Home Christian Writings Supporting the Trinity Doctrine? – The Trinity Doctrine John 1:1 Page 1,300

John 1:1

John 1:1 says the Word was God. Does that mean that Jesus is God because he is the Word?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

First when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.

Secondly, we see In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (THE). The definite article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (e.g., the Word, The God.), yet is absent in the last mention of God. Read on because this can be significant as you are about to find out.

Greek sentence construction affirms that if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (THE) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this is a game changer. Scholars see the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but haven’t made the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature or definite and qualitative. Don’t worry if this makes no sense to you. It will.

Look at the difference between these two sentences.

1) You are an angel
2) You are THE angel.

Notice how the first one is using the word angel in a qualitative way while the second is definite. Hence the term ‘definite article’.

In John 1:1, all instances of the word ‘God” are preceded by the definite article ‘THE’, except the last one.

So it literally says:

John1:1
a) In the beginning was THE God.
b) THE Word was with THE God
c) And THE Word was god.

Why is the last word not capitalised? Where Greek uses the definite article in English we capitalise the word. e.g., the god = God.

So it is grammatically correct to read John 1:1c with a qualitative sense rather reading it as identifying the Word as God himself. It is not only grammatically correct to read it this way, it is also theologically correct because if we read it as THE Theos, then that would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God even to the exclusion of the Father. Now we have two good reasons for reading the last word ‘god/theos’ as qualitative and not as THE God or God.

In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have a preceding definite article which is true, however looking at the verse contextually, we understand that there is clearly two being spoken of, i.e., one God and one called the Word with is clearly another who is next to God and is not that God he is with.

Let’s look at Adam and Eve as an example of two beings that were with each other. Before I give an example, it is important for you at this point to understand that the Hebrew word for ‘man’ is ‘adam’. This means that qualitatively, Adam and Eve are both adam. This is similar to the word theos which is translated as the ‘God’ & god. The absence of the definite article can qualify just as the word adam qualifies. As I said before, in English we use capitals to denote when being definite. So the difference between ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’ is that Adam refers to a specific man called Adam while the latter could refer to him as well as Eve and any other member of mankind. This is clearly stated in scripture in Genesis 1:27:

So God created man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The word for man is adam, so it says: God created ‘adam’ male and female. So saying that ‘Eve is adam’ is a true saying.

In English, If I said “John is the man”, then I am identifying John as  a definite and particular person of the human race. But if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” Can you see the difference now?

To understand how the article can make a big difference to a piece of text, look at this example. Have a guess as to which one is correct.

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was THE man

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or man. Look at the next example:

a) Tools were used by man.
b) Tools were used by the man.

See how the first example is talking about mankind whereas the second example is talking of a specific man.

In other words the word ‘man’ can be used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not always used to identify a particular person and it can even refer to more than one person.

Now let’s have a look at the above example, but using Adam and Eve instead. Notice in English that we do not have the definite article preceding Adam or Eve, because capitalising both Adam and Eve leads us to view these words in a definite sense, the same way that Greek requires the definite article. Essentially THE adam/man in Greek is the same as Adam in English.

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was Adam

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was adam

Notice that the second example is still the correct one.

To further understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he had the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek as you have probably guessed, but most translators deem it necessary to add the indefinite article “a” to complete the thought in English even though it is not present in Greek or any Greek. Greek has no indefinite articles, (a,an).

So Judas wasn’t Satan himself, rather he was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not actually saying that Judas was the Devil himself. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil or demon, he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, who is Satan. So it is with John 1:1c.

The Logos was God has no definite article. It is really saying, The Logos was god. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate John 1:1 as “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

So what kind of being is Jesus then if the Word was theos (without the definite article)? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he must be a divine being if Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. In other words he is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but THE image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. He is all these things, but he is not THE God that he is the son of. That God is exclusively the Father and there are many scriptures to prove that which we will look at later in this page.

