Why do Christians say that Jesus is the Messiah?

[Jonaitis]

Yes, as it is written: "Thus saith the LORD, Who giveth the sun for a light by day, And the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, Who stirreth up the sea, that the waves thereof roar, The LORD of hosts is His name: If these ordinances depart from before Me, Saith the LORD, Then the seed of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me for ever. Thus saith the LORD: If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, Then will I also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, saith the LORD" (Jeremiah 31:35-37)

If you could elaborate that relationship and this verse?

 

[King Cyrus]

If you could elaborate that relationship and this verse?

Those verses show that God cannot break His covenant with Israel. The relationship of the covenant between God and the children of Israel is that if the children of Israel are righteous, the Holy One, blessed be He, would bless them. If they transgressed the covenant, God would punish them.

 

[Sanoy]

Riding on the clouds and riding on a donkey are both imagery of the reigning Messiah. Riding on a donkey means that he's humble and riding on the clouds means that he is victorious.

In Genesis 19:24, it is simply a way Scripture sometimes says things. We also read in 1 Kings 8:1: "Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers’ houses of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem." Obviously there are not two Solomons here. Regarding Zechariah 3:2, this is also another manner of speaking sometimes presented in the Tanakh. For instace, we read in Genesis 4:23: "And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech; For I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me;" And he did not say "hearken unto me, my wives." There are many other instances of this. Even in the Christian bible Jesus often talks about himself as the son of man in the third person.

Right, but both verses talk about him coming on a donkey and coming on the clouds. That is two separate comings. We also have the suffering and disfigured Messiah, and the Triumphant overcoming Messiah. Those cannot be simultaneous expectations.

The examples you give regarding Genesis 19:24 and Zechariah 3:2 are similar on the surface, but vastly different in reality.

Hashem in Genesis 19:24 has the mark of the accusative on the second Hashem. In 1 kings 8:1 the mark of the accusative is over two different nouns....not the same noun. You may have a repetition in 1 Kings8:1, but you don't have a grammatical condition where the same noun that is doing the thing is also subject of the accusative. Repetition is not what is important here, but the grammatical requirements surrounding a single noun, only one of which is in the accusative.

Lamech isn't calling upon his own name in Genesis 4:23 and speaking in the third person, he is addressing "wives of Lamech", it's passive voice not active voice. In Zechariah you have Hashem saying, in active voice, "Hashem rebuke you". Unless you see two Hashems here, you have Hashem speaking in the third person. That is quite a bit different from the example you gave. You also did not explain why Zechariah has the identical format that we find in the assumption of Moses where Michael appeals to a higher power. We have the same scene in both books where the adversary is contesting over a person. The format is no accident, either the author of the assumption of Moses is drawing upon Zechariah 3:2 and seeing it as an appeal, or Zechariah 3:2 is using the same language of appeal Michael did in the assumption of Moses account.

 

[King Cyrus]

Right, but both verses talk about him coming on a donkey and coming on the clouds. That is two separate comings.

No, it's not. I already explained that these verses use imagery to convey to the reader the single coming of the Messiah - one to show that the Messianic King will be humble and the other to show that he will be victorious.

Hashem in Genesis 19:24 has the mark of the accusative on the second Hashem. In 1 kings 8:1 the mark of the accusative is over two different nouns....not the same noun. You may have a repetition in 1 Kings 8:1, but you don't have a grammatical condition where the same noun that is doing the thing is also subject of the accusative.

It doesn't matter if it's over the same noun or not. Both verses show the subject doing an action in relation to themselves. It doesn't make them "multi-personal" beings.

Lamech isn't calling upon his own name in Genesis 4:23 and speaking in the third person, he is addressing "wives of Lamech", it's passive. In Zechariah you have Hashem saying "Hashem rebuke you". That is directly third person. That is quite a bit different from the example you gave. You also did not explain why Zechariah has the identical format that we find in the assumption of Moses where Michael appeals to a higher power.

Yes, he is speaking in the third person. He (Lamech) is addressing his wives as "wives of Lamech." similarly David said, “Take with you the servants of your lord” (1 Kings 1:33), and not “my servants“; and Ahasuerus said, “. . . in the name of the king” (Esther 8:8), not “in my name.” They are all referring to themselves in the third person not to another personality. Jesus also sometimes refers to himself in the third person as the son of man in the Christian bible. Example of this would be matthew 24:30.

 

[Sanoy]

No, it's not. I already explained that these verses use imagery to convey to the reader the single coming of the Messiah - one to show that the Messianic King will be humble and the other to show that he will be victorious.

