Messianic Prophecies Examined

[Conductor42]

This will be a thread where we will examine the Messianic Prophecies one by one. I will grab one of those lists that are on the internet which lists the Prophecies that are said to be fulfilled by Jesus.

I want this thread to be strictly on the prophecies. I.e., keep to the prophecies alone. Discussions on the concept of trinity, etc. can be taken to another thread.

I would appreciate any moderator assistance on keeping this thread strictly on topic.
.

[themuzicman]

Feel free to report posts that you feel are off topic. We'll zap 'em.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Is this the first one?

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."

[Conductor42]

Dueteronomy 18 is said to be a Messianic Prophecy. I disagree. On my website, refferring to verses in Dueteronomy 18, Shimon Fisher writes at http://www.ancient-paths.net/prophet.html :




"[God] spoke to the nation of Israel through all the chosen prophets that we read about in the TNK. And according to Hebrew in the two verses above, it is the collective singular. The singular "prophet" is the many spokesmen of יהוה throughout the TNK.

So what's the significance? It means that the verse refers to all future prophets of Israel. That means Joshua, Isaiah, etc. can all be included as part of the fulfillment of this passage, and that is does not refer to any single prophet.
.

[jpholding]

yoshiah_ap:

Dueteronomy 18 is said to be a Messianic Prophecy. I disagree. On my website, refferring to verses in Dueteronomy 18, Shimon Fisher writes at http://www.ancient-paths.net/prophet.html :

Do you mind quoting specific verses so that we can have them in front of us?

Also, it's spelled "Deuteronomy". :ahem:

[Conductor42]

יהוה thy Elohim will raise up to thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy breathren, like me; to him you shall hearken; according to all that thou didst desire of יהוה thy Elohim in Horev in the day of the assembly, saying Let me not hear again the voice of יהוה my Elohim, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. Deut. 18:15, 16

I will raise up a prophet from among their breathren, like thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whoever will not hearken to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deut. 18:18, 19

[Conductor42]

Today @ 08:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320347#post320347)
themuzicman:

Is this the first one?

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."


Oops... should have hit that one first. I get it after the one we're on right now. Thanks :)

[jpholding]

yoshiah_ap:

So in other words, you claim that these should really read:

יהוה thy Elohim will raise up to thee prophets from the midst of thee, of thy breathren, like me; to them you shall hearken; according to all that thou didst desire of יהוה thy Elohim in Horev in the day of the assembly, saying Let me not hear again the voice of יהוה my Elohim, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. Deut. 18:15, 16

I will raise up prophets from among their breathren, like thee, and will put my words in their mouths; and they shall speak to them all that I shall command them. And it shall come to pass, that whoever will not hearken to my words which they shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deut. 18:18, 19

Correct?

If so, I'd like to hear what GrayPilgrim and/or any others knowing Hebrews have to say about this.

[Conductor42]

Yesterday @ 09:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320350#post320350)
jpholding:

Also, it's spelled "Deuteronomy". :ahem:

:p

I can never get it right :p

[Conductor42]

Yes and No. The only words in English that I can think that would express a similar usage would be fish and sheep.

The aboslute evidence that we know this refers to more than one prophet scripture after the Torah. Ex:


Joshua 1:5

No one shall be able to resist you as long as you [Joshua] live. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail your or forsake you."

.

[bar Jonah]

And how is this absolute evidence?

[Conductor42]

Because scriputure says that Joshua met the conditions of that prophecy. If Jesus fulfilled the conditions of the prophecy, that makes 2 people who did, showing us that this is not exclusive to one person.

[bar Jonah]

Yoshiah, forgive me as it is late and I am tired, just got home from work.

Where does it say that Joshua fulfilled that prophecy? I'm not saying he didn't (it really doesn't matter if he did), I'm just missing it for some reason.

Even if he did, he is still a foreshadowing type of the messiah/Christ, just as was Joseph (of the many-colored coat), Moses, King David and many others. Examples of various characteristics of the ultimate Messiah.

[jpholding]

yoshiah_ap:

Yes and No. The only words in English that I can think that would express a similar usage would be fish and sheep.


In other words, there is no evidence that the words themselves are in any sort of plural form.

So how does this carry over to the uses of "him" for example?

[Conductor42]

Sorry for the late response, I was busy this past week and wasn't able to get to everything.

The verse, as I quoted earlier, is :



יהוה thy Elohim will raise up to thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy breathren, like me; to him you shall hearken; according to all that thou didst desire of יהוה thy Elohim in Horev in the day of the assembly, saying Let me not hear again the voice of יהוה my Elohim, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. Deut. 18:15, 16

So, in summary, what does this prophecy say?

1) God make an Israelite a prophet
2) The Prophet is to be like Moses
3) Israel is supposed to follow the prophet

Later, the Torah records that "since that time no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses, whom יהוה knew face to face, for all the signs and wonders which יהוה sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharoah, and before all his servants, and in all his land" (Deut. 34:11-12)

If I missed any other condition in that prophecy, point it out please.

So how does Joshua/Yehoshua fulfill this prophecy?

I believe we both can agree that Joshua was an Israelite prophet, meeting the first condition.

The second condition is that the prophet be like Moses. Joshua 1:5 shows us that this occured:


Joshua 1:5

No man is going to stand before you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I am with you. I will not fail you or abandon you."

Now the 3rd part says that Israel is supposed to follow this prophet, which I believe we also can agree happened.

Did that help?
.

[Conductor42]

No.

A few months ago, I was discussing this with a Hakham, and he replied with the following. FYI, I am still learning Hebrew. I am not an expert in Hebrew yet, but am learning it so that I can read the Tanakh in the languages my father's read it, and that so when I visit my homeland next year, Israel, I will be able to carry at least basic conversations with the Karaim who do not know English.



Biblical Hebrew regularly employs a form called "collective singular". The
collective singular is the use of a singular form to refer to a whole class
of individuals. The closest thing we have to this in English is "Fish" or
"Deer" which express many fish or many deer; also "mankind". Failing to
recognize a colletive signular is often the source of misinterpretation. In
most translations the collective singular is translated as a plural; when it
is not, the reader who does not know Hebrew does not realize there is a
misinterpretation involved. For example, Gen 1:20
"And Elohim said, let the waters swarm with swarming-thing with living soul,
and let bird fly upon the earth upon the face of the sky-heavens." (Gen
1:20)

In this passage the words: "swarming-thing" and "bird" are collective
singulars and are therefore translated by most translations in the plural.
If a reader was not sensitive to the existance of collective singular he
might theorize that at first God only created one bird which later
multiplied.

This sort of misinterpretation is perpetrated by the Rabbis on numerous
occasions. For example, Ex 8:2, "And Aaron streched out his hand over the
waters of Egypt and the frog rose up and covered the land of Egypt."

Again, we have a collective singular which is best translated as "frogs" or
"frog-kind", even though the form is singular. However, the Rabbanite
midrash explains that the miracle began with one giant frog which then
miraculously broke up into many small frogs. The fact that Ex 8:1, 3 do

have the plural form "frogs" is cited as proof by the Midrash of this wild
theory. This is a typical example of the Rabbis intentionally ignoring the
rules of the Hebrew language.

Dt 18:18 uses the word "prophet" as a collective singular and hence means
"prophets" or a whole class of prophets:
"(18) I will raise up a prophet for them out of their brothers like you, and
I will give my word in his mouth to them, all that I command him."

How do we know that this is collective singular? Firstly, the context here
is that the children of Israel asked YHWH not to speak directly to all of
them. YHWH accepted this request and said he would now communicate to them
through prophets like Moses, i.e. Israelite prophets (as opposed to heathen
diviners, see Dt 18:14). Secondly, the passage continues in v. 20
"But the prophet who shall maliciously speak a word in my name which I did
not command him to speak, or shall speak in the name of other gods, that
prophet shall die." (Dt 18:20)
Again this is speaking in the collective singular about any prophet that
shall prophesy falsely, not just a single false prophet. V.22 continues the
thought

"That which the prophet speaks in the name of YHWH and the matter does not
come this is the thing which YHWH did not speak, he spoke it maliciously,
you shall not fear him." (Dt 18:22)

Again this is clearly speaking in the collective singular about any prophet
in the future, not just a single prophet. Hence Dt 18 is a general rule
about future prophets, true and false. It applies to Joshua just as it
applies to Samuel. We can no more limit this passage to a single prophet
than we can say that God sent one giant frog over Egypt and created one bird
at creation.

Is that helpful?
.

[Jezz]

yoshiah_ap:
So, in summary, what does this prophecy say?

1) God make an Israelite a prophet
2) The Prophet is to be like Moses
3) Israel is supposed to follow the prophet

Later, the Torah records that "since that time no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses, whom יהוה knew face to face, for all the signs and wonders which יהוה sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharoah, and before all his servants, and in all his land" (Deut. 34:11-12)

If I missed any other condition in that prophecy, point it out please.
I think you've got it mostly well covered there. But I think you've omitted some of the broader context for Deut 34:11-12, which is somewhat important.


So how does Joshua/Yehoshua fulfill this prophecy?

I believe we both can agree that Joshua was an Israelite prophet, meeting the first condition.
Hmm, I'm not quite so sure about this one. Joshua was an Israelite, yes, but was he a prophet? I don't think so - not in the sense that Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elija etc. were prophets. A prophet is a person who brings the word of God to the people. Joshua did not do that - he read the law that Moses handed down to him. He was a military leader (and a very good one). Do you have any example where Joshua was referred to as a prophet by anyone in the Bible?


The second condition is that the prophet be like Moses. Joshua 1:5 shows us that this occured:

Joshua 1:5 No man is going to stand before you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I am with you. I will not fail you or abandon you."
I think here you are neglecting some of the information above. The prophet was supposed to be like Moses, yes, but in what way was he supposed to be like Moses? That's what Deuteronomy 34 tells us. You quoted it above, but I'm going to quote it again because there is some important information you left out of the broader context:

Deuteronomy 34:9-12 9 Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses.
10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, 11 who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt-to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. 12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.

Firstly, we note that this passage starts (v9) by saying how the leadership of Israel passed from Moses to Joshua. This is described as happening in the past.

It then continues in v10 by saying that no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses since then. Given that it talked about Joshua becoming the leader in the past tense, this must have meant that the author did not consider Joshua to be "a prophet like Moses". So in the author's opinion, Joshua did not fulfill this prophecy.

In the rest of the passage, it describes the features that a "prophet like Moses" would have:

1. He would know God face-to-face.
2. He would perform signs and wonders from the LORD, displaying mighty power and performing awesome deeds.

Joshua displayed great military cunning and was a very good leader, but he did not perform the sorts of miracles that Moses did.

And Joshua did not speak to God face-to-face, in the way that Moses did.

Another thing (which I noted above): Moses gave God's law to the people. Joshua did not - he simply repeated the law that Moses had given them.


Now the 3rd part says that Israel is supposed to follow this prophet, which I believe we also can agree happened.
Yes, I agree. But that's only one out of three. :smile:

I think you're also overlooking an important connection here. Moses' physical successor was Joshua son of Nun. Do you think it is a mere coincidence that there was a man who was alleged to be Moses' spiritual successor, who spoke with the Father face-to-face, performed miraculous signs and wonders displaying mighty power, and gave new laws (and refined existing ones)... and who had the same Hebrew name as Moses' physical successor?

[Conductor42]

Hmm, I'm not quite so sure about this one. Joshua was an Israelite, yes, but was he a prophet? I don't think so - not in the sense that Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elija etc. were prophets. A prophet is a person who brings the word of God to the people. Joshua did not do that - he read the law that Moses handed down to him. He was a military leader (and a very good one). Do you have any example where Joshua was referred to as a prophet by anyone in the Bible?

I'd disagree. Joshua did commit instructions from God to the people. Cf. Joshua 4:15-16



I think here you are neglecting some of the information above. The prophet was supposed to be like Moses, yes, but in what way was he supposed to be like Moses? That's what Deuteronomy 34 tells us. You quoted it above, but I'm going to quote it again because there is some important information you left out of the broader context:

Deuteronomy 34:9-12 9 Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses.
10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, 11 who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt-to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. 12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.

