Hebrews

[visionary]

You see, my point with all this is to find out why and how Jesus is who he says he was and who Christianity says he was and is and in so doing I hopefully will find a true rationale in why Christians believe what they believe so these questions are not meant as an interegation.

Like all of us, you just have to meet Him. Be like Moses and go up your Mount Sinai, and talk with Him. Let Him tell you His Name. Truly His answer will resolve the soul searching question you have. We can give testimony and witness what we have seen and understand, but ultimately it is He, the One True Holy One of Israel.

 

[Tanakh]

We know, we know already. Sigh.

"The Name"....do you call your own Father "the name"? He loves you and you call him "the name". I wouldn;t do it to my dad, and I certainly wouldn't do it to my Redeemer.

Besides, your argument that there is only one "HaShem" falls flat on its backside when you realise that for centuries "HaShem" was not used to speak of God. Similarly, it's ambiguous. It could mean the Devil for some people. There is nothing wrong with saying God. If you choose HaShem, that's fine too.

The word HASHEM is found many times in the Tanakh so it has been used for over 2500 years!

 

[Tanakh]

According to a very contemporary apologetic. You had better read the Targum on this! It calls this child Messiah.

The verse is clear in whom it is discussing.

Ahh..the old "Hezekiah is the mighty God, the Eternal Father" line.

The verse is not refering to Hezekiah as the "Mighty G-d, Eternal Father" so re-read the text carefully!

First of all, the Talmud says that Hezekiah was unworthy of this title (San 94a), furthermore his reign did not fulfill this prophecy, his son was Mannaseh (!), and a few generations later the nation is destroyed and in exile! We could discuss many other reasons here too- some rather deep.

How about this: it is not hard to demonstrate that any King in the line of David was a possible Messiah. Perhaps this prophecy led many Jews to think that Hezekiah could be a candidate for Messiah, but time showed otherwise, as the Talmud says.

I would put this to you- the Psalmists and the Prophets spoke of Davidic kings as pictures of the Messiah. The Messiah is the ultimate manifestation of Kings. He is ultimate manifestation of sons. He is the ultimate manifestation of Israel.

No King has ever fulfilled the title "El Gibbor". This title Isaiah keeps for God alone (Isa. 10:21) How could a King be more than human yet human at the same time? Answer: Yeshua HaMoshiach.

Hezekiah would become one of Israel's most righteous kings and so the verse in question relates to him, not his son. True that Ahaz and Manasseh were the most unholy of Israel's kings but nonetheless the verse in Isaiah is talking about the reign of Hezekiah.

 

[Tanakh]

Tanakh has yet to solve the problem of 'let us' in the B'resheet texts...

Since you would not listen to me on this matter I will resort to one of Judaism's greatest Rabbis to help, not that you will listen to his take on it anymore then mine but we will see.

"When we assert that Scripture teaches that G-d rules this world through angels, we mean angels as are identical with the Inteligences. In some passages the plural is used of G-d, e.g., "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. i. 26); "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language" (ibid. xi. 7). Our Sages explain this in the following manner: G-d, as it were, does nothing without contemplating the host above. I wonder at the expression "contemplating," which is the very expression used by Plato: G-d, as it were, "contemplates the world of ideals, and thus produces the existing beings." In other passages our Sages expressed it more decidedly: "G-d does nothing without consulting the host above" (the word familia, used in the origional, is a greek noun, and signifies "host"). On the words, "what they have already made" (Eccles. ii. 12), the following remark is made in Bereshit Rabba and in Midrash Koheleth: "It is not said 'what He has made,' but 'what they have made'; hence we infer that He, as it were, with His court, have agreed upon the form of each of the limbs of man before placing it in its position, as it is said, 'He hath made thee and established thee'" (Deut. xxxii. 6). In Bereshit Rabba (chap. 1i.) it is also stated, that wherever the term "and the L-rd" occured in Scripture, the L-rd with His court is to be understood. These passages do not convey the idea that G-d spoke, thought, reflected, or that He consulted and employed the opinion of other beings, as ignorant persons have believed. How could the Creator be assisted by those whom He created! They only show that all parts of the Universe, even the limbs of animals in their actual form, are produced through angels; for natural forces and angels are identical. How bad and injurious is the blindness of ignorance!" - Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed 2:6

Now I know to many people this may all seem very strange and stupid but the point is that their are several layers, if you will, within the Torah to come to a complete understanding of the Torah and even the whole Tanakh so when Genesis 1:26 refers to "Let us make man in our image" it has a deeper meaning then what the reading of the text at "face value" might imply.

 

[Heber]

Since you would not listen to me on this matter I will resort to one of Judaism's greatest Rabbis to help, not that you will listen to his take on it anymore then mine but we will see.

