are back to your original question:
“Did Jesus fulfill all that was said the Messiah is to do?”

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?

On the first question:
Hebrews uses:
– Psalm 2 (Davidic sonship).
– Psalm 45 (royal, “elohim” language).
– Psalm 102 (YHWH as eternal creator).
– Deuteronomy 32:43 (angels worshipping Him, in the longer Jewish textual tradition).
– Other royal and wisdom themes.

It does so in line with:
– Davidic covenant theology.
– Royal psalms.
– Jewish wisdom and divine identity concepts.
– Jewish textual traditions (LXX, DSS).

You have not shown that Hebrews misquotes or corrupts the text. You have only asserted that its theological conclusions are impossible because you reject Jesus as Messiah and reject any participation of the Son in the divine identity.

On the second question:
“Did Jesus fulfill all messianic expectations?”
That requires:
– A careful list of what the Tanakh actually says about the Messiah.
– Distinguishing between:
– What is explicitly in the Tanakh.
– What is later rabbinic expectation.
– What is Christian interpretation.

We can have that discussion, but it is not honest to pretend that Hebrews 1 is “twisting” the Tanakh when:
– It quotes real passages.
– It uses real Jewish textual traditions.
– It follows real Jewish interpretive patterns.

You asked:
“Are these passages correctly being applied to Jesus or taken out of context?”

The direct answer:
– Psalm 2: Correctly applied within Davidic/messianic theology.
– Psalm 45: Correctly applied as royal, Davidic, “elohim” language to the ultimate king.
– Psalm 102: Correctly applied within a framework where the Son is the agent of creation and shares YHWH’s eternal attributes.
– Deuteronomy 32:43 (longer reading): Correctly used from a Jewish textual tradition older than the Masoretic Text.

You may reject the conclusions, but you have not shown that Hebrews is misusing the text. You have only shown that you disagree with its theology.

If you want to continue, we can move to your core question:
“Is Jesus the true Messiah according to the Tanakh?”
But that will require you to:
– Define clearly what you believe the Tanakh says the Messiah must do.
– Distinguish between Tanakh text and later rabbinic expectations.
– Actually engage the passages, not just assert “He never fulfilled a thing.”

Right now, you are not refuting Hebrews. You are rejecting Jesus. Those are related, but not identical issues.

[Lightenup]

@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.

 

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

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. SEPTUAGINT (LXX)
Your entire objection collapses here.

You claim the LXX “isn’t the same book” and therefore Hebrews can’t rely on it.
But the issue is not whether the modern LXX is identical to the original LXX.
The issue is:

Did first‑century Jews use the LXX?
Yes. That is historically uncontested.

– Philo quotes the LXX constantly.
– Josephus uses LXX‑style readings.
– The NT authors quote the LXX over 80% of the time.
– Greek‑speaking synagogues used it throughout the Mediterranean world.

Your argument requires believing that Jews in the first century did not use the Jewish translation they themselves produced. That is historically impossible.

You also ignored the central point:

Every “corruption” you accused Hebrews of is simply the LXX wording.
You have not addressed this once.

2. DEAD SEA SCROLLS (DSS)
You said nothing about 4QDeutq.

Deut 32:43 in the DSS contains the longer reading:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

This proves two things:

1. The LXX reading is not a Christian invention.
2. Hebrews is quoting a Jewish textual tradition older than the Masoretic Text.

You dismissed this without comment.

3. PSALM 2 AND 2 SAMUEL 7

You shifted the topic to Jesus’ kingship instead of addressing the actual claim:

Were Jews before Christianity interpreting Psalm 2 messianically?
Yes.

– 4QFlorilegium (Dead Sea Scrolls) explicitly applies Psalm 2 to the Messiah.
– Targum Jonathan applies Psalm 2 to the Messiah.
– Rabbinic tradition (Sukkah 52a) applies Psalm 2 to the Messiah.

You have not refuted this.
You simply asserted, “It’s not about Jesus,” which is not an argument.

Your adoption objection also misses the point.
Hebrews is not arguing about tribal inheritance.
Hebrews is arguing about the identity of the Son, not His tribal inheritance.