Firstly, we note that this passage starts (v9) by saying how the leadership of Israel passed from Moses to Joshua. This is described as happening in the past.

It then continues in v10 by saying that no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses since then. Given that it talked about Joshua becoming the leader in the past tense, this must have meant that the author did not consider Joshua to be "a prophet like Moses". So in the author's opinion, Joshua did not fulfill this prophecy.

However, wasn't the book of Joshua written after the Torah was written?




In the rest of the passage, it describes the features that a "prophet like Moses" would have:

1. He would know God face-to-face.
2. He would perform signs and wonders from the LORD, displaying mighty power and performing awesome deeds.

Joshua displayed great military cunning and was a very good leader, but he did not perform the sorts of miracles that Moses did.

And Joshua did not speak to God face-to-face, in the way that Moses did.

Another thing (which I noted above): Moses gave God's law to the people. Joshua did not - he simply repeated the law that Moses had given them.

Miracles - What about the conquering of Jericho? Also, I might point out that I was speaking of the Deut 18 passage specifically.



I think you're also overlooking an important connection here. Moses' physical successor was Joshua son of Nun. Do you think it is a mere coincidence that there was a man who was alleged to be Moses' spiritual successor, who spoke with the Father face-to-face, performed miraculous signs and wonders displaying mighty power, and gave new laws (and refined existing ones)... and who had the same Hebrew name as Moses' physical successor?

I was unaware that Christians believed Jesus saw God "face to face" - would you mind providing a BCV for that?

Sorry for the extremely late response. I got a bit sidetracked, and forgot about this thread for a while. Mucho Gracias for your extremely courteous conduct in this thread.

[Conductor42]

A messiah would be the seed of a woman, but all humans have been since creation.

The word seed (zera in Hebrew), and its successive statement are plural, indicating multiple people.


Is this the first one?

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."

[RaineLovesJ]

I just stumbled upon this thread today... This topic is near and dear to me. I hope to help generate some more discussion.

[Conductor42]

I'll start on the next two on sunday or monday

[Menachem]

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."


I guess I will take this one.

The first thing we can look at are the words used for offspring/seed. These words in the Hebrew are as appearing Zar'ech and Zerah. The first one is 2nd person, singular, feminine in its usage, while the next one is third person, singular, feminine in its usage.
The application of this word as solely a woman's seed needs to be examined with other usages of this word for example:


Genesis 16:10 - And the angel of the L-rd said to her [Hagar], “I will greatly increase your seed ( zar’ech) and they will not be counted for abundance.”



Genesis 24:60 - And they blessed Rebecca and said to her, “May you come to be thousands of myriads, and may your seed (zar’ech) inherit the gate of his foes.”


Leviticus 22:13 - But if the priest’s daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no offspring ( zera), and has returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s bread; but no stranger shall eat of it.

Here we find the usage of the words in other places. since Zar'ech is the 2nd person singluar feminine of the third person singular feminine the two of them will be examined together since they are basically the same word. When reading the verses above we find that the usage of the word in fact is used for the offspring coming from a woman.

If you can find a man who can have children let us all know. You have just become a rich person.

By the usage above in Genesis 16:10 we know this is talking about Ishmael, who was fathered by Avraham, and those of his line all of whom are the offspring of Hagar. The curious thing is, is that it is not pointing to one person but to a whole nation of people to come from Hagar. The same is with Genesis 24:60 it isnt talking about one person it is talking about a bunch of people to come. And the verse in Leviticus is showing us that this word in fact means not only one child but any children at all.

also we can use this particular verse with the word Zerah used again:


Genesis 4:25 - And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, for “G-d has provided me [Eve] another seed ( zera) in place of Abel, for Cain had killed him.”

Now moving on:

Next, we will look at the word "Hu" used and translated by the KJV and other bibles as "He." This word actually should be used as plural "they" this word can be used this way and is done in the Tanakh. The usage of the singular "He" would do an injustice to the orginal meaning of the passage that was intended for the entire human race.


Exodus 1:6,10 – (6) And Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation (ha'dor ha'hu).

(10) Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it may come to pass, that, when there would be any war, they too (gam hu) should join our enemies, and fight against us; and so get them out of the land

also the word "Atah" used and being translated as "you" in the singular sense. This also is a misusage and misrepresentation of the Hebrew. This word also should be used as the plural "you" denoting all of the descendants of the serpent. Example of the usage of the plural "you in the Tanakh:


Exodus 33:3 - To a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up in the midst of you since you (atah) are a stiff-necked people; lest I consume you in the way


Deuteronomy 9:6 - And you shall know that, not because of your righteousness, the L-rd, your G-d, gives you this land to possess it; for you (atah) are a stiff-necked people.

Examples such as the above clearly demonstrate the plural application of the singular Hebrew pronouns (hu), he/they, and (atah), you/pl. you, and these add credence to the correct translation of Genesis 3:15 – the one using they and the implicit [plural] you.

The application of the term (zar’ah), her seed, in Genesis 3:15 is to denote Eve’s generic descendants, i.e., humanity, since Adam and Eve are considered as the progenitors of all of us according to the account of Creation in Genesis. The belief that this is a messianic prophecy, unambiguosly and distincly, is very far fetched. Once proper examination of the Hebrew occurs the prophecy as it is known simply falls apart.


also on a side note once you read the verse in context it really doesnt make sense as a prophecy:


Genesis 3:10. And he said, I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11. And he said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree, which I commanded you that you should not eat?
12. And the man said, The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.
13. And the Lord God said to the woman, What is this that you have done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.
14. And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life;
15. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; they shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise their heel.
16. To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply the pain of your child bearing; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.


and that's all folks!

[Conductor42]

Err, somehow when I made my post yesterday I thought it was Thursday. What was I thinking? Anyways, I'm going to start on the next one, which I believe is Genesis 49:10. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please!)


The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

From this translation, we would expect that the sceptre would stay with Judah until the Messiah comes. The problem is this -
The last king from the tribe of Judah, Zedekiah, was taken captive about 586 B.C.E. Following the return to Zion from the Babylonian exile, the Jews were continually subject to foreign domination--Persian, Greek, Roman--with only a brief interlude of independence during the Maccabean period (165 B.C.E. to 63 B.C.E.), whose rulers were members of the tribe of Levi. Thus, there was a period of some six hundred years, prior to the birth of Jesus, during which the scepter of leadership had departed from the tribe of Judah.

There is also the issue of a posssible translation error, which I will address later. (PM me if I don't - seriously!)

[Conductor42]

Would anyone mind If I asked a Muslim to comment with the Muslim interperetation on some of these verses? (For ex: they think Deut. 18 refers to Muhammed)

[shunyadragon]

Would anyone mind If I asked a Muslim to comment with the Muslim interperetation on some of these verses? (For ex: they think Deut. 18 refers to Muhammed)
I believe Moslems believe this refers Mohammed. I am checking this out. Could this refer to more than one prophet?

[Conductor42]

The verse refers to any (true) prophet.

[learning]

yoshia, have you ever heard the story (or a couple of them) of the daughters of King
Zedekiah were with Jeremiah when he was taken to Egypt, and that they may have gone on to Ireland, and married into the kingly line there, and thus, the Queen of Great Britain today may be a descendant of Zedekiah? (I believe that the Irish king went to Scotland, where the stone of scone is said to be Jacob's pillow) and so forth. I don't know how much of this is myth or reality, but I do see it possible that a 'throne' would have been in the tribe of Judah still all these years, literally, if this is true.

[Conductor42]

I think I heard about it once from Stephen Boston, but I didn't see any concrete evidence. If you know of a good article about it, I'd be glad to look at the evidence.

Personally, I believe very strongly that many of the Ancient Jews traveled, and lived in, the Americas, and that the Cherokee Tribe may be their descendants.

[learning]

I used to have links, I'll see if I can look it up again.

[learning]

Ah, it looks as though it were made up. Here's a link, but you can do a search on google and they had lots of links to do with the stone of scone or stone of destiny, and Jeremiah in Ireland.
www.biblemysteries.com/library/jeremiah.htm

It looks as though this has been made up, according to the link just listed, about Jeremiah and a daughter of Zedekiah being in Ireland and so forth. But I have heard that if one looks at the royal family's family tree that there is something about going back to a Scot, a Jewish person who was supposed to have come from Spain to Ireland to Scotland and they are connected to the royal family.
Ah, they're all related to Adam anyways!

[shunyadragon]

I think I heard about it once from Stephen Boston, but I didn't see any concrete evidence. If you know of a good article about it, I'd be glad to look at the evidence.

Personally, I believe very strongly that many of the Ancient Jews traveled, and lived in, the Americas, and that the Cherokee Tribe may be their descendants.There is some evidence that possibly Christian Celts made to the Americas based on the presence of Runic carcings at two sites in West Virginia, which I have personally seen.

I did not think there was any evidence for the Hebrews making it to the Americas unless you consider the book of Mormon as evidence, which I do not consider it credible.

[learning]

Actually, there is evidence that the Cherokee had a tradition of a god they called Yoweh or something like that, and they had a tradition that they were to keep fire constantly burning on a mountain that Yoweh told them to do, which could be related to the idea of keeping the lampstand always lit in the temple. If you do a search on the Cherokee you'll likely find this.

[Jezz]

Hey Yoshiah - sorry for the delay! Here we go:


I'd disagree. Joshua did commit instructions from God to the people. Cf. Joshua 4:15-16
Well, ok - given that he did speak the word of God to the people, that does technically make him a prophet. Also the book of Joshua is grouped with the "Former Prophets".

But my point was, Joshua is never really referred to anywhere else in the Bible (Jewish or Christian) as a prophet. At least, not to my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong). Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elija - all these guys were referred to later. Joshua may have technically been a prophet, but it would be stretching the definition of "like" to argue that Joshua son of Nun was ever considered by later Jews to be a "prophet like Moses".


However, wasn't the book of Joshua written after the Torah was written?
Yes and no. I believe that the bulk of the Torah was probably completed before Joshua. But I believe (as with most scholarship - even those that agree with Moses as the principle author/source) that parts of it were written later than the events depicted - added by later scribes. This bit at the end of Deuteronomy seems to be one of these bits. I mean, for starters it was apparently written after Moses' death - in which case it could have been written by Moses himself.

So this leaves us with an interesting question. It would seem, from the words that the scribe has written here, that the scribe does not believe that any "prophet like Moses" had yet come. Also, the phrasing he uses ("since that time") tends to imply that the author composed this epilogue quite some time after the death of Moses - presumably long enough to get a glimpse at Joshua's rule was like.

I suppose that you could argue that the author was only writing a short time after Moses' death - before Joshua did his miracles. But if that is the case, he must have been a mighty impatient guy, as he didn't wait very long to see if a new "prophet like Moses" would turn up!


Miracles - What about the conquering of Jericho?
As I understand it, this miracle was conducted by a large party of Israel's army, using the Ark of the Covenant - not (like Moses' miracles) by Joshua on his own. The priests carrying the ark did several laps of the city and on the 7th day the wall collapsed. I don't think that this could be fairly considered to be Joshua performing a miracle. The only miracle I can think of that Joshua performed himself was the stopping of the sun.


Also, I might point out that I was speaking of the Deut 18 passage specifically.
Yes, I know. But you have to consider the broader context. The prophecy calls for a "prophet like Moses". But any two people can be made to seem "like" each other, if the conditions for "likeness" are made loose enough. Thus, the important question to answer is, in what way was the prophet/prophets supposed to be like Moses? Deuteronomy 34 gives an idea about what that particular scribe was expecting in order for a prophet to be considered "like Moses", and it also seems clear to me that they didn't consider Joshua to fit the bill. And given that this scribe was a lot closer to the events than us, he's much more qualified to make that judgment.

Tell you what, Yoshiah - you can make your case a whole lot stronger if you can provide some ancient commentary to support your claim that Joshua fulfilled this prophecy. Preferably, this commentary should date to the 1st century AD or earlier, so that you are not relying on documents that are possibly tainted by anti-Christian rhetoric.