"When we assert that Scripture teaches that G-d rules this world through angels, we mean angels as are identical with the Inteligences. In some passages the plural is used of G-d, e.g., "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. i. 26); "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language" (ibid. xi. 7). Our Sages explain this in the following manner: G-d, as it were, does nothing without contemplating the host above. I wonder at the expression "contemplating," which is the very expression used by Plato: G-d, as it were, "contemplates the world of ideals, and thus produces the existing beings." In other passages our Sages expressed it more decidedly: "G-d does nothing without consulting the host above" (the word familia, used in the origional, is a greek noun, and signifies "host"). On the words, "what they have already made" (Eccles. ii. 12), the following remark is made in Bereshit Rabba and in Midrash Koheleth: "It is not said 'what He has made,' but 'what they have made'; hence we infer that He, as it were, with His court, have agreed upon the form of each of the limbs of man before placing it in its position, as it is said, 'He hath made thee and established thee'" (Deut. xxxii. 6). In Bereshit Rabba (chap. 1i.) it is also stated, that wherever the term "and the L-rd" occured in Scripture, the L-rd with His court is to be understood. These passages do not convey the idea that G-d spoke, thought, reflected, or that He consulted and employed the opinion of other beings, as ignorant persons have believed. How could the Creator be assisted by those whom He created! They only show that all parts of the Universe, even the limbs of animals in their actual form, are produced through angels; for natural forces and angels are identical. How bad and injurious is the blindness of ignorance!" - Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed 2:6

Now I know to many people this may all seem very strange and stupid but the point is that their are several layers, if you will, within the Torah to come to a complete understanding of the Torah and even the whole Tanakh so when Genesis 1:26 refers to "Let us make man in our image" it has a deeper meaning then what the reading of the text at "face value" might imply.

Please refer to my last post on this thread - I refuse to play your games and so will not be continuing with the circular debates you love so much.

 

[visionary]

Was not Isaiah and Hezekiah living in the same time period, and in fact could have been around the same age?

 

[ContraMundum]

The verse is clear in whom it is discussing.


The verse is not refering to Hezekiah as the "Mighty G-d, Eternal Father" so re-read the text carefully!

Hezekiah would become one of Israel's most righteous kings and so the verse in question relates to him, not his son. True that Ahaz and Manasseh were the most unholy of Israel's kings but nonetheless the verse in Isaiah is talking about the reign of Hezekiah.

The Targum relates the text to the Messiah. Did you even read it?

Christianity agrees with this Jewish tradition, as received by the first Christians in the 1stC. A King like Mannasseh can be like a Messiah. This is common in Jewish tradition and I'm kind of surprised you don't agree with that.

Secondly, the Targum absolutely smashes your assertion that "el gibbor" cannot relate to the child being prophesied. Lastly, the grammar of the text does not allow us to engage in snipping and cutting the bits out that we find uncomfortable. If I had more time I would show you- perhaps later.

 

[Tanakh]

The Targum relates the text to the Messiah. Did you even read it?

Christianity agrees with this Jewish tradition, as received by the first Christians in the 1stC. A King like Mannasseh can be like a Messiah. This is common in Jewish tradition and I'm kind of surprised you don't agree with that.

Secondly, the Targum absolutely smashes your assertion that "el gibbor" cannot relate to the child being prophesied. Lastly, the grammar of the text does not allow us to engage in snipping and cutting the bits out that we find uncomfortable. If I had more time I would show you- perhaps later.

The child in the verse is obviously being foretold as the prophesy states, however, the text in no way makes Hezekiah out to be the Messiah but it does nonetheless refer to him in the like of a redemer for Jerusalem as indeed he will grow up to help Israel and not destroy it like his father.

There is a big difference in the way the Hebrew is written versus the way it was translated into Greek and Latin. Later Christian publications almost always refer to the Greek and Latin translations without "consulting" the origional Hebrew texts for the proper reading. For example:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

This is Isaiah 9:6 taken from the ESV (Crossway Publication) and clearly makes the child out to be the future Messiah by asserting that he will be "G-d in the flesh". Very strange that the origional Hebrew is not written out to say such things.

"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wonderous Advisor, Mighty G-d, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of Peace]."

The above is what the actual Hebrew says. It makes clear that the verse is not talking about the Messiah of the world but rather the redemer of Jersualem (the Messiah will be this as well but obviously much more) and it least of all claims that the child in question is G-d. This prophecy is NOT in reference to Jesus Christ as it was fulfilled hundreds of years before his birth. In short, Christian wait for the return of the Messiah in Christ but we Jews await the Messiah who once here will fulfill his mission on earth before he dies and once dead he will not come back because of the fact that he completed his mission.

Millions of Jews have been killed over the past 1900 years by Christians who claim that verses such as Isaiah 9:6 mean something very different from what the text actually states. In order to understand the text we must "read between the lines" so that we immerse ourselves in it. The distiction between Christianity and Judaism was made long ago but nonetheless its fault lines have caused more problems then good all because Christians chose to ignore what the text actually said.