It doesn't matter if it's over the same noun or not. Both verses show the subject doing an action in relation to themselves. It doesn't make them "multi-personal" beings.

Yes, he is speaking in the third person. He (Lamech) is addressing his wives as "wives of Lamech." similarly David said, “Take with you the servants of your lord” (1 Kings 1:33), and not “my servants“; and Ahasuerus said, “. . . in the name of the king” (Esther 8:8), not “in my name.” They are all referring to themselves in the third person not to another personality. Jesus also sometimes refers to himself in the third person as the son of man in the Christian bible. Example of this would be matthew 24:30.

And I agreed with you that they use imagery, but you continue to ignore the fact that they refer to his coming. Donkey's are vehicles and the clouds are divine vehicles in the ancient near east. I think you are glossing over this aspect of the verse and symbolizing the things you don't want. The verses stress the aspect and manner of His coming. Hashem is letting you know what to look for, but you are obscuring His words to deny the one He sent. If no one expected the Messiah to come on a Donkey as you suggest, then we would not read in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that Jesus came on a Donkey. Nor would we see the expectation in the Bablyonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98a. Kings came on a Donkey when they wanted to show they come in peace, when He comes the second time He won't be riding on a Donkey, but the war horse of divine beings in the ANE... clouds.

Grammar does matter, because Grammar determines how you interpret a sentence. Prior beliefs are not how to interpret a sentence, you determine it by it's grammar, and contextual vocabulary. It's not a simple matter of calling it a mistake, because this isn't even the only example I can give where there is another Hashem. This is an ongoing theme in the OT not a standalone occurance. Jewish belief was Binatarian back then, the Rabbi's may deny that all they want, but it is historically true given 2nd temple speculation over this second power through things like Metatron, Michael, and the Memra. One Rabbi even wrote a book on it admitting Binatarianism. You can hand wave it way, but don't say that you love the truth at the same time.

There is a difference between active and passive voice. The target in a passive voice is wives, not Lamech. The target in a passive voice is Servants, not your lord. It is important to understand these distinctions. Yes, Jesus uses an eschatological term to refer to himself in Matthew 24:30, but he is speaking of his future coming. He will not be as he was when he comes on the clouds. He is using the term for the eschatological expectation of the cloud rider in Daniel called there the "Son of man". The "Son of man" here is an eschatological title derived specifically from the prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14. And notice the nations will serve Him, a word Daniel uses in regards to three who refuse to worship and serve the gods of Nebuchadnezzar and are placed in the furnace. It means worship in egyptian aramaic, and fear in Assyrian.

I heard no mention of the direct parallel to the assumption of Moses in Zechariah 3:2, you continue to gloss over that critical fact. Which do you love more Cyrus, the truth or the practice of Judaism, because the Pharisees loved the practice of Judaism more, and that is why my Lord called them Lawless ones. What did God command? Obey my voice (Jeremiah 7:22-23). His voice is truth.

 

[King Cyrus]

And I agreed with you that they use imagery, but you continue to ignore the fact that they refer to his coming. Donkey's are vehicles and the clouds are divine vehicles in the ancient near east. I think you are glossing over this aspect of the verse and symbolizing the things you don't want. The verses stress the aspect and manner of His coming. Hashem is letting you know what to look for, but you are obscuring His words to deny the one He sent. If no one expected the Messiah to come on a Donkey as you suggest, then we would not read in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that Jesus came on a Donkey. Nor would we see the expectation in the Bablyonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98a. Kings came on a Donkey when they wanted to show they come in peace, when He comes the second time He won't be riding on a Donkey, but the war horse of divine beings in the ANE... clouds.

But they are both referring to a single coming - they are simply describing two aspects of the single coming of the Messiah son of David which is that he will be humble and he will be victorious. Whatever the New Testament says is completely irrelevant to what the Tanakh says. You reference the Talmud but Jews don't agree with everything which is said in the Talmud. The Talmud is a record of discussion and contains many homiletical and poetical sayings. It is only the legal parts of the Talmud which are binding.

Grammar does matter, because Grammar determines how you interpret a sentence.

Prior beliefs are not how to interpret a sentence, you determine it by it's grammar, and contextual vocabulary.

But when the grammar leaves the text open to interpretation it would be a bad mistake to make a dogma based upon ambiguous verses.

It's not a simple matter of calling it a mistake, because this isn't even the only example I can give where there is another Hashem. This is an ongoing theme in the OT not a standalone occurance.

There is a difference between active and passive voice. The target in a passive voice is wives, not Lamech. The target in a passive voice is Servants, not your lord. It is important to understand these distinctions.