Many think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to try and prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

In fact, the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by the article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to describe or qualify.

Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. NOTE: this is not an endorsement with all that these authors have written, rather I am appealing to their view regarding John 1:1.

One prominent scholar called Origen is sometimes quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes. However, they avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D and was a noted expert in Koine Greek.

“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two being mentioned (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’. They are not presented as two coequal persons in a Binity or Trinity. What we really have is one with the character of THEOS who is with TON THEOS (the God), thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique however. He/it is identified further in the gospel as “a son from a father, begotten, as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “theos.” Either there were two equal Gods or persons called God, or it is talking about a godlike one that is with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the last view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.

So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.

John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity Doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation, rather it is another foundation.

So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). However, in order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James Moffatt

So the idea that Jesus Christ is God is often and supposedly supported by John 1:1. However the rest of John’s Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. The New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

We must also remember that the judges of Israel were called gods/theos. This doesn’t mean that they were part of God or part of the Trinity, it just means that they had authority given to them by God. It is also written that we can partake of divine nature, so that could also make us divine just as partaking in flesh makes us man. It must be noted though, that being divine or partaking in divine nature is different to actually being the Divine himself.

Also see John 10:34-35:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

We humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, yet we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:18) (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”

Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. We must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not just a man like us. Yes he partook of flesh and came as a man like us, but he also existed in the form of God as the Word or Logos. We are told that he resides between God and Man and as a man he is our mediator to God. It was indeed the Word that became flesh. God did not  become flesh, instead God resided in Christ who came in the flesh. So just like us, God can be in us who are made of flesh, but God himself did not become flesh. God is not a man and never will be a man. It was the Word who came to us as a man and it was the Word that all things  were created though. See John 1:3.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

And to compliment the fact that God made all things through his Word, and that Jesus is the Word of God, even ignoring the fact that Jesus wears a title, “The Word of God” as recorded in the Book of Revelation, we are specifically told, that God created everything through Jesus Christ. See :Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 

So Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called God’s only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him too. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator. Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God. So what does it mean when it says ‘beginning’? The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is ‘arche’ and this word means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons

Below I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or ‘arche’ is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.

← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.

Discussion

Viewing 20 posts - 25,981 through 26,000 (of 26,009 total)
123…1,2991,3001,301
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 20, 2026 at 1:57 am#948121
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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)!

    June 20, 2026 at 2:15 am#948122
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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!

    June 20, 2026 at 2:30 am#948123
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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.

    June 20, 2026 at 5:18 am#948124
    Lightenup
    Participant

    @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.

    June 22, 2026 at 10:49 am#948126
    Keith
    Participant

    The writings about Jerome says he didn’t like the septuagint and switched to a corrupted latin version to translate the OT. That is where i am that i am came from. From Hebrew it translates-i will be what i will be. But to mislead because Jesus said i am( he lived before Abraham) Catholicism used i am that i am to mislead and try to say that Jesus claimed to be God like the devil fathered Pharisees claimed. But Jesus only answered them honestly with- Before Abraham was, i am,) just saying he lived before Abraham.

    June 23, 2026 at 6:03 am#948128
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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.

    June 23, 2026 at 12:22 pm#948129
    Lightenup
    Participant

    @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.

    June 25, 2026 at 3:58 am#948130
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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?

    June 25, 2026 at 7:18 am#948131
    Lightenup
    Participant

    @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?

    June 25, 2026 at 7:51 am#948132
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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?

    June 25, 2026 at 11:25 am#948133
    LU
    Participant

    @DesireTruth

    Starting with this: “What does the Tanakh actually say about the Messiah?”

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

    If we are going to evaluate whether Jesus fulfills the Tanakh, we must first identify what the Tanakh actually requires.

    So here is what the Tanakh itself says about the Messiah, without adding later traditions.

    1. The Messiah is a descendant of David.
    This comes from the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7 and is repeated in Psalm 89 and Jeremiah 23. The Messiah must come from David’s line. That is the clearest and most consistent requirement.