I was unaware that Christians believed Jesus saw God "face to face" - would you mind providing a BCV for that?
I don't know what a "BCV" is. I'll take a stab and guess that it means you want me to quote a verse from the Christian scriptures.

How about this one:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Now, unfortunately this would have to be one of the most badly translated verses in the entire English Bible. :smile: But I will ignore the other problems with this verse, and concentrate on the relevant one: the Greek word translated as "with" is "pros", and it actually means "towards" or "facing" (the Greek word for face is "prosopon"). It would be much better translated as "and the Word was facing God".

More generally, I think that the Christian idea of Jesus as the Messiah is that not only was he like all the various figures in the OT in their good attributes - he always tended to go one better. That is the nature of "typological" fulfillment. To give a couple of examples:

Adam was the first man - born sinless, was tempted, and succumbed, and because of this original sin the entire human race was condemned to death. Jesus is considered by Christians to be the second Adam - because like Adam he was born sinless and tempted, but unlike Adam he did not succumb to temptation, and because of this the entire human race may be saved from death. In this way, Jesus "fulfills" (ie, completes) the Adam prototype.

Similarly, Solomon had wisdom from God. But Jesus was wiser - he didn't just have wisdom from God, he was the Wisdom of God personified.

I could go on, but that will suffice. Back to Moses. Jesus is not only a prophet of the Moses prototype of Moses, but exceeds him:

1. Moses interceded on behalf of Israel so that God would not destroy them. He even offered his own life as a ransom. Likewise Jesus interceded on behalf of the whole world so that God would not have to destroy them, and he also offered his own life as a ransom.
2. Moses performed great miracles by the power of God. Jesus performed great miracles by his own power.
3. Moses dictated new laws of God to the people. Jesus dictated his own set of new laws to the people.

The last one for now (the one that is relevant for this prophecy):
4. Moses knew the will of God because he spoke with God face-to-face - as a man speaks to a friend. Jesus knew the will of God because he was more than just a friend of God - he was God.

When the Torah says that "Moses spoke with God face-to-face", it didn't mean literally that Moses saw God's face. This is proven because when Moses asked to see God's glory, God said: "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live" (Ex 33:20). What it meant was that God to Moses on a more personal level. Kinda like the difference between a celebrity given a public interview/press conference versus speaking with a friend in the privacy of their own home. Note that when Moses spoke to God, he went into the very heart of the Tabernacle and heard the voice speaking to him from the Ark itself (Num 7:89). This was the pre-Temple equivalent of the Holy of Holies - where even the high priest was only allowed to go once per year, on Yom Kippur. When God spoke to others it was from the entrance to the Tabernacle (Num 12:5; vs 6-8 are also relevant here). So the "face-to-face" reference does not actually mean seeing God's face - rather, it means speaking on a personal level - "clearly, and not in riddles". What could more personal conversation could God have than with His own Son?

To my knowledge, Joshua did none of these things - except possibly 2 (and even then, his miracles weren't as spectacular as those of Moses). Jesus, on the other hand, "out-Mosesed" Moses - he was not just like Moses, he was the perfection of Moses.

Note too Moses as a prophet was also unique in another sense - he was the only person to be simultaneously the high priest, prophet, and leader of the chosen people. All three of these titles were also attributed to Jesus.

Added to all these typological similarities - we know that Moses' successor as leader of Israel was called Yehoshua (Joshua). I don't think it is too much to suggest then, that the fact that the man who allegedly did all of these Moses-like things was also called Yehoshua, is merely a coincidence.


Sorry for the extremely late response. I got a bit sidetracked, and forgot about this thread for a while.
No problemo! I understand (and do it myself often enough that I'm in no position to criticise :smile:)


Mucho Gracias for your extremely courteous conduct in this thread.
You're welcome! I like you, Yoshiah - I've always found you to be even handed, and not someone to put up with the antics of (eg) Jude3b. I thought you well deserve to be treated with courtesy.

(Btw: It's muchas gracias - the number and gender of the adjective must agree with number and gender of the noun (feminine plural)... :wink:)

[Menachem]

The silence is deafening on my Genesis 3:15 response....lol

[Menachem]

Yes, I know. But you have to consider the broader context. The prophecy calls for a "prophet like Moses". But any two people can be made to seem "like" each other, if the conditions for "likeness" are made loose enough. Thus, the important question to answer is, in what way was the prophet/prophets supposed to be like Moses? Deuteronomy 34 gives an idea about what that particular scribe was expecting in order for a prophet to be considered "like Moses", and it also seems clear to me that they didn't consider Joshua to fit the bill. And given that this scribe was a lot closer to the events than us, he's much more qualified to make that judgment.

Rashi gives his commentary on verse 15 in Chapter 18 talking about "From your midst, from your bretheren, like me." "Saying Moshe told the nation of Israel that just as he was one of them so G-d would designate future prophets from among the people to bring them the word of G-d."(Rashi)
Ramban further commentates on "from your midst" saying, " From your midst implies that prophecy would be limited to Eretz Y'israel(land of Israel) and even such prophets, such as Ezekiel, who prophecied elsewhere, had begun to prophesy in the land." And he commentates on "from your bretheren" saying " This implies that G-d would let his spirit rest only upon members of Israel(Ramban).

Now in Deuteronomy 34 verse [10] "Never again has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moshe, whom HaShem had known face to face, [11] As evidenced by all the signs and wonders that HaShem sent himto perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharoh and all his courtiers and all his land,[12] and by all the strong hand and awesome power that Moshe performed before the eyes of all Israel. This passage here is saying that there is no one who knows HaSHem face to face or on a very personal level as Moses did. Rashi commentates on face to face (Panim 'al Panim) saying " Moses was familiar with G-d and was able to speak with Him whenever he wished(Rashi).

The passage is saying that no other Prophet will be able to do that as per verse 12. Ramban said " that this refers not to the familiarity Moshe had with G-d but to the degree of closeness that Moshe was allowed to have with G-d, citing that his prophetic visions were as clear as if two firends were conversing face to face , understanding one another not only through words but through facial expressions."(Ramban) The Sages comments that this says " That no other prophets will come close to the stature of Moshe as they can only be summoned by G-d to speak a certain message while Moshe could speak to G-d anytime about any message at all.


This passage(Deuteronomy 34) isn't giving the point of view of a scribe that there hasn't been a Prophet like Moshe in the way you are describing "like Moshe." It is saying certain qualities that Moshe had such as speaking directly with G-d on a very personal level has never been seen again.


Chapter 18 was all about the word fo G-d reaching the people: Deuteronomy 18:18 G-d saying to Moshe That "I will establish a prophet for them from among their bretheren, like you, and I will place my words in his mouth; He shall speak to them everything that I will command him." If you are wanting to establish this link with other prophets look for passages that says " Thus says HaShem your G-d" Or "HaShem has commanded me" they are all over the prophetic writings. Joshua fit this profile perfectly Look at Joshua 3:7-9 and this is just one example of Joshua fitting the profile of Deuteronomy 18:15-18.







I don't know what a "BCV" is. I'll take a stab and guess that it means you want me to quote a verse from the Christian scriptures.

How about this one:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Now, unfortunately this would have to be one of the most badly translated verses in the entire English Bible. :smile: But I will ignore the other problems with this verse, and concentrate on the relevant one: the Greek word translated as "with" is "pros", and it actually means "towards" or "facing" (the Greek word for face is "prosopon"). It would be much better translated as "and the Word was facing God".

Will agree that it is poorly translated



I could go on, but that will suffice. Back to Moses. Jesus is not only a prophet of the Moses prototype of Moses, but exceeds him:

1. Moses interceded on behalf of Israel so that God would not destroy them. He even offered his own life as a ransom. Likewise Jesus interceded on behalf of the whole world so that God would not have to destroy them, and he also offered his own life as a ransom.
2. Moses performed great miracles by the power of God. Jesus performed great miracles by his own power.
3. Moses dictated new laws of God to the people. Jesus dictated his own set of new laws to the people.

The last one for now (the one that is relevant for this prophecy):
4. Moses knew the will of God because he spoke with God face-to-face - as a man speaks to a friend. Jesus knew the will of God because he was more than just a friend of God - he was God.

From what I could tell jesus didnt preach any new laws. All of the things jesus said are in the Torah and precede him. Jesus taught pretty much nothing new except a deviated form of traditional Judaism of which he threw in his own interpretations of. If there are new things Paul was responible for them. The thing about jesus is that human sacrifices are forbidden by the Torah. If jesus was supposed to intercede for Humanity how did he do so, because if he went against the Torah and christians say he was a sacrifice then he surely was not what he said he was.

the rest of your points about jesus are very contestable but my time is limited so i can only comment on a few.



Note too Moses as a prophet was also unique in another sense - he was the only person to be simultaneously the high priest, prophet, and leader of the chosen people. All three of these titles were also attributed to Jesus.

Added to all these typological similarities - we know that Moses' successor as leader of Israel was called Yehoshua (Joshua). I don't think it is too much to suggest then, that the fact that the man who allegedly did all of these Moses-like things was also called Yehoshua, is merely a coincidence.

I dont recall Moshe ever being High Priest I believe he was told by G-d to make Aharon the High Priest. Moses could have been since he was of the right lineage to be High priest. However jesus being all three I doubt that very much for several reasons:

1. Jesus was not a Levite nor was he a Kohen(son of Aharon) Moses was the brother of Aharon which would make him a Kohen also. and they were both of levitical descent so Moshe could have been but i dont recall if he was called that or not.

2. none of the activities in the christain bible have been proven true.

so I have many problems with the application of terms.

On jesus' name I thought his name was Yeshu'a a dimunitive form of Yehoshu'a.


(Btw: It's muchas gracias - the number and gender of the adjective must agree with number and gender of the noun (feminine plural)... :wink:)

does this also apply to "Las manos"

[Cherith]

The silence is deafening on my Genesis 3:15 response....lol

That's because no one can believe your silliness, Eli. So what if you change the pronouns from singular to plural. So what if you interpret "seed" as plural rather than singular (while head and heel remain singular). It all depends on how you interpret the seed of the woman - whether referring to an individual or a group. The only place this type of language is even used in the New Covenant is in Romans 16:20:


"And The God of Peace shall bruise satan under your feet shortly. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." --Rom 16:20

So even Christians view this prophecy as referring to a collective group - i.e. the people of God, but the people of God can only come about THROUGH Him giving them Life. In our theology that is through faith in the promised Messiah and His subsequent atonement. What place does the Messiah hold in Judaism if not that of Saviour - whether politically or spiritually?!? And Saviour from what if not the power of the adversary? Notice also in the passage in Romans that it is God that is doing the bruising, the crushing.

But your view makes no sense for this reason: you have the seed of the woman as collective humanity, but then who are the seed of the serpent? Collective humanity? Fallen angels? Unbelievers? What distinguishes the two groups?!?

I could have understood your position more if you were to posit that the children/people of God would be bruising/crushing the head of the serpent, but you didn't posit that. The Messiah's people are not conceived apart from Him. The church is His Body, His people. They perform His work through righteousness. How different is that from the Jewish concept?!?

Besides, this whole debate is silly on the face of it because you guys can't get around the prophecy in Daniel that specifically pinpoints the TIMING of the coming Messiah, nor can you positively prove a relationship with the God of ancient Israel apart from 1) a valid genealogy and 2) successive and unbroken generations of faithful adherents to the Torah - i.e. with no intermarriage among the nations for one.

You (singular AND in the collective/plural sense) are just cutting off your nose to spite your face!

P.S. Something else that must be considered is what does the head and heel represent? Particularly the "head" or power of satan? Is this power not that of sin and death? Could an ordinary man (or men) accomplish this feat - even collectively - since they too are under his power by reason of The Fall/Transgression? Or as Luther states the case:


...But the devil’s head is that power by which the devil rules, that is, sin and death, by means of which he has brought Adam and all Adam’s descendants under his control.