But you're ignoring the fact that in the Hebraic understanding, a person's messenger/agent is regarded as the person himself. This is why we see Moses calling himself YHVH God in Deuteronomy 29:6 speaking as God as God's agent. Even in the Christian bible, we see this same principle. For instance if you compare the gospels on the story of the centurion, we read in Matthew 8:5-13 that the centurion himself came and spoke with Jesus but if you read Luke's account in Luke 7:1-10 we find out that what actually happened was that the centurion sent some Jewish elders and friends and they were the ones that actually came to Jesus. This is not a contradiction considering the Hebrew understanding. The centurion's messengers were referred to as the centurion because they were his agents and they represented him.

The "Son of man" here is an eschatological title derived specifically from the prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14. And notice the nations will serve Him, a word Daniel uses in regards to three who refuse to worship and serve the gods of Nebuchadnezzar and are placed in the furnace. It means worship in egyptian aramaic, and fear in Assyrian.

They will not serve him as God, they will serve him as an anointed king of God.

I heard no mention of the direct parallel to the assumption of Moses in Zechariah 3:2, you continue to gloss over that critical fact.

I'm not sure what the assumption of Moses, which is a pseudepigraphical book, has to do with the discussion.

Which do you love more Cyrus, the truth or the practice of Judaism, because the Pharisees loved the practice of Judaism more, and that is why my Lord called them Lawless ones. What did God command? Obey my voice (Jeremiah 7:22-23). His voice is truth.

The truth is Judaism. Anyone who reads the Tanakh without any preconceived ideas or mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible will come to the same conclusion. We are told unambiguously what to expect about the Messiah and what will happen in his days.

 

[Sanoy]

But they are both referring to a single coming - they are simply describing two aspects of the single coming of the Messiah son of David which is that he will be humble and he will be victorious. Whatever the New Testament says is completely irrelevant to what the Tanakh says. You reference the Talmud but Jews don't agree with everything which is said in the Talmud. The Talmud is a record of discussion and contains many homiletical and poetical sayings. It is only the legal parts of the Talmud which are binding.


But when the grammar leaves the text open to interpretation it would be a bad mistake to make a dogma based upon ambiguous verses.


But you're ignoring the fact that in the Hebraic understanding, a person's messenger/agent is regarded as the person himself. This is why we see Moses calling himself YHVH God in Deuteronomy 29:6 speaking as God as God's agent. Even in the Christian bible, we see this same principle. For instance if you compare the gospels on the story of the centurion, we read in Matthew 8:5-13 that the centurion himself came and spoke with Jesus but if you read Luke's account in Luke 7:1-10 we find out that what actually happened was that the centurion sent some Jewish elders and friends and they were the ones that actually came to Jesus. This is not a contradiction considering the Hebrew understanding. The centurion's messengers were referred to as the centurion because they were his agents and they represented him.

They will not serve him as God, they will serve him as an anointed king of God.

I'm not sure what the assumption of Moses, which is a pseudepigraphical book, has to do with the discussion.

The truth is Judaism. Anyone who reads the Tanakh without any preconceived ideas or mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible will come to the same conclusion. We are told unambiguously what to expect about the Messiah and what will happen in his days.

You say that they refer to a single coming but unless you believe that the Messiah is coming on a donkey which is on a cloud then they can't. You can't come twice without going away once, that is logically impossible. I have not even quoted or used the NT in our entire conversation as a source of authority. I mentioned the Gospels for the historical representation of the eschatological expectation because you were symbolizing the parts of the OT that were inconvenient to you. So far you are the only one using NT scripture. But we have made progress because you are no longer claiming that the coming is symbolic, but have retreated to demanding that the circles can also be square and people can come twice at the same time.

The grammar of Genesis 19:24 doesn't leave the text open to interpretation. Forcing the word of God to fit your narrative is not interpretation, that is entrenchment. The Grammar necessitates two person called Hashem, and the rest of the OT bares that same theme out. Go read Moses's encounter with Hashem when he saw His backside. Unless Hashem is some amorphous blob, that requires two people, and both are called "I". One to pass by at a distance, and one to place Moses in the cleft and cover his eyes. But, when you reply to twist that scripture to your narrative do not forget that you still need to have some explanation for why you are refusing the Grammar in Genesis 19:24.