 

[Tanakh]

Please refer to my last post on this thread - I refuse to play your games and so will not be continuing with the circular debates you love so much.

It was you who asked the question about Genesis 1:26 and so because you feel that what a Rabbi says about scripture you turn away from it and yet the quote clearly and fully answers the question you had about "Let us make" to which you think refers to the trinity when it actually does not.

 

[Tanakh]

At any rate, I think that the issue of the trinity has been "debated" enough and so I will move on to other issues relating to what the Book of Hebrews has to say. Hopefully we can keep the debate civil as I believe this thread has actually been quite productive in revealing scripture.

 

[ContraMundum]

The word HASHEM is found many times in the Tanakh so it has been used for over 2500 years!

Now you're being pedantic. The comination of the words "the" and "name" is commonplace throughout the Bible. However, when characters in the Bible pray, they do not call God "the name", they actually speak it aloud. Do you not pray the Tehillim? What does the Hebrew say? "Bless the Name"? Of course not. In fact, the LXX, translated by Jews, clearly shows that "the name" was not used to describe God in any vernacular.

Don't believe everything they teach you at Aish.com!

 

[ContraMundum]

The verse is clear in whom it is discussing.



The verse is not refering to Hezekiah as the "Mighty G-d, Eternal Father" so re-read the text carefully!

Surely you're joking, right?

Before I bury you in Jewish tradition surrounding this text, would you care to explain to me how the Targum got it wrong and how you, a 21stC man has it right?

Hezekiah would become one of Israel's most righteous kings and so the verse in question relates to him, not his son. True that Ahaz and Manasseh were the most unholy of Israel's kings but nonetheless the verse in Isaiah is talking about the reign of Hezekiah.

You don't get it. The text doesn't describe Hezekiah. This is what the Talmud says. He doesn't fulfill it. He's righteous, but he fails. I agree with the Talmud and the Targum- you agree with anti-missionaries. I'll take the scriptures, Talmud and Targum over them any day.

 

[Tanakh]

Now you're being pedantic. The comination of the words "the" and "name" is commonplace throughout the Bible. However, when characters in the Bible pray, they do not call God "the name", they actually speak it aloud. Do you not pray the Tehillim? What does the Hebrew say? "Bless the Name"? Of course not. In fact, the LXX, translated by Jews, clearly shows that "the name" was not used to describe God in any vernacular.

Don't believe everything they teach you at Aish.com!

We are forbidden to speak G-d's actual Name and so, as I have said before, words that describe His attributes are used, for example mercy, love, kindness and so on are used to account for His actions and so when one says HASHEM we are in direct reference to His essence but HASHEM is used instead of YHVH. In prayer we say Adonai which means "L-rd" or Shaddai which means "Almighty" but in everyday conversation we will often use HASHEM or El Olam ("Eternal G-d") among others.

 

[Tanakh]

Surely you're joking, right?

Before I bury you in Jewish tradition surrounding this text, would you care to explain to me how the Targum got it wrong and how you, a 21stC man has it right?



You don't get it. The text doesn't describe Hezekiah. This is what the Talmud says. He doesn't fulfill it. He's righteous, but he fails. I agree with the Talmud and the Targum- you agree with anti-missionaries. I'll take the scriptures, Talmud and Targum over them any day.

Then tell me who on earth the text is actually describing? And for G-d's sake don't say it is about Jesus!

 

[Tanakh]

"Therefore, my L-rd Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the maiden (or young woman) will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel." - Isaiah 7:14

Since we are discussing Isaiah I thought it would be good to clear up the confusion about this verse. More often then not, Christians will write the verse in this context:

"Therefore the L-rd himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

The above is from the ESV translation and clearly says that a virgin will give birth which is obviously impossible. However the correct translation reads young woman and is clearly foretelling the coming of Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz. This confusion also plays a role in Isaiah 53 in which Christianity has understood the verse to mean the suffering of Jesus on the cross but yet we Jews, correctly, understand it to mean the suffering of Israel in trying to show the world the unity of G-d to which, as history shows, Christianity has, ironically, done the opposite.

Isaiah 11 talks about the Messiah and the world he will help create.

*I use blue to show the translation according to the Tanakh and Jewish tradition and red to show the translation according to Christianity and the Gospels. Green to cross reference the texts.

 

[ContraMundum]

The above is from the ESV translation and clearly says that a virgin will give birth which is obviously impossible.

Impossibilities that come to pass- like talking donkeys and bushes, seas opening, floating axeheads, ressurections from the dead, rebbes riding handkerchiefs across rivers and virgins giving birth are called miracles. According to the Bible, God is rather fond of them and does them as needed.

Surely you believe in God doing miracles, do you not?

However the correct translation reads young woman and is clearly foretelling the coming of Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz.