This seed of the woman therefore, because he is to crush the devil’s power, that is, sin and death, must not be an ordinary man, since all men have been brought under the devil through sin and death. So he must certainly be without sin. Now human nature does not produce such seed or fruit, as has been said, for with their sin they are all under the devil. How, then, can this be? The seed must be the natural child of a woman; otherwise, it could not be or be called the seed of the woman. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, human nature and birth does not produce such seed. Therefore, the solution must ultimately be that this seed is a true natural son of the woman; derived from the woman, however, not in the normal way but through a special act of God, in order that the Scripture might stand, that he is the seed only of a woman and not of a man. For the text [Gen. 3:15] clearly states that he will be the seed of woman.

This is thus the first passage in which the mother of this child is described as a virgin. She is his true natural mother; yet she is to conceive and bear supernaturally, by God, without a man, in order that her child may be a distinctive man, without sin, yet having ordinary flesh and blood like other men. This could not have been the case had he been begotten by a man like other men because the flesh is consumed and corrupted by evil lust, so that its natural act of procreation cannot occur without sin. Whatever conceives and bears through an act of the flesh produces also a carnal and sinful fruit. This is why St. Paul says in Ephesians 1 [2:3] that we are all by nature children of wrath. ...

[shunyadragon]

Actually, there is evidence that the Cherokee had a tradition of a god they called Yoweh or something like that, and they had a tradition that they were to keep fire constantly burning on a mountain that Yoweh told them to do, which could be related to the idea of keeping the lampstand always lit in the temple. If you do a search on the Cherokee you'll likely find this.
I am aware of this, but the evidence is a little weak. The constantly burning fire is closer to Zoroastrian tradition and a common belief among the Celts.

I think some Cherokee beliefs are not considered very old and some are traced to early missionaries. I wil check this out.

[learning]

Shunydragon, did you ever find that info you were going to look up regarding the prophecy about Mt. Carmel and the Bahai ? faith, why it is their center?

[Menachem]

That's because no one can believe your silliness, Eli. So what if you change the pronouns from singular to plural. So what if you interpret "seed" as plural rather than singular (while head and heel remain singular). It all depends on how you interpret the seed of the woman - whether referring to an individual or a group. The only place this type of language is even used in the New Covenant is in Romans 16:20:


The only time siliness comes up as a factor is when you post something this silly.



"And The God of Peace shall bruise satan under your feet shortly. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." --Rom 16:20

and then.....


So even Christians view this prophecy as referring to a collective group - i.e. the people of God, but the people of God can only come about THROUGH Him giving them Life. In our theology that is through faith in the promised Messiah and His subsequent atonement. What place does the Messiah hold in Judaism if not that of Saviour - whether politically or spiritually?!? And Saviour from what if not the power of the adversary? Notice also in the passage in Romans that it is God that is doing the bruising, the crushing.

The messiah will be the King of Israel and bring universal peace. While doing all of this, he will gather the Jews from the four corners of the earth and bring them to complete observance of the Torah. That is what messiah will do when he comes.

The passage in Romans means what to me??? Nothing... It is quite clear from the context and from the wording of the passage that Genesis 3:15 does not say, imply or otherwise interpret that way. The Targum of Onkelos doesn't even put it anywhere close to that.


But your view makes no sense for this reason: you have the seed of the woman as collective humanity, but then who are the seed of the serpent? Collective humanity? Fallen angels? Unbelievers? What distinguishes the two groups?!?


My point makes no sense to you becasue you cant break my point about it. That is the only reason it makes no sense to you.

The seed of woman, I.e. the human race, and the seed of the serpent, snakes, reptiles of sorts. Or you could put it as the sages did in a Midrash saying that this is "Humanity's struggle against the evil inclination or ability to do evil." There is no person or mythical figure involved. Now if you actually read it in context with the entire chapter, the midrash I just quoted and the interpretation you are giving makes no sense.


I could have understood your position more if you were to posit that the children/people of God would be bruising/crushing the head of the serpent, but you didn't posit that. The Messiah's people are not conceived apart from Him. The church is His Body, His people. They perform His work through righteousness. How different is that from the Jewish concept?!?

I didn't put that in there because I dont think like christians when it comes to children of G-d and son of G-d and stuff like that. Also which begs the question, Since when are humans not the children of G-d??? Were we not made in the Image of G-d?? The problem with the reasoning you gave is that this verse does not refer to any one single person, such as messiah, It would refer to him and everyone else that is human...


Besides, this whole debate is silly on the face of it because you guys can't get around the prophecy in Daniel that specifically pinpoints the TIMING of the coming Messiah, nor can you positively prove a relationship with the God of ancient Israel apart from 1) a valid genealogy and 2) successive and unbroken generations of faithful adherents to the Torah - i.e. with no intermarriage among the nations for one.

Give us time we will get there we have about 298 more to review since christians like to claim he fulfilled about 300 of them. So it will have to wait its turn.. the topic now is Genesis 49:10...which I also posted on..

I can see you are still stuck on the notion that we must e geneologically connected to G-d. When anyone can convert to Judaism and be counted as a Child of Israel, granted they have no tribal affiliation, they are still a Jew by choice. Just as all Jews are. If you want to get technical Avraham was a gentile before he was the first Jew and entered into the coventant of G-d at the age of 99. He was a Jew by choice just as the converts are today. Once you convert you are forever a Jew because you chose the path of Avraham. I could see you asking Avraham for his tribal lineage. Plus tribal lineage ....awww forget it you will never understand whats going on here...

2) you dont need a successive unbroken line of Torah adherents all you need is to conntect to G-d as a Jew through the Torah..

3) Any Jew can marry one who Halachically converts to Judasim. Plus in order to be called Jewish one does not have to be of the Tribe of Judah to do so. If you take a look at the Book of Esther Esther and Mordecai were both of the tribe of Benjamin but were called Yehudi(a Jew or Judaite). I wonder why...LoL so to was Ruth called a Jew and she converted to Judaism. She was originally a Moabitess. Where was her tribal line and geneology back???? there are no places in the bible for the ideology that you want to press on, that we need these things to be a Jew.. I hate to break it to ya but the Tanakh says we don't... the book of Esther and the Book of Ruth tell us that. We as Jews know not to listen to your nonsense and silliness.

Plus, I can trace my jewish line back to the year 250 C.E. this is where the geneologists had trouble because of conversions..


You (singular AND in the collective/plural sense) are just cutting off your nose to spite your face!

No, Im simply cutting down the notion that this is a messianic prophecy. This only goes to show that you cant break my interpretation on the passage.


P.S. Something else that must be considered is what does the head and heel represent? Particularly the "head" or power of satan? Is this power not that of sin and death? Could an ordinary man (or men) accomplish this feat - even collectively - since they too are under his power by reason of The Fall/Transgression? Or as Luther states the case:[/COLOR]

LoL more nonsense... the text actually means what it says "man(i.e. Humanity) will take their foot and crush your head(literally). While you(serpant and descendants) will bite at their heel since you have to crawl everywhere. you are applying nonsense to a plain sense passage...

If you want to apply this type of mystical approach I have a better one for ya. I will quote a midrash on the passage alone... "The serpent seduces the Jew[as the serpent seduced Adam and Eve] to trample the commandments with his heel, and the Jew can prevail by using his head, meaning the study of Torah."(Midrash HaNe'elam)

I think that one works better...

[Cherith]

The messiah will be the King of Israel and bring universal peace. While doing all of this, he will gather the Jews from the four corners of the earth and bring them to complete observance of the Torah. That is what messiah will do when he comes.

And this will be because of what, his charisma? It certainly won't be because of his genealogy - since that's irrelevant anyway, right?


The passage in Romans means what to me??? Nothing...

I'm not asking it to mean anything to you, personally! I'm simply pointing out that the only time this language/prophecy is referred to in the N.C. is with regards to God bruising the adversary under the feet of His people. Which is not any different in substance from what I thought you were saying. How was I to know that you were so beknighted as to think that the prophecy meant literal reptiles! Imagine, literal reptiles - a good creation of God - talking! And not just talking but defying the Creator and seducing His most cherished creatures to break His Commandments!


I didn't put that in there because I dont think like christians when it comes to children of G-d and son of G-d and stuff like that. Also which begs the question, Since when are humans not the children of G-d??? Were we not made in the Image of G-d??

Sure, mankind was ORIGINALLY made in the Image of God, but with the rebellion of our first parents that image was marred. That is why the Bible says that Adam's children were PRO-CREATED in HIS likeness.


Gen 5:3 "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:"

All of humanity are not considered by God as His children. Only those who are in a faithful covenant relationship with Him are deemed His. This is why the children/people/sons of God are always CONTRASTED with the children/people/sons of men or Belial/the wicked one. Granted, the Lord more commonly refers to His O.C. people as "the children OF Israel" or "My servants," but He does in a few places - not extensively like He does in the N.C. - call them His children (Deut 14:1-2; Prov 14:26; Isa 1:2,4; 30:1,9; 54:1; Jer 3:14, 22; Ezek 2:3-4), the "children of Zion" (Psa 149:2; Joel 2:23) and "the people of God" (Judg 20:2; 2 Sam 14:13); so you need not fear using that language and having it branded "Christian!" If you would have ALL humanity as God's "children" then call me FAMILY! and invite a Muslim to dinner.


I can see you are still stuck on the notion that we must e geneologically connected to G-d. When anyone can convert to Judaism and be counted as a Child of Israel, granted they have no tribal affiliation, they are still a Jew by choice. Just as all Jews are. If you want to get technical Avraham was a gentile before he was the first Jew and entered into the coventant of G-d at the age of 99. He was a Jew by choice just as the converts are today. Once you convert you are forever a Jew because you chose the path of Avraham. I could see you asking Avraham for his tribal lineage. Plus tribal lineage ....awww forget it you will never understand whats going on here...

First, I never said that Jew must be "genealogically connected to God." That is ridiculous. What I said is that to be a "Jew" one must be genealogically connected to Israel/Judah.

Secondly, where in the Bible does it say anything about people "converting" to Judaism and be "counted as a Child of Israel."

Thirdly, those foreigners (non-Israelites by birth/ethnicity) who attached themselves to Israel and/or believed in the God of Israel WERE given tribal affliation of a sort. They were to inherit land among the tribe where they settled/lived, but that did not in any way make them a MEMBER of that tribe/family. Say an Ammonite settled among the tribe of Judah, in fact among the very family of David, that would no more make that person eligible for the throne of David than a monkey could be eligible for the presidency! (cp Deut 17:15) In fact, Solomon marrying an Ammonitess was the very undoing of the kingdom.

Fourthly, Abraham was never a "Jew". That is an anachronism - something that is chronologically out of place. An error in time. Abraham PRECEDED the term "Jew" - he was the forefather of the tribe of Judah from which the term "Jew" is derived; therefore it is a misnomer to refer to Abraham as a "Jew." And neither did he need to produce his genealogy (God had kept track of it for him) because there again he PRECEDED the commandment not to intermarry among the nations.


2) you dont need a successive unbroken line of Torah adherents all you need is to conntect to G-d as a Jew through the Torah..

Says you! And your opinion is of little to no value when it comes to God's Commands.


3) Any Jew can marry one who Halachically converts to Judasim. Plus in order to be called Jewish one does not have to be of the Tribe of Judah to do so. If you take a look at the Book of Esther Esther and Mordecai were both of the tribe of Benjamin but were called Yehudi(a Jew or Judaite). I wonder why...LoL so to was Ruth called a Jew and she converted to Judaism. She was originally a Moabitess. Where was her tribal line and geneology back???? there are no places in the bible for the ideology that you want to press on, that we need these things to be a Jew.. I hate to break it to ya but the Tanakh says we don't... the book of Esther and the Book of Ruth tell us that.

Show me from the Scripture, Eli, where it says anything about "one who Halachically converts to Judah-ism" can then legitimately intermarry the children of Israel because I can show you a ton of verses that says otherwise. Marriage Laws in the O.C. | Intermarriage Among "Jews" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22956)


Hosea 5:7 "They are unfaithful to the LORD; they give birth to illegitimate children. ..."