What Hebraic understanding that the messenger is Hashem himself? Deuteronomy 29 begins with this "These are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses". So no Moses is not considered Hashem. Do you see such a heading in Zechariah 3? The difference in Matthew and Luke isn't due to a "Hebraic understanding" it is called compression. It is a tool historians use to simplify a narrative. Again you have no explanation for why Zechariah 3:2 fits the exact same theme and statement of appellation as the assumption of Moses. Every time we exchange on this you come back with specious examples to make Zechariah seem normal, but ignore this fact. You need to deal this rather than ignore it, even if you find some example that winds up not being specious you still have to deal with the language because it historically shows how that phrase was viewed in the 2nd Temple era.

You say that in Daniel 7:13-14 He will be worshiped as a king and I agree because the son of Man will be a king. But as I showed you this word is only used in reference to worshiping a god. You made no linguistic rebuttal to the fact that the Aramaic means worship, and the one instance of it's use is for fearful worship of a god. You just assert your interpretations to avoid Jesus, you make no attempt at all at understanding the texts. You say I should read the Tanakh without preconceived notions and yet I'm the only one of us bothering to understand the grammar of the Tanakh, and the Jewish history of expectation surrounding it. How many scriptures have you fumbled through so far due to your preconceived notions rather than reading out of a love for the truth? You're the Jewish one here and you're abandoning your entire 2nd Temple culture, and twisting scripture to meet your narrative to avoid Jesus. If scripture is Hashems voice, what does it mean about our relationship with Him, if we refuse to hear His voice and obey it, what does it mean about our relationship if we twist those words to serve our own purposes.

 

[King Cyrus]

You say that they refer to a single coming but unless you believe that the Messiah is coming on a donkey which is on a cloud then they can't. You can't come twice without going away once, that is logically impossible. I have not even quoted or used the NT in our entire conversation as a source of authority. I mentioned the Gospels for the historical representation of the eschatological expectation because you were symbolizing the parts of the OT that were inconvenient to you. So far you are the only one using NT scripture. But we have made progress because you are no longer claiming that the coming is symbolic, but have retreated to demanding that the circles can also be square and people can come twice at the same time.

I never said that I believed that the Messiah was literally coming on a donkey just like I (and many) Christians) don't literally believe that the Messiah is going to be surfing on the clouds. Again, I already explained that both of these descriptions are simply describing two aspects of the Messiah's single coming which is unambiguously presented throughout the Jewish Scriptures.

The grammar of Genesis 19:24 doesn't leave the text open to interpretation. Forcing the word of God to fit your narrative is not interpretation, that is entrenchment. The Grammar necessitates two person called Hashem, and the rest of the OT bares that same theme out. Go read Moses's encounter with Hashem when he saw His backside. Unless Hashem is some amorphous blob, that requires two people. One to pass by at a distance, and one to place Moses in the cleft and cover his eyes. But, when you reply to twist that scripture to your narrative do not forget that you still need to have some explanation for why you are refusing the Grammar in Genesis 19:24.

What Hebraic understanding that the messenger is Hashem himself? Deuteronomy 29 begins with this "These are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses". So no Moses is not considered Hashem. Do you see such a heading in Zechariah 3? The difference in Matthew and Luke is what is due to a "Hebraic understanding" it is called compression. It is a tool historians use to simplify a narrative. Again you have no explanation for why Zechariah 3:2 fits the exact same theme and statement of appellation as the assumption of Moses. Every time we exchange on this you come back with specious examples to make Zechariah seem normal, but ignore this fact. You need to deal this rather than ignore it, even if you find some example that winds up not being specious you still have to deal with the language because it shows how that phrase was viewed in the 2nd Temple era.

Assuming that your assertion that Genesis 19:24 is correct that it refers to two persons, this dictum of Hebraic understanding is crucial to understanding verses such as these. We're told in Deuteronomy 29:1-6: "These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which He made with them in Horeb. And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great trials which thine eyes saw, the signs and those great wonders; but the LORD hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that I am the LORD your God." So we see here how Moses as God's messenger speaks as God as God's agent and he even comfortably switches from speaking as himself and speaking as the One who he is representing.

Regarding your statement about the assumption of Moses, again, I'm not sure why a pseudigraphical and heretical text has any relevance to the interpreting the Tanakh. Furthermore, I haven't read the assumption of Moses so I don't have the knowledge to comment on it.

You say that in Daniel 7:13-14 He will be worshiped as a king and I agree because the son of Man will be a king. But as I showed you this word is only used in reference to worshiping a god. You made no linguistic rebuttal to the fact that the Aramaic means worship, and the one instance of it's use is for fearful worship of a god. You just assert your interpretations to avoid Jesus, you make no attempt at all at understanding the texts.