Again because you clearly are not interested in listening. The Targum says that it's about the Messiah, the Talmud says that Hezekiah could have been a Messiah but fell short. Christians agree with these ancient Jewish traditions. Ironically, anti-missionaries and you do not.

This confusion also plays a role in Isaiah 53 in which Christianity has understood the verse to mean the suffering of Jesus on the cross but yet we Jews, correctly, understand it to mean the suffering of Israel in trying to show the world the unity of G-d to which, as history shows, Christianity has, ironically, done the opposite.

You ought to do more research. You are avoiding our points and pretending our facts don't exist. The Targums, written before Christianity, say that those prophecies are about the Messiah. Even in Judaism the Isaiah 53 passage is loaded with images that the ancient sages applied to the Messiah- who is the true and ultimate embodyment of Israel.

Before we waste any more time watching you ignore the facts- are you genuinely interested in looking at Jewish tradition as it was in the 1stC or not?

As for your rather cheap shot at Christianity- I would take issue with that. Quit listening to the anti-missionaries, they are moronic. If it wasn't for Christians, half the planet would now be starving and ignorant. Christians have been the largest group of charitiable people on the earth, building schools among the poorest of nations and feeding them as well- and have done more to spread the name of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob than any other religion- hands down. Clearly, the Messiah's mission to topple the world's false idols and teach about YHVH has been fulfilled through His people, the Christian Church.

 

[ContraMundum]

Then tell me who on earth the text is actually describing? And for G-d's sake don't say it is about Jesus!

It's about Jesus. That is the most logical conclusion, whether you like it or not. Christianity makes sense. Hezekiah being called "el gibbor" or any other of those titles does not. He was a type of the future Messiah, so the text partially applies to him- this is just like any other midrash, you know. When the Jews translated the text for the Greek speakers, they used the word "parthenos", meaning virgin. A young woman may still be a virgin- there is no contradiction. Obviously, the translators didn't know any anti-missionaries.

In all of the disputed texts, it is Christianity that takes the text as it reads, without casting new meanings on it, and it is the Messiah Jesus you clearly is the only candidate that fits the bill.

Are you prepared to study ancient traditions or are you going to go to the anti-missionaries constantly looking for loopholes and ways to escape the obvious?

 

[ContraMundum]

We are forbidden to speak G-d's actual Name and so, as I have said before, words that describe His attributes are used, for example mercy, love, kindness and so on are used to account for His actions and so when one says HASHEM we are in direct reference to His essence but HASHEM is used instead of YHVH. In prayer we say Adonai which means "L-rd" or Shaddai which means "Almighty" but in everyday conversation we will often use HASHEM or El Olam ("Eternal G-d") among others.

Yes, we know your rationale quite well- most of us on this thread are very familiar with it.

However, there is only One God. There are many "Names". Jews for the most part have used the other monikers for God that you mentioned. In scripture, they are not seen praying to "HaShem". They are praying to Adonai, YHVH, or whoever. There is no sin in using those names, nor is their sin in calling the only God, "God". We use the names our ancestors have handed down to us. We call God our Father as well, as the Messiah commanded.

Ironically, the only time I can find in scripture where God is referred to as "The Name" as a title is in the New Testament, and only once (no, this rule does not apply to Lev 24:11!). So, are you going to become a Christian now?

 

[visionary]

So, are you going to become a Christian now?

Tanakh, the only way to become a chrisitan is to meet with God in a personal way. Ask Him to show Himself to you. Open up your heart to Him, and let the things of earth, both the Christian and Judaism be laid on the altar, praying for God to rightly divide the offering and clearly show you what is the truth. All theology talk whether Judaism or Christianity is not worth a hill of beans without God leading. Our world is full of "understandings" but you and I know that God's wisdom is true knowledge. Even if one party could beat the other party down with volumes of words and many mighty men of religious renown stature in a royal battle, it is all dust before God if it is not true. God will burn if off like dross. So it is far wiser to take it all to the altar, willing to sacrifice whatever ideology/theology so that you can be in harmony with God which is the most important thing to do.

Ex 3:13 Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, `What is His name?' What shall I say to them?"

14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.'"

The four Hebrew letters transliterated YHWH are:

a Yod, rhymes with "rode", which we transliterate "Y"

a He, rhymes with "say", which we transliterate "H"

a Vav, like "lava", which we transliterate "W" or "V"

So let's summarize.

God's name, YHWH

With vowels added: YAHWEH

Translated: I AM WHO I AM

Spelled in flesh and bones with hebrew letters...

The Yod is a the head.
The He is arms.
The Vav is torso.
The He is legs.

....the image of YHWH. ... YHWH in the flesh.... Known as the Word of God...

 

[johnd]

LXX (septuagint) says parthenos (virgin) long before there were Christians.

Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a parhenos / virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.