Covenant faithfulness is required for one to remain IN COVENANT with God. For instance, let's just assume that you ARE legitimately descended from say the tribe of Reuben but your parents or grandparents weren't "Torah observant," then by the mouth of God's Own prophet you are "illegitimate" - i.e. "not recognized as lawful offspring." (Merriam Webster).

Concerning Mordecai and Esther, of course they were referred to as "Jews" because they were of the tribe of Benjamin which was aligned with the Southern Kingdom of Judah! However, this distinction was used primarily BY FOREIGNERS who either 1) didn't know any different or 2) didn't care!

As for Ruth, the term "Jew" in NØ WHERE used in the book of Ruth and COULD NØT be used as a term for Ruth seeing as how she was ETHNICALLY a Moabitess. It's not that she was "originally a Moabitess," she was ETHNICALLY a Moabitess. Being a Moabite isn't a religion it is an ethnicity! It is her genetic makeup - something she couldn't change if she wanted!


Plus, I can trace my jewish line back to the year 250 C.E. this is where the geneologists had trouble because of conversions..

Really now? Want to prove that? Of course not, because you can't. Oh, you'll give us all sorts of reasons like Yoshi did, but the simple fact of the matter is that you won't because you can't. I sure hope this messiah of yours that you're waiting on buys your excuses when he wants to gather "all Israel" together...

--C

[Menachem]

And this will be because of what, his charisma? It certainly won't be because of his genealogy - since that's irrelevant anyway, right?

Actually Geneology will have a part in his coming as there are many Jews who live in Israel and In the US who can trace their lines to King David.


I'm not asking it to mean anything to you, personally! I'm simply pointing out that the only time this language/prophecy is referred to in the N.C. is with regards to God bruising the adversary under the feet of His people. Which is not any different in substance from what I thought you were saying. How was I to know that you were so beknighted as to think that the prophecy meant literal reptiles! Imagine, literal reptiles - a good creation of God - talking! And not just talking but defying the Creator and seducing His most cherished creatures to break His Commandments!

The language used in Genesis 3:15 and here in your Romans quotation are not even close to being the same. They disagree on wording and language all together.




Sure, mankind was ORIGINALLY made in the Image of God, but with the rebellion of our first parents that image was marred. That is why the Bible says that Adam's children were PRO-CREATED in HIS likeness.[/COLOR]


Gen 5:3 "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:"

If adam was created in G-d's image and Adam moved on to having children after his likeness then Logic would dictate that the children would be in the likeness of G-d. this is a very simple concept and still you drag it out with nonsense.


All of humanity are not considered by God as His children. Only those who are in a faithful covenant relationship with Him are deemed His. This is why the children/people/sons of God are always CONTRASTED with the children/people/sons of men or Belial/the wicked one. Granted, the Lord more commonly refers to His O.C. people as "the children OF Israel" or "My servants," but He does in a few places - not extensively like He does in the N.C. - call them His children (Deut 14:1-2; Prov 14:26; Isa 1:2,4; 30:1,9; 54:1; Jer 3:14, 22; Ezek 2:3-4), the "children of Zion" (Psa 149:2; Joel 2:23) and "the people of God" (Judg 20:2; 2 Sam 14:13); so you need not fear using that language and having it branded "Christian!" If you would have ALL humanity as God's "children" then call me FAMILY! and invite a Muslim to dinner.[

Actualy if all of Humanity is of the progenity of Adam the first Human who was created int he Image of G-d, then yes we are all G-d's children.


First, I never said that Jew must be "genealogically connected to God." That is ridiculous. What I said is that to be a "Jew" one must be genealogically connected to Israel/Judah.

Really tell that to Ruth who was a convert and the great grandmother of King David. Explain why she is considered a Judaite which is the same thing as being a Jew. When she was ethnically a Moabitess. Plus Esther and Mordecai in the Book of Esther were called Yehudim or Judaites/Jews.


Secondly, where in the Bible does it say anything about people "converting" to Judaism and be "counted as a Child of Israel."

consult the Torah and the book of Ruth for that.


Thirdly, those foreigners (non-Israelites by birth/ethnicity) who attached themselves to Israel and/or believed in the God of Israel WERE given tribal affliation of a sort. They were to inherit land among the tribe where they settled/lived, but that did not in any way make them a MEMBER of that tribe/family. Say an Ammonite settled among the tribe of Judah, in fact among the very family of David, that would no more make that person eligible for the throne of David than a monkey could be eligible for the presidency! (cp Deut 17:15) In fact, Solomon marrying an Ammonitess was the very undoing of the kingdom.

No they were not given a tribal affiliation, granted that they soon assimilated in, the Ger or resident alien or you could say convert as Ger means both a proselyte and alien, were given a house name and a plot to land so that they may remain separate unless you take it the other way and say they are converting and are given land and house name so that when they are through with conversion they may live as Jews amongst Jews.


was never a "Jew". That is an anachronism - something that is chronologically out of place. An error in time. Abraham PRECEDED the term "Jew" - he was the forefather of the tribe of Judah from which the term "Jew" is derived; therefore it is a misnomer to refer to Abraham as a "Jew." And neither did he need to produce his genealogy (God had kept track of it for him) because there again he PRECEDED the commandment not to intermarry among the nations.

So then Avraham must be the first Muslim or a Christian right??...LoL...No, Avraham was the first Jew taking into account that a Jews are more than just a people they are also adherents to the religion of their fathers which include Avraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. So, yes I would be correct in placing Avraham as the first Jew by his religious beliefs.

I would have no problem inviting a Muslim over for dinner, and regards to you Hey cuz!


Says you! And your opinion is of little to no value when it comes to God's Commands.

No, It is not my opinion it is the opinion of Judaism as a whole basing it on the Torah.

secondly what makes your opinion any better than mine?? What you just gave about a Jew is your opinion though as worthless and baseless as it is.

Third, What makes the opinion of a Goy, such as you, credible enough to define a Jew? Is a Japanese person credible enough to define who or what a Chinese person is...


Show me from the Scripture, Eli, where it says anything about "one who Halachically converts to Judah-ism" can then legitimately intermarry the children of Israel because I can show you a ton of verses that says otherwise. Marriage Laws in the O.C. | Intermarriage Among "Jews" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22956)


And here steps in the Book of Ruth, yes the entire book. About a Moabitess who wishes to follow Naomi and follow the G-d of Israel. and is allowed to marry Jews once she is accepted by the elders as sufficiently learned and the conversion is done. Which is why she cant marry in right away.



Hosea 5:7 "They are unfaithful to the LORD; they give birth to illegitimate children. ..."

this applies to those who marry gentiles not to those who marry converts see Book of Ruth...


Covenant faithfulness is required for one to remain IN COVENANT with God. For instance, let's just assume that you ARE legitimately descended from say the tribe of Reuben but your parents or grandparents weren't "Torah observant," then by the mouth of God's Own prophet you are "illegitimate" - i.e. "not recognized as lawful offspring." (Merriam Webster).

LoL, here you have a case of faulty Logic. No where in the Tanakh does it say that if my parents are poor observers of the Torah that I am Illegitimate. LoL thats nonsense. Plus your quote from the Websters dictionary is nice but that is not the only meaning of Illegitimate in the Hebrew language. It was a Nice attempt to play on the english word illegitimate instead of the Hebrew word mamzer.


Concerning Mordecai and Esther, of course they were referred to as "Jews" because they were of the tribe of Benjamin which was aligned with the Southern Kingdom of Judah! However, this distinction was used primarily BY FOREIGNERS who either 1) didn't know any different or 2) didn't care!

mallarchy, now your making excuses. This is now your de facto admission one does not have to be of the tribe of Judah to be called a Jew. Plus we are leaving out the Levites in the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah who were called Yehudim also when in a group of Jews coming back from babylon.



As for Ruth the term "Jew" in NØ WHERE used in the book of Ruth and COULD NØT be used as a term for Ruth seeing as how she was ETHNICALLY a Moabitess. It's not that she was "originally a Moabitess," she was ETHNICALLY a Moabitess. Being a Moabite isn't a religion it is an ethnicity! It is her genetic makeup - something she couldn't change if she wanted!

In the book of Ruth, Ruth went to Judah, came there and married a Judaite. after her conversion her children were Judahites. Logic would Dictate that if she is in the land and if this were the time of Exile she would be called a Jew. Just as all of theirs were. Sure she was a Moabitess by ethnicity yes but a Jew by choice when she came to the land to worship the G-d of Israel. She converted to the faith of the Jews thereby becoming one.




Really now? Want to prove that? Of course not, because you can't. Oh, you'll give us all sorts of reasons like Yoshi did, but the simple fact of the matter is that you won't because you can't. I sure hope this messiah of yours that you're waiting on buys your excuses when he wants to gather "all Israel" together...
--C

That is not for me to prove the Genologist doing the geneology research is the one who does that. I dont give reasons for anything I give my opoinion of things and call it that.

Cherith I could take time to prove to you my Geneology goes back to 250C.E. The time would be waisted and you wouldnt believe the geneologist anyway so what would be the point, you are dead set on your theory that a Jew must be genetically connected to Israel to be a Jew. What if I told you that the Jews in Israel doing reasearch on Jewish genetics found the tribal marker for Judah or Benjamin in my DNA, would you believe the scientist? I can tell you wouldnt, you would continue to make excuses for yourself as to why the research is faulty even though science just showed you otherwise...

Now that I am done responding to this nonsense lets move on to the messianic prophecies. No one has even come close to shaking the position I posted on Genesis 3:15 so anyone else want a stab at it???

[Cherith]

It sure did take you a lot of words and space to say absolutely nothing of value! I stand by everything that I said and will only address a couple of your assertions.


Actually Geneology will have a part in his coming as there are many Jews who live in Israel and In the US who can trace their lines to King David.

Show me one. That's all that I've ever asked for, just one.

Regarding Adam, won't you at least admit that his fall from innocence and grace made him less than what he was ORIGINALLY created? And as for all of humanity being children of God I respectfully submit the entire panoply of Scripture as a counter to that notion.

Regarding Ruth, her "conversion" experience consisted of this and this only:


"And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: {17} Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me." --Ruth 1:16-17

Ruth's commitment lay primarily to her mother-in-law. There is no account of a mythological "halacha" conversion because, as far as I can tell, no conversion PROCESS exists in the Torah. Perhaps I am the beknighted one and you can point us to some SCRIPTURE that lays out this "process" - i.e. being "accepted by the elders as sufficiently learned", "given a house name and a plot to land", and "she cant marry in right away".

Where do you come by all of this information? It certainly isn't in the book of Ruth (nor in the Torah as far as I can tell)! I gather that you follow the Talmud/sages/midrash etc rather than the plain teaching of Scripture... Oh that Yoshi would step in here!!!

Furthermore, I posited that to remain in the covenant one must OBEY the stipulations of the covenant.


"...that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My Covenant." --Gen 17:14

"Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keeps covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations;" --Deut 7:9

As in the example of circumcision, one of those stipulations was that the children of Israel must not intermarry among the nations. You contradicted the Scripture in your assertion by stating: "No, It is not my opinion it is the opinion of Judaism as a whole basing it on the Torah."

It is fine with me if all of Judaism is wrong and bases their faulty opinion on a misinterpretation (and stiff-necked rejection) of the Torah, but the same cannot be said of God and His Opinion. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that if you break the covenant = then you are cut off from the covenant and the people of God. All of your "opinions" and that of Judaism notwithstanding.

I also quoted a passage from Hosea to which you responded:

"this applies to those who marry gentiles not to those who marry converts..."

The text of Hosea says NOTHING about marrying gentiles or converts! Perhaps you should read the passage in context before you go spouting off about something you know nothing about!


Hosea 4:1, 6-7; 5:5,7 "Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. ...{6} "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. {7} As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: therefore will I change their glory into shame." ...{5:5} "And the pride of Israel doth testify to his face: therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity; Judah also shall fall with them." ...{7} "THEY have dealt treacherously against the LORD: for they have begotten illegitmate children: now shall a month devour them with their portions."