I'm not familiar which Aramaic so I cannot speak on the issue of the meaning of Aramaic words but the fact that you're interpreting what that word means based upon its limited usage in Daniel is another example of you interpreting the entire Tanakh with ambiguous verses. The way I know your interpretation is bogus is because we are specifically told in Daniel 7:14 that this king is given dominion. Are you really going to suggest that the Almighty was given dominion by someone else? That's heresy, blasphemy.

You say I should read the Tanakh without preconceived notions and yet I'm the only one of us bothering to understand the grammar of the Tanakh, and the Jewish history of expectation surrounding it.

How many scriptures have you fumbled through so far due to your preconceived notions rather than reading out of a love for the truth?

You're the Jewish one here and you're abandoning your entire 2nd Temple culture, and twisting scripture to meet your narrative to avoid Jesus.

You're understanding the grammar of the Tanakh and interpreting Jewish history and expectation through your preconceived ideas that Jesus is the Messiah and the later church doctrine of the trinity. It's much like shooting an arrow and drawing a target where the arrow lands - with the arrow being the preconceived notion that Jesus is the Messiah and that God is a trinity and the target being the Jewish Scriptures that you draw on top of those assertions.

If scripture is Hashems voice, what does it mean about our relationship with Him, if we refuse to hear His voice and obey it, what does it mean about our relationship if we twist those words to serve our own purposes.

I'm not sure why you're calling HaShem a "Him" when you believe that He is three "Hims" but the fact is that He has given us unambiguous passages in the Tanakh on what to expect about the King Messiah and what would happen when he came. Jesus accomplished absolutely nothing. Unless you count his conveniently invisible act of somehow magically taking away everyone's sins even though Scripture says that no man can die for another man's sins anyway.

 

[Erik Nelson]

And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, And a twig shall grow forth out of his roots. And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD;

Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.
MATTHEW 4:10
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, Neither decide after the hearing of his ears; But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, And decide with equity for the meek of the land;

JOHN 5:26-30
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man...By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

JOHN 8:18
But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me

And he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, And with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, And faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

REVELATION 19:15

For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea.

And it shall come to pass in that day, That the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples, Unto him shall the nations seek;

Gentiles have been turning to Christ by the millions and even billions for the past 2000 years.

And again it is written of the Messiah in Zechariah 9:9-10: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, Lowly, and riding upon an ass, Even upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Jesus's triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
MATTHEW 21

And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, And the horse from Jerusalem, And the battle bow shall be cut off, And he shall speak peace unto the nations; And his dominion shall be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth."

The entire Roman Empire from Ireland to Israel and farther East. Was Christianized? By the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

 

[Sanoy]

I never said that I believed that the Messiah was literally coming on a donkey just like I (and many) Christians) don't literally believe that the Messiah is going to be surfing on the clouds. Again, I already explained that both of these descriptions are simply describing two aspects of the Messiah's single coming which is unambiguously presented throughout the Jewish Scriptures.

Assuming that your assertion that Genesis 19:24 is correct that it refers to two persons, this dictum of Hebraic understanding is crucial to understanding verses such as these. We're told in Deuteronomy 29:1-6: "These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which He made with them in Horeb. And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great trials which thine eyes saw, the signs and those great wonders; but the LORD hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that I am the LORD your God." So we see here how Moses as God's messenger speaks as God as God's agent and he even comfortably switches from speaking as himself and speaking as the One who he is representing.

Regarding your statement about the assumption of Moses, again, I'm not sure why a pseudigraphical and heretical text has any relevance to the interpreting the Tanakh. Furthermore, I haven't read the assumption of Moses so I don't have the knowledge to comment on it.


I'm not familiar which Aramaic so I cannot speak on the issue of the meaning of Aramaic words but the fact that you're interpreting what that word means based upon its limited usage in Daniel is another example of you interpreting the entire Tanakh with ambiguous verses. The way I know your interpretation is bogus is because we are specifically told in Daniel 7:14 that this king is given dominion. Are you really going to suggest that the Almighty was given dominion by someone else? That's heresy, blasphemy.



You're understanding the grammar of the Tanakh and interpreting Jewish history and expectation through your preconceived ideas that Jesus is the Messiah and the later church doctrine of the trinity. It's much like shooting an arrow and drawing a target where the arrow lands - with the arrow being the preconceived notion that Jesus is the Messiah and that God is a trinity and the target being the Jewish Scriptures that you draw on top of those assertions.

I'm not sure why you're calling HaShem a "Him" when you believe that He is three "Hims" but the fact is that He has given us unambiguous passages in the Tanakh on what to expect about the King Messiah and what would happen when he came. Jesus accomplished absolutely nothing. Unless you count his conveniently invisible act of somehow magically taking away everyone's sins even though Scripture says that no man can die for another man's sins anyway.

