Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
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.
According to a very contemporary apologetic. You had better read the Targum on this! It calls this child Messiah.
Ahh..the old "Hezekiah is the mighty God, the Eternal Father" line.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The word HASHEM is found many times in the Tanakh so it has been used for over 2500 years!
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.
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!
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.
The above is from the ESV translation and clearly says that a virgin will give birth which is obviously impossible.
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.However the correct translation reads young woman and is clearly foretelling the coming of Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz.
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.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.
Then tell me who on earth the text is actually describing? And for G-d's sake don't say it is about Jesus!
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, 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.So, are you going to become a Christian now?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?