The "illegitimate children" that they have begotten are of the same SPIRITUAL stock as their parents. The entire thrust of Hosea is on SPIRITUAL IDOLATRY - i.e. Israel's breach of her covenantal relationship with God, mixing the pure worship of God with the idolatry of the surrounding peoples (religious syncretism).

This sounds very much like a major world religion that I know of that takes what the Scripture ACTUALLY says and joins it to what some sages said while in captivity for their disobedience!

Furthermore, I have never denied that the term "Jew" was used to represent the Southern Kingdom of Judah which included not only the tribe of Benjamin, the Levites or any other family - irrespective of tribal affliation - that joined themselves to the Southern Kingdom. In fact, the prophetess Anna in the N.C. is said to be from the tribe of Asher. Since the entire Northern Kingdom was lost to history it is manifestly evident by the existence of Anna (if nothing else) that there were SOME families of other tribes that chose not to follow Jeroboam but aligned themselves with the chosen remnant of Judah.

--C

P.S. Did I not tell you that you would have some excuse about your ancestry? As a genealogist I am perfectly capable of evaluating your putative genealogy. Hundreds of thousands of people have their genealogy online and many in the hopes that if there are any historical errors in their suppositions that someone else could shed light on it and thereby allow them to further investigate their correct origins (see example here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/blogs.php?u=73)). It seems only Jews intent on hiding their origins for theological reasons are afraid to reveal the branches of their family tree.

[Conductor42]

Just for fun, let's take a "hyper-literal" view of the Gen. 3:15 passsage.

IIRC, "The Garden of Eden" was different than our enviroments today. The entire population of earth (granted, that was only 2 people) walked around naked without any shame. The lamb shall lie down with the lion and all that sort of stuff, right? (I'm being lazy and not actually grabbing the BCV's to back this up)

Assuming the above is pretty much correct, being in an entirely different enviroment than we exist in today, how far of a stretch is it to think that some - if not all - the animals could *literally* communicate somehow with Adam and Chavvah (eve)?

And, let's look at the general relationship between humans and snakes :

Humans generally *don't* get along with snakes. In fact, every snake that has ever gotten near my grandmother has, in all seriousness, had it's head crushed by her shoes - one time my cousin's snake got out of it's cage when she was visiting. Sadly, that small snake ain't living anymore.

So, with that in mind let's take a verse according to Gen. 3:15 NIV, (thanks to the Bible Gateway site):



Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman
and between your offspring and hers;

Humans and Snakes don't get along anymore.



he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

IIRC, this isn't translated perfectly here, but the gist of it: Snakes and Humans will cause each other harm. Lots of it. Tip of advice : Never tick off a Rattler.

[Conductor42]

But my point was, Joshua is never really referred to anywhere else in the Bible (Jewish or Christian) as a prophet. At least, not to my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong). Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elija - all these guys were referred to later. Joshua may have technically been a prophet, but it would be stretching the definition of "like" to argue that Joshua son of Nun was ever considered by later Jews to be a "prophet like Moses".

That brings up another Interesting question - how many of the other "prophets" are ever actually refered to one?



I suppose that you could argue that the author was only writing a short time after Moses' death - before Joshua did his miracles. But if that is the case, he must have been a mighty impatient guy, as he didn't wait very long to see if a new "prophet like Moses" would turn up!

Are you sure? From my POV, it would be similar to if a soldier of the Revolution had written that no General/Leader/etc. had risen like unto George Washington.



As I understand it, this miracle was conducted by a large party of Israel's army, using the Ark of the Covenant - not (like Moses' miracles) by Joshua on his own. The priests carrying the ark did several laps of the city and on the 7th day the wall collapsed. I don't think that this could be fairly considered to be Joshua performing a miracle. The only miracle I can think of that Joshua performed himself was the stopping of the sun.

Point Taken.



Tell you what, Yoshiah - you can make your case a whole lot stronger if you can provide some ancient commentary to support your claim that Joshua fulfilled this prophecy. Preferably, this commentary should date to the 1st century AD or earlier, so that you are not relying on documents that are possibly tainted by anti-Christian rhetoric.

Sounds reasonable to me. But, I'd probably look for a commentary that shows Deut. 18 as refering to any (true) prophet. This would probably be somewhat easier had writings of the Saducees, other than the book of Ben Sirach, survived.



I don't know what a "BCV" is. I'll take a stab and guess that it means you want me to quote a verse from the Christian scriptures.

BCV = Book, Chapter,Verse.

It's a term used amongst the Karaite discussion groups.

I snipeed your next point due to length, but I understand your argument.



(Btw: It's muchas gracias - the number and gender of the adjective must agree with number and gender of the noun (feminine plural)... :wink:)

Ooops... Japanese is cooler anyways :)

[Menachem]

It sure did take you a lot of words and space to say absolutely nothing of value! I stand by everything that I said and will only address a couple of your assertions.

well since you say nothing but garbled up nonsense when you post I will just hit some of the points below since they have no real value to any of us..


Show me one. That's all that I've ever asked for, just one.

If I knew their phone numbers I would give them to you.



Regarding Adam, won't you at least admit that his fall from innocence and grace made him less than what he was ORIGINALLY created? And as for all of humanity being children of God I respectfully submit the entire panoply of Scripture as a counter to that notion.

This is where Christianity and Judaism are different we dont see Adam's eating the apple as a bad thing. In fact we see him as to living up to all that he was created for. The Free will that G-d gave us made him curious.


Regarding Ruth, her "conversion" experience consisted of this and this only:


"And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: {17} Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me." --Ruth 1:16-17

Wait theres more there's always more..

Rth 4:10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye [are] witnesses this day.
[11]And all the people that [were] in the gate, and the elders, said, [We are] witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:
[12]And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.

here the elders approve of her after her conversion. This is the prelude to later conversions which need a Beit Din m irrored off the council of elders here. Here is such used.

also:

Rth 3:3 Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.

Here is what a convert must do a mikvah or ritual bath to wash yourself.

next we have Shabbat observance:

Rth 3:18 Then said she, Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the matter will fall: for the man will not be in rest, until he have finished the thing this day.


Ruth's commitment lay primarily to her mother-in-law. There is no account of a mythological "halacha" conversion because, as far as I can tell, no conversion PROCESS exists in the Torah. Perhaps I am the beknighted one and you can point us to some SCRIPTURE that lays out this "process" - i.e. being "accepted by the elders as sufficiently learned", "given a house name and a plot to land", and "she cant marry in right away".

The mythology of Halachah....LoL Here is a primary law of Halachah "you Shall not murder" So you consider this a myth...Hey cherith if that is the case then it must be ok for christians to go around and murder everyone according to you.. And every bit of halachah has a base in the Torah. The laws of Niddah, Shabbos observance....etc.... so no this stuff is actually in the Torah and in other books o fthe Tanakh...


Where do you come by all of this information? It certainly isn't in the book of Ruth (nor in the Torah as far as I can tell)! I gather that you follow the Talmud/sages/midrash etc rather than the plain teaching of Scripture... Oh that Yoshi would step in here!!!

I base everything I have on The Torah, the Oral Torah , and the midrashim, and halachah. Yoshiah is a Karaite he does not hold the the Oral Torah and others to the same esteem that I and other Orthodox Jews do. I do have great respect for Yoshiah in his knowledge fo the Tanakh and how he bases everything in there.


Furthermore, I posited that to remain in the covenant one must OBEY the stipulations of the covenant.


"...that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My Covenant." --Gen 17:14

"Know therefore that [b]the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keeps covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations;" --Deut 7:9

no where in there do I see that I will be illegitimate if my parents are poor Torah keepers. face it that is a false claim... everything you have posted applies to the person doing it only.


As in the example of circumcision, one of those stipulations was that the children of Israel must not intermarry among the nations. You contradicted the Scripture in your assertion by stating: "No, It is not my opinion it is the opinion of Judaism as a whole basing it on the Torah."

No it is the oppinion of Judaism and Jews. I did not contradict scripture as:

1. women arent circumcised unless they grew something we men have.

2. Just by the example in the book of Ruth, which you have not even touched on, converts can marry in...

so your claims and points are empty and full of nonsense.


It is fine with me if all of Judaism is wrong and bases their faulty opinion on a misinterpretation (and stiff-necked rejection) of the Torah, but the same cannot be said of God and His Opinion. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that if you break the covenant = then you are cut off from the covenant and the people of God. All of your "opinions" and that of Judaism notwithstanding.

Our rejection of the torah....LoL if that is true then how come christians eat porkchops and I dont??? Hmm...answer that one.... if you havent cared to actually read the Tanakh it is the word of G-d and everything you gave above is your opinion on the matter which contradicts it.... My opinions and that of Judaism are very much in line with the Torah and the covenant. as for your opinion it is just that as worthless as it is..


I also quoted a passage from Hosea to which you responded:

"this applies to those who marry gentiles not to those who marry converts..."

The text of Hosea says NOTHING about marrying gentiles or converts! Perhaps you should read the passage in context before you go spouting off about something you know nothing about!


Hosea 4:1, 6-7; 5:5,7 "Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. ...{6} "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. {7} As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: therefore will I change their glory into shame." ...{5:5} "And the pride of Israel doth testify to his face: therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity; Judah also shall fall with them." ...{7} "THEY have dealt treacherously against the LORD: for they have begotten illegitmate children: now shall a month devour them with their portions."

The "illegitimate children" that they have begotten are of the same SPIRITUAL stock as their parents. The entire thrust of Hosea is on SPIRITUAL IDOLATRY - i.e. Israel's breach of her covenantal relationship with God, mixing the pure worship of God with the idolatry of the surrounding peoples (religious syncretism).

apparently you dont understand the Hebrew language...Isnt that obvious... the Hebrew word used in the passage you orginally gave me was the word Zarim which comes from the hebrew word mamzer, this term applies to physical people. it has to do with an actual illegitimate child. the only way to get an illegitimate child is if you marry a gentile. The exception to this is if the gentile converts as Ruth did. the illegitimate children was the result of the Idolatry which is caused by intermarriage with unconverted gentiles. This is also the precursor tot eh exile to babylon.


This sounds very much like a major world religion that I know of that takes what the Scripture ACTUALLY says and joins it to what some sages said while in captivity for their disobedience!

from what I can tell you know very little about it. actually the sages and prophets all advocated faithfulness to G-d and the Torah so that they may return to the Land. And Ezra who was a sage/scribe was a primary figure in that call for observance of the Torah.



furthermore, I have never denied that the term "Jew" was used to represent the Southern Kingdom of Judah which included not only the tribe of Benjamin, the Levites or any other family - irrespective of tribal affliation - that joined themselves to the Southern Kingdom. In fact, the prophetess Anna in the N.C. is said to be from the tribe of Asher. Since the entire Northern Kingdom was lost to history it is manifestly evident by the existence of Anna (if nothing else) that there were SOME families of other tribes that chose not to follow Jeroboam but aligned themselves with the chosen remnant of Judah.

so you admit then you do not have to be of the tribe of Judah to be called a Jew. Hmm..so that means they could be of any tribe and be called a Jew....alos if they are a convert then they also can be called a Jew...



P.S. Did I not tell you that you would have some excuse about your ancestry? As a genealogist I am perfectly capable of evaluating your putative genealogy. Hundreds of thousands of people have their genealogy online and many in the hopes that if there are any historical errors in their suppositions that someone else could shed light on it and thereby allow them to further investigate their correct origins (see example here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/blogs.php?u=73)). It seems only Jews intent on hiding their origins for theological reasons are afraid to reveal the branches of their family tree.

A geneologist witha quest that makes me even more excited about it. tell me how many geneologies have you evaluated with the same objective to prove them. also have you evaluated the geneology of jesus lately. Plus do you know how Jewish Geneology works if you do then you would know that jesus has neither of the lines given to him as Jewish lineage is patrilineal(Numbers 1:18) and jesus was born a of a virgin. Plus your whoel adoption theory doesnt work either. by applying the Logic I as a sort of olive skinned white american can never be Japanese through adoption no matter how manyy times I am adopted. From this point of view I can tell already you are a poor geneologist. since you cant even objectively as you would mine evaluate the jesus geneologies....