I think you are mistaken about Christian beliefs. The NT says that a cloud took Jesus away, and then an angel says he will return in the same manner. The existence of this scene requires the historical expectation of a literal coming on the clouds. Those were the divine vehicles of the ANE. You don't have to agree with the NT, but you cannot deny the fact that there was a historical, 2nd Temple, expectation for a literal coming on the clouds and on a Donkey. You may interpret it differently today, but that is an ad hoc view as the account of Jesus fulfils the eschatological expectations contemporary and prior to His coming.

Duet 29 says Moses is speaking the Words Hashem gave him, so of course there would be "I" statements. But notice what the writer does..."And Moses called unto Israel and said". Not Hashem. You are making up ad hoc hebraic customs.

It doesn't matter if you accept the assumption of Moses as scripture or not. It is still a historical fact that this phrase in Zechariah 3:2 was interpreted as an appeal to a greater power in the 2nd Temple era. And you must account for that fact rather than appeal to anachronistic, post Messianic, Judaism.

Daniel is written partially in Aramaic. You can look it up in strongs and it will tell you the root. I'm saying Jesus also goes by Hashem, but He is a different Hashem. He is given dominion over all the nations in Daniel 7 just as we see at the end of Psalm 82, but that person in Psalm 82 is an Elohim not a man. Who do you have in mind that can approach the Ancient of Days, and is an Elohim? In 4 scriptures the cloud rider clearly refers to Hashem, duet 33:26, psalm 68:33, psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1 and yet you would have me believe this cloud rider in Daniel 7 is a simple man? Is there not perhaps a clue, in that his description is not of a man, but like a son of man?

I'm sorry but Grammar has nothing to do with preconceived notions. It is factually the case or it isn't, and as it stands right now...it is. And I'm the only one of us actually using Jewish and ANE history. I'm the only one us actually using the historical perspective and looking at the semantics and Grammar of what the text actually says.

All three persons are "Hims" even the Holy Spirit. You say he has given you unambiguous expectations on what to expect and yet I have given you undeniable historical evidence that those expectations in the 2nd Temple were different than your current, post Messianic ad hoc expectations. They at least had a temple to validate their relationship and obedience to Hashem. But why has Hashem left by the gate of the Temple in 70 AD as Josephus reports, and why has He not restored it for the modern faithful? Where is your Temple to validate your modern view of Hashems sacred word. "if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession". There is no Temple because you have not obeyed His voice.

 

[King Cyrus]

Duet 29 says Moses is speaking the Words Hashem gave him, so of course there would be "I" statements. But notice what the writer does..."And Moses called unto Israel and said". Not Hashem. You are making up ad hoc hebraic customs.

You're proving what I pointed out previously. Moses is the one talking in Deuteronomy 29 verse 6. It says, "...so that you may know that I (Moses still speaking) am the LORD your God."

It doesn't matter if you accept the assumption of Moses as scripture or not. It is still a historical fact that this phrase in Zechariah 3:2 was interpreted as an appeal to a greater power in the 2nd Temple era. And you must account for that fact rather than appeal to anachronistic, post Messianic, Judaism.

What do you mean "greater power" and from where in the assumption of moses do you see that this phrase was interpreted as a second "god-person." Jews did believe in God's heavenly court of angels which are called elohim in Psalm 8:5 and yes we find instances of angels speaking, acting, and being treated as if they were God because they are God's agents. Hence why they are called God's "messengers" מַלְאָכִים֙ (malakim).

I'm sorry but Grammar has nothing to do with preconceived notions. It is factually the case or it isn't, and as it stands right now...it is. And I'm the only one of us actually using Jewish and ANE history. I'm the only one us actually using the historical perspective and looking at the semantics and Grammar of what the text actually says.

and yet I have given you undeniable historical evidence that those expectations in the 2nd Temple were different than your current, post Messianic ad hoc expectations.

I think you are mistaken about Christian beliefs. The NT says that a cloud took Jesus away, and then an angel says he will return in the same manner. The existence of this scene requires the historical expectation of a literal coming on the clouds. Those were the divine vehicles of the ANE. You don't have to agree with the NT, but you cannot deny the fact that there was a historical, 2nd Temple, expectation for a literal coming on the clouds and on a Donkey. You may interpret it differently today, but that is an ad hoc view as the account of Jesus fulfils the eschatological expectations contemporary and prior to His coming.

I would have to actually examine the sources that you're getting this information from since Christians haven't always exactly been very honest with the evidence. The Tanakh being a prime example. Just look at the way Christians massacre the Hebrew Bible in their translations such as in Isaiah 7:14.