You claimed Psalm 45 “isn’t messianic.”
That is irrelevant to the point you ignored:

The Hebrew text calls the Davidic king “Elohim.”

You tried to avoid this by listing other uses of elohim, but that does not change the grammar of Psalm 45:7:

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים
“Your throne, O God…”

Every major lexicon recognizes this vocative reading.

You also demanded a Jewish source for messianic interpretation.
Here you go:

– Midrash Rabbah (Numbers 14:1) applies Psalm 45 to the Messiah.
– The Targum to Psalm 45 interprets the king as the Messiah.
– Medieval Jewish commentators (Kimchi, Ibn Ezra) acknowledge messianic readings.

5. PSALM 102 AND THE LOGIC OF HEBREWS 1

You keep repeating, “Psalm 102 is about Jerusalem.”
Yes — in its original context.

But Hebrews is not claiming the psalm *was originally about the Messiah*.
Hebrews is making a theological argument:

– In v. 8 the Father speaks to the Son.
– In vv. 10–12 the Father applies a YHWH‑passage to the Son.

Your response was:
“God doesn’t need help.”

That does not address the argument.
The question is:

Why does the author of Hebrews believe the Son shares the attributes of YHWH?
Eternal.
Unchanging.
Creator.

You have not answered this.

Your analogy (“If my son shares my attributes, he is me?”) misunderstands the argument.
The point is not “same attributes = same person.”
The point is:

Same divine attributes = participation in the divine identity.

This is a Jewish category (see [Second Temple divine identity](ca://s?q=Explain_second_temple_divine_identity)), not a Christian invention.

6. MASORETIC TEXT VS. LXX

You said you’re “not elevating the MT,” but your entire argument depends on treating the MT as the only valid text.

The problem is:

– The MT is medieval (900–1000 AD).
– The LXX is 1000 years older.
– The DSS confirm many LXX‑style readings.

You also claimed Jews in the first century “didn’t use Greek.”
This is historically false.

– Most Jews in the diaspora spoke Greek.
– Synagogues in Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, and Rome used Greek Scriptures.
– Even in Judea, Greek was widely used (inscriptions, coins, documents).

Your argument requires pretending the Jewish world was monolingual.
It wasn’t.

7. “NOTHING ABOUT JESUS IN THE TANAKH”

This is simply your conclusion, not an argument.

You have not addressed:

– Jewish wisdom literature describing a pre‑existent co‑creator (Prov 8; Sirach 24; Wisdom 7–9).
– Jewish royal theology calling the king “Elohim.”
– Jewish messianic interpretation of Psalm 2.
– Jewish textual traditions behind Deut 32:43.
– Jewish use of the LXX.

These are Jewish sources, not interacting with the manuscripts.

You are not interacting with:

– the manuscripts
– the pre‑Christian Jewish interpretations
– the textual variants
– the logic of Hebrews
– the historical use of the LXX
– the DSS evidence

You are interacting only with modern translations and modern rabbis, while ignoring the Jewish sources that existed before Christianity.

If you want to argue Hebrews “twists the Tanakh,” then you must deal with the actual textual data.

Right now, you’re avoiding it.

[Lightenup]

@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 relationship. If the father gives his son authority over all things in heaven and on earth after the son accomplishes his father’s will, it shows that the son is trusted by his father to be able to handle that level of authority.

The Son is perfect and always under the authority of his perfect Father or the Son would not be perfect. The Son can do everything he sees his Father doing. The Father provides the vision, the Son carries out the vision.

The unity of Jehovah is the perfect Father with the perfect Son, not the Father apart from the perfect Son.

Apart from the Son, the Father did not create anything.

Apart from the Father, the Son did not create anything.

But they did create and they created together. Both receive the same honor of being the creator, Jehovah.

Also, Jesus is the God of this Messianic age in 2 Cor 4:4, not satan.

[Lightenup]

@Keith

Do you have a response?

[Lightenup]

@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.”

[Lightenup]

@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 Scriptures used in the first century.
You ignored this completely.

2. You did not answer the Dead Sea Scrolls evidence.
Deut 32:43 (“let all the angels of God worship Him”) appears in 4QDeutq.
You ignored this too.