Now that I am done with this nonsense I would actually like to move on to the actual topic of the thread Messianic prophecies..... We are on Genesis 49:10 if you would like to comment on that before I and others blow it out of the water then do it, otherwise C-ya...

[Cherith]

This is where Christianity and Judaism are different we dont see Adam's eating the apple as a bad thing. In fact we see him as to living up to all that he was created for. The Free will that G-d gave us made him curious.

Who said it was an "apple"? And it's too bad that God didn't share your opinion! Break His Commands = Merit His Wrath.


Wait theres more there's always more..

Rth 4:10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye [are] witnesses this day.
[11]And all the people that [were] in the gate, and the elders, said, [We are] witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:
[12]And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.

here the elders approve of her after her conversion. This is the prelude to later conversions which need a Beit Din mirrored off the council of elders here. Here is such used.

Eli! This verse says nothing about Ruth "converting." It is simply the elders at the gate ratifying Boaz's PURCHASE of Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon's property FROM NAOMI. Furthermore, he says that he has "PURCHASED" Ruth to be his wife! He had already told the nearer kinsman that buying the land included taking the Moabitess to wife. It is the PURCHASE - including that of Ruth to raise up the name of the dead - that the city elders are ratifying.


also: Rth 3:3 Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.

Here is what a convert must do a mikvah or ritual bath to wash yourself.

Oy! Taking a bath, putting on perfume and your best little red dress amounts to a mikvah conversion!?! Talk about blowing a little girl-talk out of proportion! Next you'll be telling us that Naomi was the first female rabbi and/or a member of the Beit Din that oversaw/evaluated Ruth's conversion process!?!


"Wash and perfume yourself, and put on your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don't let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking." --[B]Ruth 3:3


next we have Shabbat observance: Rth 3:18 Then said she, Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the matter will fall: for the man will not be in rest, until he have finished the thing this day.

The word for "rest" there is not shabbath but shaqat which carries the idea of idleness, being still, appeased, etc. The text means just what it says, Boaz wouldn't just sit idly around until he had accomplished the purchase of this woman as his wife!

Shaqat is the same word used in Judges 18:7 referring to the Zidonians who were a "quiet and secure" people. Meaning I doubt they were sabbath-keepers! Perhaps you should do a word-study before you try and justify that strange view of yours!


"...Why do you trangress the Commandment[s] of God by your tradition...ye have made the Commandment[s] of God of none effect by your tradition..." --Rabbi Yeshua


it has to do with an actual illegitimate child. the only way to get an illegitimate child is if you marry a gentile. ... the illegitimate children was the result of the Idolatry which is caused by intermarriage with unconverted gentiles.

You really should try reading Hosea. It will do wonders for your theology. Because I don't recall one word being uttered about intermarriage with unconverted gentiles! I do, however, remember a lot of stuff about SPIRITUAL IDOLATRY and that being the basis for calling the children of ISRAELITES "profane"! (Which is what the word zuwr means in the context. cp. Exo 30:9 where it speaks of "profane" or "strange" incense, or Lev 10:1 where Nadab and Abihu offered "strange" or "profane" fire before the Lord.)


And Ezra who was a sage/scribe was a primary figure in that call for observance of the Torah.

Yes, I love Ezra. Especially this passage in support of my claim for covenant faithfulness with regards to marriage:


Ezra 2:62 "These sought their register among those that were reckoned BY genealogy, but they were not found: THEREFORE were they, as polluted/desecrated, put from the priesthood."

Your poor messiah won't even be able to find any legitimate priests to minister in some rebuilt temple.

As for the genealogy of Jesus, see here: The Messiah's Family (http://www.endlessgenealogies.com/MESSIAH/) | The Family Tree of the Messiah (http://www.endlessgenealogies.com/MESSIAH/images/MESSIAH4.png). Jesus' family tree bypassed the covenant unfaithfulness of Solomon's descendants. Jesus is descended from David's son, Nathan, who was Solomon's older brother. Furthermore, since you referenced adoption, I would like to thank you for making my case for me. Joseph, as Jesus' legal guardian and foster father, would make Him legally the son of Joseph bar/ben David and eligible for the throne. Being the Son of God - or very God of very God - would make Him eligible to rule over the Kingdom of God. As for Mary, well we've come full circle back to our prophecy now, haven't we? For it is manifestly evident that a virgin birth would be required for Eve's seed to procure a saviour for fallen mankind.

Eli, this is probably where we should confess that you're really my ally and that you intentionally make Judaism look foolish so that I can make the Christian perspective shine with all it's glorious reason.

[Conductor42]

Cherith, Eli,

This is a tad bit off subject. Please start a new thread for this.


P.S. Did I not tell you that you would have some excuse about your ancestry? As a genealogist I am perfectly capable of evaluating your putative genealogy. Hundreds of thousands of people have their genealogy online and many in the hopes that if there are any historical errors in their suppositions that someone else could shed light on it and thereby allow them to further investigate their correct origins (see example here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/blogs.php?u=73)). It seems only Jews intent on hiding their origins for theological reasons are afraid to reveal the branches of their family tree.[/COLOR]

[Conductor42]

The topic of conversion is also a tad-bit off topic for this thread. Let's start a new thread for this guys, ok?

[Cherith]

The topic of conversion is also a tad-bit off topic for this thread. Let's start a new thread for this guys, ok?

A new thread for what topic, Yoshi. My response to Eli was born out of the context of the discussion of a "Messianic prophecy." Besides, both sides come at their various view from opposing paradigms, so these same problems (e.g. the nature of Adam's fall, etc.) will come up along the way and need to be addressed. I think Jezz would agree?

[Menachem]

Who said it was an "apple"? And it's too bad that God didn't share your opinion! Break His Commands = Merit His Wrath.



Eli! This verse says nothing about Ruth "converting." It is simply the elders at the gate ratifying Boaz's PURCHASE of Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon's property FROM NAOMI. Furthermore, he says that he has "PURCHASED" Ruth to be his wife! He had already told the nearer kinsman that buying the land included taking the Moabitess to wife. It is the PURCHASE - including that of Ruth to raise up the name of the dead - that the city elders are ratifying.



Oy! Taking a bath, putting on perfume and your best little red dress amounts to a mikvah conversion!?! Talk about blowing a little girl-talk out of proportion! Next you'll be telling us that Naomi was the first female rabbi and/or a member of the Beit Din that oversaw/evaluated Ruth's conversion process!?!


"Wash and perfume yourself, and put on your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don't let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking." --Ruth 3:3



The word for "rest" there is not shabbath but shaqat which carries the idea of idleness, being still, appeased, etc. The text means just what it says, Boaz wouldn't just sit idly around until he had accomplished the purchase of this woman as his wife!

Shaqat is the same word used in Judges 18:7 referring to the Zidonians who were a "quiet and secure" people. Meaning I doubt they were sabbath-keepers! Perhaps you should do a word-study before you try and justify that strange view of yours!


"...Why do you trangress the Commandment[s] of God by your tradition...ye have made the Commandment[s] of God of none effect by your tradition..." --Rabbi Yeshua



You really should try reading Hosea. It will do wonders for your theology. Because I don't recall one word being uttered about intermarriage with unconverted gentiles! I do, however, remember a lot of stuff about SPIRITUAL IDOLATRY and that being the basis for calling the children of ISRAELITES "profane"! (Which is what the word zuwr means in the context. cp. Exo 30:9 where it speaks of "profane" or "strange" incense, or Lev 10:1 where Nadab and Abihu offered "strange" or "profane" fire before the Lord.)



Yes, I love Ezra. Especially this passage in support of my claim for covenant faithfulness with regards to marriage:


Ezra 2:62 "These sought their register among those that were reckoned BY genealogy, but they were not found: THEREFORE were they, as polluted/desecrated, put from the priesthood."


Since I agree with Yoshiah about this not being associated with messianic prophecies I am going to put this Ping Pong Game aside and say we disagree with no way of coming to a solution... It would be a waste of time and of a perfectly good lesson in Hebrew.

since the ones below are of some messianic importance I would like to touch on those with the OK of Yoshiah and the moderators..


Your poor messiah won't even be able to find any legitimate priests to minister in some rebuilt temple.

Thats what Elijah is for Malachi 3:23[4:5] Behold I send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and awesome day of HaShem.

He will not only do what is said in verse 24[6] but also re-establish the priesthood and declare who is the messiah. Something that has not happened yet.


As for the genealogy of Jesus, see here: The Messiah's Family (http://www.endlessgenealogies.com/MESSIAH/) | The Family Tree of the Messiah (http://www.endlessgenealogies.com/MESSIAH/images/MESSIAH4.png). Jesus' family tree bypassed the covenant unfaithfulness of Solomon's descendants.

Unfortunately this is not how it works. G-d made a promise to King David this promise was carried on to Solomon and it applies to the descendants of Solomon no matter how unfaithful some of them were there is no bypassing the family line of Solomon, The exception to this Rule is Jeconiah who was cursed to having none of his line ruling on the throne of David(Jeremiah 22:30), as these verses say:

placing the context of all of these verses in the proper context I will quote verse 1 of the chapter of both of them to avoid confusion.

1 Kings 9:1. And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the Lord, and the king’s house, and all Solomon’s desire which he was pleased to do,


1Kings 9:5 then I shall uphold the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I spoke to your father David saying, " No Man of yours will be cut off from upon the throne of Israel(the exception was King Jeconiah [Jeremiah 22:30])."

2Chronicles 9:1. And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to test Solomon with difficult questions at Jerusalem, with a very great company, and camels that bore spices, and gold in abundance, and precious stones; and when she came to Solomon, she talked with him of all that was in her heart.
2. And Solomon answered all her questions; and there was nothing hidden from Solomon which he did not tell her.


2Chronicles 9:8 May HaShem you G-d be blessed, Who has chosen you, to place you upon His throne as king, for HaShem you G-d; because of your G-d's love for Israel, to establish your throne forever, He has made you king over them to do justice and rightousness.

and now couple it with this verse for the real answer:


Psalms 89:4-5[3-4] I made a covenant with my chosen on,I have sworn to David My servant. For all eternity I will establish your offspring, and build up your throne for all generations. Selah.

so yes the Messiah will be of the line of King David and through Solomon.


Jesus is descended from David's son, Nathan, who was Solomon's older brother.

as per the verses mentioned beforehand the royal line cannot go through Nathan as he was not declared the Royal Heir. Also if you are implying that the Geneology in Luke is mary's here isa verse that blows the matrilineal mapping of Geneology out of the water:

Numbers 1:18 They gatheres together the entire assembly on the first of the second month, and they established their geneology according to their families, according to their fathers' household, by the number of names, from twenty years of age and up, according to their head count.

So here we can see that all Geneology that is done according to the Tanakh is to be Patrilineal not Matrilineal. So jesus not having a mortal father to decalre this pedigree to has no Tribal line,House name, nor does he even have a Line to King David. The Mothers side is irrelivent as the Tanakh tells us that all geneologies are to be dont according to the Fathers' side not the Mother's side... So this is in effect disproven based on that it goes agains the tanakh not with it.


Furthermore, since you referenced adoption, I would like to thank you for making my case for me. Joseph, as Jesus' legal guardian and foster father, would make Him legally the son of Joseph bar/ben David and eligible for the throne.

Actually my point before made your case not relivent. And the argument I made above also brings down your arguments for the adoption theory. The only way to adoption can do what you are saying it would do is if the person adopts a brother's son who has the same heraldtry as the person doing the adoption. jesus had neither of those things unless you are wanting to claim that he was Joseph's brother's son. That would effectively disprove your "virgin" birth theory.

being a legal guardian or foster father does not give anyone the right to claim the family line. Ill illustrate that in an analogy: "My foster father is Japanese, I am a white american. Now with that being said can I legally claim to be Japanese and a descendant of my foster fathers' Japanese line."

The Logic when applied is absurd. As I can never be Japanese by adoption. So to Jesus can not be of the tribe of Judah and of Joseph's House because of adoption as his virgin birth does that in for him.