All three persons are "Hims" even the Holy Spirit.

So you technically have four god-persons. You have your three-person triad and then you have that triad within the being-person you call "him." You have three "hims" within a "him." Not to mention that one of those hims is the god of the other him (Rev 3:12)(Jn 20:17)(Eph 1:17) and one of the hims knows more than the other two hims (Mk 13:32). I hope you realize that if Christians had never developed the doctrine of the trinity that many more Jews would have been tricked into joining Christianity.

You say he has given you unambiguous expectations

Yes, He has as I've already presented with many verses. Meanwhile, the only thing you can give me are ambiguous verses or verses which are mistranslated.

They at least had a temple to validate their relationship and obedience to Hashem. But why has Hashem left by the gate of the Temple in 70 AD as Josephus reports, and why has He not restored it for the modern faithful?

Where is your Temple to validate your modern view of Hashems sacred word. "if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession". There is no Temple because you have not obeyed His voice.

Because it is not the time right now for Israel to be restored. The righteous Jews are still awaiting the redemption after many centuries of exile, as it is written: "For the children of Israel shall be many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without a pillar, and without an ephod or teraphim; afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the LORD and to His goodness in the end of days." (Hosea 3:4-5) That's where we are right now in the time table. The righteous Jews are seeking God to raise up the King Messiah to restore Israel to its former glory and establish peace on earth. When he comes, the Third Temple and the sacrifices will be reinstituted as Ezekiel chapters 40-48 describe.

 

[Jonaitis]

Isaiah 7:14 doesn't make sense in any other way. If we were to take the term to simply mean "young woman," then what is the point of it being a sign in the context? A woman giving birth to a child by natural conception? This is faulty.

 

[King Cyrus]

Isaiah 7:14 doesn't make sense in any other way. If we were to take the term to simply mean "young woman," then what is the point of it being a sign in the context? A woman giving birth to a child by natural conception? This is faulty.

It's important to know that neither the woman nor the conception is the sign. The child himself is the sign. In context, the kingdom of Judah is about to be overthrown by the kingdoms of Israel and Aram which formed an alliance to destroy Judah. Isaiah goes to Ahaz, the king of Judah at the time, and tells him to ask God for a sign. The sign is explained in verse Isaiah 7:16 which is that before the child would know to refuse evil, and choose good, the land whose two kings Ahaz had a horror of would be forsaken - meaning that before the child would reach a certain age, Ahaz was insured that God was going to destroy the people who were trying to destroy the kingdom of Judah. It would be like today if I was a prophet and prophesied that my wife is with child and that before that child reached a certain age, God would raise up the Messiah and redeem Israel. But regarding the sign in Isaiah 7:14, it doesn't make any sense if it applies to Jesus centuries later after Ahaz.

 

[Jonaitis]

It's important to know that neither the woman nor the conception is the sign. The child himself is the sign. In context, the kingdom of Judah is about to be overthrown by the kingdoms of Israel and Aram which formed an alliance to destroy Judah. Isaiah goes to Ahaz, the king of Judah at the time, and tells him to ask God for a sign. The sign is explained in verse Isaiah 7:16 which is that before the child would know to refuse evil, and choose good, the land whose two kings Ahaz had a horror of would be forsaken - meaning that before the child would reach a certain age, Ahaz was insured that God was going to destroy the people who were trying to destroy the kingdom of Judah. It would be like today if I was a prophet and prophesied that my wife is with child and that before that child reached a certain age, God would raise up the Messiah and redeem Israel. But regarding the sign in Isaiah 7:14, it doesn't make any sense if it applies to Jesus centuries later after Ahaz.

This is the fault, and you're pointing it out. A normal conception, of a normal child, with a normal moral awareness. Okay, let's just take the awareness part alone as you suggested, that the sign refers to - before the child knows how to refuse the evil. How is this significant? How is this a sign? How is it different? A sign is distinguishable and unique, what you propose isn't unique at all. It is barely a sign for a normally conceived child to know how to refuse the evil after the events would take place. It simply isn't that unique. Is it possible that I could have conceived a child after the events, name him Immanuel, and say, "There! Isaiah's prophecy was right!"

It does make sense, because geographically things were vastly different in Jesus' time regarding the "land of these two kings" than it was in Ahaz's time. Besides this point, Scripture points out when signs are fulfilled. Where in the Hebrew Scriptures do we find this happening? Every time Scripture speaks of a sign, we read when it was fulfilled. No mention of this sign was ever brought up again in the OT.

Here's a question, why is it said that the woman will name the child? Where is the father in taking up that role first?