3. You did not answer the fact that Psalm 2 was interpreted messianically by Jews before Christianity.
Dead Sea Scrolls, Targum Jonathan, and early rabbinic sources all apply Psalm 2 to the Messiah.
You didn’t touch it.

4. You did not answer the grammar of Psalm 45.
The Hebrew text itself calls the Davidic king “Elohim.”
You skipped that as well.

5. You did not answer the logic of Hebrews 1.
The argument is simple:
– The Father speaks to the Son (v. 8)
– The Father applies a YHWH‑passage to the Son (vv. 10–12)
You didn’t refute the argument.
You just restated your conclusion.

Instead of addressing any of these points, you shifted to:
“Listen to Skobac, Federow, Hajioff, Singer.”

Appealing to modern speakers is not a substitute for dealing with the actual text, the actual manuscripts, or the actual Jewish interpretations that existed before Christianity.

You said the Tanakh “belongs to them.”
Fine — then deal with the fact that *their own pre‑Christian sources* contradict your claims:

– The LXX is a Jewish translation.
– The DSS preserve the longer Deut 32:43.
– Jewish tradition applied Psalm 2 to the Messiah.
– Jewish royal theology calls the king “Elohim.”
– Jewish wisdom literature presents a pre‑existent co‑creator.

These are not “Christian rote answers.”
These are Jewish texts, Jewish translations, and Jewish interpretations that existed long before the NT.

If you want to argue Hebrews misuses the Tanakh, then you need to engage the actual textual data — not dismiss it and tell me to “change my world.”

Right now, you’re avoiding the evidence, not answering it.

[Lightenup]

@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 Christian invention.

Once that is acknowledged, your argument collapses.

1. “These verses aren’t in the Tanakh.”
They *are* in the Tanakh used by Jews in the time of Jesus.
Deut 32:43 (“Let all the angels of God worship Him”) appears in the LXX AND in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutq).
The MT is simply shorter. Hebrews is quoting the older Jewish textual tradition.

2. Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7
You assert these are not Messianic.
But Jewish sources *before Christianity* apply Psalm 2 to the Messiah:
– Dead Sea Scrolls (4QFlorilegium)
– Targum Jonathan
– Rabbinic tradition (Sukkah 52a)
The same is true of the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam 7.
Your interpretation is post‑Christian, not ancient.

3. Psalm 104:4
You object that “winds” are messengers, not angels.
But the Hebrew *mal’akhim* means messengers/angels, and the LXX translators (Jewish scholars) rendered it “angels.”
Hebrews quotes the LXX. Nothing is “twisted.”

4. Psalm 45
The Hebrew text itself calls the Davidic king “Elohim” (“Your throne, O God…”).
This is not a Christian corruption.
It is Jewish royal theology. Hebrews applies the royal psalm to the Messiah exactly as Jewish tradition did.

5. Psalm 102
Yes, the psalm speaks of YHWH.
That is precisely why Hebrews uses it.
The argument is:
– The Father speaks to the Son (Heb 1:8)
– The Father applies a YHWH‑passage to the Son (Heb 1:10–12)
This is not “corruption.” It is a theological conclusion:
If the Son shares the attributes of YHWH (eternal, unchanging, creator),
then the Son participates in the divine identity.

You haven’t refuted the argument.
You’ve only assumed the conclusion is impossible.

6. The real issue
You are treating the medieval MT as the original Bible and the LXX as “corruption.”
But the LXX is older, widely used by Jews, and supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Hebrews quotes the Scriptures as they existed in the first century, not the Scriptures as edited in the 10th century.

Your critique fails because it is aimed at the wrong text.

 

[Lightenup]

@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 subject of all the verbs in the passage (“laid,” “remain,” “change”). The imagery emphasizes that creation is temporary, but God is eternal.

Hebrews 1:10–12 quotes this passage and applies it directly to the Son, identifying Him with the eternal Creator whose years never end.

When you read the name of YHWH in the OT,  the pronouns “He” or “They” or “Us”can represent the unity of the Father, Son and Spirit, or the members within the unity, the Father or the Son or their Spirit.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

YHWH the Father of Jesus, identified His Son as the YHWH who laid the foundation of the earth and established the heavens as well in Hebrews 1:10-12.

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

YHWH is both God and Lord

[Author]

Posts