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.