 

[Erik Nelson]

You're proving what I pointed out previously. Moses is the one talking in Deuteronomy 29 verse 6. It says, "...so that you may know that I (Moses still speaking) am the LORD your God."

What do you mean "greater power" and from where in the assumption of moses do you see that this phrase was interpreted as a second "god-person." Jews did believe in God's heavenly court of angels which are called elohim in Psalm 8:5 and yes we find instances of angels speaking, acting, and being treated as if they were God because they are God's agents. Hence why they are called God's "messengers" מַלְאָכִים֙ (malakim).



I would have to actually examine the sources that you're getting this information from since Christians haven't always exactly been very honest with the evidence. The Tanakh being a prime example. Just look at the way Christians massacre the Hebrew Bible in their translations such as in Isaiah 7:14.

So you technically have four god-persons. You have your three-person triad and then you have that triad within the being-person you call "him." You have three "hims" within a "him." Not to mention that one of those hims is the god of the other him (Rev 3:12)(Jn 20:17)(Eph 1:17) and one of the hims knows more than the other two hims (Mk 13:32). I hope you realize that if Christians had never developed the doctrine of the trinity that many more Jews would have been tricked into joining Christianity.

Yes, He has as I've already presented with many verses. Meanwhile, the only thing you can give me are ambiguous verses or verses which are mistranslated.


Because it is not the time right now for Israel to be restored. The righteous Jews are still awaiting the redemption after many centuries of exile, as it is written: "For the children of Israel shall be many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without a pillar, and without an ephod or teraphim; afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the LORD and to His goodness in the end of days." (Hosea 3:4-5) That's where we are right now in the time table. The righteous Jews are seeking God to raise up the King Messiah to restore Israel to its former glory and establish peace on earth. When he comes, the Third Temple and the sacrifices will be reinstituted as Ezekiel chapters 40-48 describe.

That's really interesting. But that reading only occurs in the Masoretic text. That's not what the LXX says. It Has Moses saying? "You did not eat bread nor drink wine in the wilderness that you would know THIS IS the Lord Your God."

 

[Jonaitis]

King Cyrus,

What are your thoughts on Daniel 2:44?

 

[King Cyrus]

This is the fault, and you're pointing it out. A normal conception, of a normal child, with a normal moral awareness. Okay, let's just take the awareness part alone as you suggested, that the sign refers to - before the child knows how to refuse the evil. How is this significant? How is this a sign? How is it different? A sign is distinguishable and unique, what you propose isn't unique at all. It is barely a sign for a normally conceived child to know how to refuse the evil after the events would take place. It simply isn't that unique. Is it possible that I could have conceived a child after the events, name him Immanuel, and say, "There! Isaiah's prophecy was right!"

The sign was the child because before the child would reach a certain age, Ahaz was insured that God was going to destroy the people who were trying to destroy the kingdom of Judah. Isaiah is talking about a specific women who he and Ahaz are familiar with because he says in verse 14 that "haalmah" (the young women) with give birth to this child. The almah here is Isaiah's wife and the child is Isaiah's son. If you read the next chapter, we read, "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bore a son. Then said the LORD unto me: ‘Call his name Maher-shalal-hashbaz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry: My father, and: My mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria.’" This is same child called by a different name. Later in chapter 8 Isaiah says: "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me shall be for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion."

 

[Jonaitis]

The sign was the child because before the child would reach a certain age, Ahaz was insured that God was going to destroy the people who were trying to destroy the kingdom of Judah. Isaiah is talking about a specific women who he and Ahaz are familiar with because he says in verse 14 that "haalmah" (the young women) with give birth to this child. The almah here is Isaiah's wife and the child is Isaiah's son. If you read the next chapter, we read, "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bore a son. Then said the LORD unto me: ‘Call his name Maher-shalal-hashbaz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry: My father, and: My mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria.’" This is same child called by a different name. Later in chapter 8 Isaiah says: "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me shall be for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion."

So now the child, who is the sign, is the prophet's own son? I still think that is faulty, especially if it was the prophet's son!

 

[King Cyrus]

So now the child, who is the sign, is the prophet's own son? I still think that is faulty, especially if it was the prophet's son!

Why? When he specifically says in Isaiah 8:18 that his children were for signs in Israel?

 

[Jonaitis]

Why? When he specifically says in Isaiah 8:18 that his children were for signs in Israel?

What about this verse? This could mean what was previously mentioned earlier in that chapter concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz (disconnected with Immanuel). My argument from #114 still stands.

What are your thoughts on Daniel 2:44?