    2. The Messiah is a king who rules with justice and righteousness.
    This is found in Isaiah 9, Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 23, and Psalm 72. The Messiah is a Davidic king who rules with righteousness, defends the poor, and brings justice.

    3. The Messiah is empowered by the Spirit of the Lord.
    Isaiah 11 says the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon him. This is a defining characteristic.

    4. The Messiah brings salvation, deliverance, and restoration.
    This includes the restoration of Israel, the gathering of the exiles, and the establishment of peace. Isaiah 11, Isaiah 49, Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 34, and Ezekiel 37 all speak of this.

    5. The Messiah suffers, is rejected, and is vindicated.
    Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Zechariah 12 all describe a righteous figure who suffers, is pierced or rejected, and is later vindicated by God. Whether you interpret these passages as messianic or not, they are part of the Tanakh’s picture of God’s chosen servant.

    6. The Messiah is exalted by God.
    Psalm 110 describes a figure seated at God’s right hand. Daniel 7 describes one like a son of man who comes with the clouds of heaven and receives authority, glory, and a kingdom from God. These are exaltation passages.

    7. The Messiah participates in God’s work.
    Isaiah 11, Isaiah 42, Isaiah 49, and Isaiah 53 all describe the servant or the Davidic figure as carrying out God’s mission on earth. Daniel 7 describes the son of man receiving authority from God. Psalm 2 describes the king ruling the nations with God’s authority.

    8. The Messiah brings light to the nations.
    Isaiah 42 and Isaiah 49 describe God’s servant as a light to the nations and as one who brings God’s salvation to the ends of the earth.

    9. The Messiah inaugurates a new covenant.
    Jeremiah 31 describes a new covenant that God will make with His people. This is part of the messianic age.

    10. The Messiah’s reign is everlasting.
    Psalm 72, Psalm 89, Isaiah 9, and Daniel 7 all describe the reign of God’s chosen king as everlasting.

    These are the core Tanakh-based expectations. They come from the text itself, not later rabbinic additions.

    Now here is the important part:
    Your list of objections assumes that the Messiah must do everything at once, immediately, physically, and politically. But the Tanakh never says the Messiah must accomplish all of these things in one moment. The Tanakh never says the Messiah cannot suffer. The Tanakh never says the Messiah cannot be rejected. The Tanakh never says the Messiah cannot be exalted after suffering. The Tanakh never says the Messiah cannot appear, be rejected, and later be vindicated. The Tanakh never says the Messiah cannot participate in God’s work in a unique way. The Tanakh never says the Messiah cannot be given authority by God in a heavenly sense before the earthly restoration.

    Those are later assumptions, not Tanakh statements.

    If you want to continue honestly, then the next step is simple:
    Take each of the ten Tanakh-based expectations above and examine whether Jesus fulfills them. If you want, we can go through them one by one, using only the Tanakh as the standard.

    If you prefer, you can list the passages you believe define the Messiah, and we will examine each one in context to determine whether it is actually a messianic requirement according to the Tanakh itself.

    June 25, 2026 at 3:20 pm#948134
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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)?

    June 25, 2026 at 4:19 pm#948135
    Lightenup
    Participant

    @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)

    June 26, 2026 at 1:36 am#948136
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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.

    June 26, 2026 at 4:20 am#948137
    Lightenup
    Participant

    @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.

    June 27, 2026 at 6:06 am#948138
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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!

    June 27, 2026 at 3:07 pm#948139
    Lightenup
    Participant

    @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.

    June 28, 2026 at 5:01 pm#948140
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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.

    June 29, 2026 at 1:41 am#948141
    Lightenup
    Participant

    @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.

    June 29, 2026 at 3:42 am#948142
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @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!

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 25,981 through 26,000 (of 26,009 total)
123…1,2991,3001,301
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
ACTIVE TOPICS
POPULAR TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2026 Heaven Net

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account