So if you want to say jesus is the actual son of Joseph then you would discredit the "Virgin birth" event and you also run into more problems with the geneology which can be discussed at a later time.

So jesus is caught By very many geneological problems that are very evident and unavoidable.

Cherith this is the point where you should admit you dont know very much about Jewish Geneology. From your posts earlier I can tell you are applying your Gentile sense fo geneology by mapping both sides of the family. Jews can map both sides but the only one that is of importance is that of the Fathers' side.



Being the Son of God - or very God of very God - would make Him eligible to rule over the Kingdom of God.

Ha..Ha.... The messiah is not the "son of G-d" nor is he "G-d" The messiah is very human and is a son of King David through his son Solomon. Your case here could never be proved nor is it relivent.

To show that G-d is not a man take a look at:

“…for I am God and not a man." (Hoshea 11:9)

“God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent…” (Numbers 23:19)

“For He [God] is not man like me,” (Job 19:32)

"the Strength of Israel will neither lie nor repent, for He is not a man to repent." (1 Samuel 15:29)


As for Mary, well we've come full circle back to our prophecy now, haven't we? For it is manifestly evident that a virgin birth would be required for Eve's seed to procure a saviour for fallen mankind.

yeah too bad my post on Genesis 3:15 completely destroys what you are saying. Unfortunately the "virgin" birth is not in the Tanakh. So proving your case for "virgin birth" will be quite impossible...


Eli, this is probably where we should confess that you're really my ally and that you intentionally make Judaism look foolish so that I can make the Christian perspective shine with all it's glorious reason.

Quite the contrary Cherith this is where you should confess you are helping me as I just had a play day on the parts of the post that are relivent to the messianic prophecies thread. So go ahead and say "Sure I love helping your case."

[Menachem]

So yoshiah, anyone, what prophecy are we on now?

[Cherith]

Since I agree with Yoshiah about this not being associated with messianic prophecies I am going to put this Ping Pong Game aside and say we disagree with no way of coming to a solution... It would be a waste of time and of a perfectly good lesson in Hebrew.

Well, it's your position that it's not associated, not mine, but if you're willing to use that last sentence as your excuse, feel free.



Your poor messiah won't even be able to find any legitimate priests to minister in some rebuilt temple.

Eliyosef: Thats what Elijah is for Malachi 3:23[4:5] Behold I send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and awesome day of HaShem.

He will not only do what is said in verse 24[6] but also re-establish the priesthood and declare who is the messiah. Something that has not happened yet.

Oh but, Eli, you said that my comments had nothing to do with messianic prophecies! And now you go and quote another one that supports the Christian claim. (Didn't I tell ya'll that he was working for our side!) Man, those early Christians really had their theological ducks in a row to cover all the bases like they did!

I guess you meant Mal 3:2-3 (because there isn't a verse 23. BTW, don't we owe the parsing of the verses to Christians? ;o).


Mal 3:1-3 "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and The Lord, Whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His Temple, even The Messenger of The Covenant, Whom ye delight in: behold, He Shall Come, saith The LORD of hosts." {2} But who may abide The Day of His Coming? and who shall stand when He Appeareth? for He is like a refiner's Fire, and like fullers' Soap: {3} And He shall sit as a Refiner and Purifier of silver: and He shall Purify the sons of Levi, and Purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto The LORD an Offering in Righteousness."

Great verse, Eli, but you should have included verse 1 which gives the context. Verses 2-3 aren't speaking about "Elijah" but rather the Messiah who is referred to as:

· "Me" - i.e. The Lord (v.1)
· "The Messenger of The Covenant"
· Him "Whom ye delight in"

Notice too the language of "The Day of His Coming" and "when He Appeareth." This is O.C. language for judgment. And who is it that "is like a refiner's Fire" or "like fuller's Soap" except The Lord?

Yes, Eli, not only does this verse lend credence to the Christian claim but it also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Messiah must, of necessity, be Divine.

Of course, we have this prophecy fulfilled to a Jewish family from the tribe of Levi in the first century. In the days of Herod, Zechariah the priest was fulfilling his duties of burning the incense in the temple when an angel of The Lord appeared to him and announced:


Luke 1:5-17 "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. {6} And they were both righteous before God, walking in ALL The Commandments and ordinances of The Lord, blameless. {7} And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. {8} And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, {9} According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of The Lord. {10} And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. {11} And there appeared unto him an angel of The Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. {12} And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. {13} But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. {14} And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. {15} For he shall be great in The Sight of The Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. {16} And MANY of the children of Israel shall he turn to The Lord their God. {17} And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of The Just; to make ready a people prepared for The Lord."

Now, here's your options Eli, and they aren't pretty:

1) you can take the historical narrative at face value and admit that:
a) John the baptizer fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi and that
b) Jesus was The Messiah

2) you can dispute the historical narrative without a shred of contrary historical evidence and assert that:
a) John the baptizer did not fulfill the prophecy of Malachi and that
b) Jesus was not The Messiah and that
c) Zechariah the priest of God was a liar and a fraud!

Now, if you assert the second point then you are left with a dilemma - viz., you are "bearing false witness" not only against your neighbor (Exo 20:16), but against a "fellow Jew" - someone you claim to be kin to! Not only was Zechariah "Jewish" but as I stated above, he was a priest of God Most High. And if you do make this assertion, it will be just that - an assertion - and you will be doing this without "two or three witnesses" - also contrary to the Torah/Law of God (Deut 19:15), thus putting yourself in jeopardy of His Righteous Judgment.

So, think carefully before you answer! (BTW, the above argument also hold true for Jesus' pedigree - whether of God or Joseph/Mary.)


Unfortunately this is not how it works. G-d made a promise to King David this promise was carried on to Solomon and it applies to the descendants of Solomon no matter how unfaithful some of them were there is no bypassing the family line of Solomon, The exception to this Rule is Jeconiah who was cursed to having none of his line ruling on the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30), as these verses say...

RE: 1 Kings 9:1, notice that it was "Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do." This verse is talking about him building the temple, not fulfilling the seed promise to David.

RE: 1Kings 9:5, I noticed that you didn't include the preceding verse where the CONDITIONAL promise MADE TO Solomon is quoted: "IF you will:

· walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to
· do according to ALL that I have commanded you, AND will
· keep My Statutes and
· My Judgments:

THEN I shall uphold the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I spoke to your father David..."

The Scripture bears out that Solomon did not do this and the kingdom was torn from him in the days of his son Rehoboam, the son of Solomon's illegitimate union with an Ammonitess.

Re: 2 Chron 9:1-8, this is a poor verse to use as a prop for your claim as it is a foreigner speaking to and blessing Solomon, not The Lord.

Re: Psa 89:4-5, this IS a good verse to use; however, it fails to support your case too because it simply says "offspring" and not "Solomon" thereby supporting MY case.

The promise to David was conditioned upon his children's obedience. It was David that chose Solomon and that contrary to the birthright/birth order in order to fulfill his (i.e. David's) promise to Bathsheba, his wife. Which is why Solomon can ask his mother about her state of mind when she asks that Abishag the Shunammite be allowed to marry his older brother, Adonijah, who had earlier declared himself king. Solomon responds:


1 Ki 2:19-24 "When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand. {20} "I have one small request to make of you," she said. "Do not refuse me." The king replied, "Make it, my mother; I will not refuse you." {21} So she said, "Let Abishag the Shunammite be given in marriage to your brother Adonijah." {22} King Solomon answered his mother, "Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? You might as well request the kingdom for him--after all, he is my older brother--yes, for him and for Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!" {23} Then King Solomon swore by the LORD: "May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if Adonijah does not pay with his life for this request! {24} And now, as surely as the LORD lives...Adonijah shall be put to death today!""

Solomon, unlike you Eli, knew of his tenuous position as king - that there were 9 other sons ahead of him in the birthorder (minus Absalom who had already tried to take the throne and had been killed) and that for Adonijah to ask for Abishag (the young virgin who had nursed their father during his old age) was akin to strengthening a superior claim to the throne.

Don't make me pull out more verses to contradict your assertion that God's Promise to David specifically meant Solomon!

I won't go into everything you said about Jesus' pedigree right now - because I have to get ready for work - except to say that the same choices are open to you that you have with Zechariah the priest. Either you take the historical narrative as face value or you accuse a fellow Jew of lies without any historical evidence and contrary to the Torah.

It's your call.

Funny, I hear echoes of the Police "caught between the Scylla and Charybdis"...

[Menachem]

Well, it's your position that it's not associated, not mine, but if you're willing to use that last sentence as your excuse, feel free.

fair enough...



Oh but, Eli, you said that my comments had nothing to do with messianic prophecies! And now you go and quote another one that supports the Christian claim. (Didn't I tell ya'll that he was working for our side!) Man, those early Christians really had their theological ducks in a row to cover all the bases like they did!

I guess you meant Mal 3:2-3 (because there isn't a verse 23. BTW, don't we owe the paraphrasing of the verses to Christians? ;o).

I can tell you dont have a Hebrew tanakh becaus ethe Tanakh doesnt have a chapter 4 for Malachi. It goes up to verse 24 in chapter three in accordance with teh Hebrew text. Making a fourth chapter was a christain way of arranging the Text. so no I meant chapter 3 verse 23. In christian biobles it would be Chapter 4:5 That is why I included this in []. It pays if you actually look up what I am citing and understand why I wrote it that way.

Actually the verses you cited support my view because that person is named later in the chapter or in the fourth chapter as Elijah. So yes you are still helping me out


Blue]Mal 3:1-3 "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and The Lord, Whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His Temple, even The Messenger of The Covenant, Whom ye delight in: behold, He Shall Come, saith The LORD of hosts." {2} But who may abide The Day of His Coming? and who shall stand when He Appeareth? for He is like a refiner's Fire, and like fullers' Soap: {3} And He shall sit as a Refiner and Purifier of silver: and He shall Purify the sons of Levi, and Purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto The LORD an Offering in Righteousness."[/COLOR][/INDENT]

Great verse, Eli, but you should have included verse 1 which gives the context. Verses 2-3 aren't speaking about "Elijah" but rather the Messiah who is referred to as:

· "Me" - i.e. The Lord (v.1)
· "The Messenger of The Covenant"
· Him "Whom ye delight in"

actually it is becasue the word for messiah does not appear anywhere in this verse. To apply it to messiah would be incorrect. However Prophets were commonly called messengers Kings were not.

for example:

Haggai 1:13. Then Haggai the Lord’s messenger spoke the Lord’s message to the people, saying, I am with you, says the Lord


language of "The Day of His Coming" and "when He Appeareth." This is O.C. language for judgment. And who is it that "is like a refiner's Fire" or "like fuller's Soap" except The Lord?

Or how about this one which is not about Judgement but of something good.

Jeremiah 31:30. Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah;

to say that when G-d says when "Days are coming" is bad that is a misconception.


Yes, Eli, not only does this verse lend credence to the Christian claim but it also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Messiah must, of necessity, be Divine.

Actually the verse brings it down. By saying it is the messenger(elijah) who will come to the Temple and smelt gold and silver and purify the house of Levi like he would smelt gold and silver.

]Mal 3:1-3 "Behold, I will send my messenger(Elijah with verse 23 or chapter 4:5), and he shall clear a path before Me(G-d): and The Lord Whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His Sanctuary, and the messenger of The covenant whom you yearn for, behold, he comes, saith The LORD of hosts." {2} But who may abide The day of his coming? and who shall stand when he Appears? for he is like a smelter's fire, and like the launderer's soap: {3} And He shall sit smelting and purifying silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver, and they will offer to The LORD offerings in righteousness.

this passage not only discredits what you claim but shows how out of context you took it.


Of course, we have this prophecy fulfilled to a Jewish family from the tribe of Levi in the first century. In the days of Herod, Zechariah the priest was fulfilling his duties of burning the incense in the temple when an angel of The Lord appeared to him and announced:


Luke 1:5-17 "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. {6} And they were both righteous before God, walking in ALL The Commandments and ordinances of The Lord, blameless. {7} And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. {8} And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, {9} According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of The Lord. {10} And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. {11} And there appeared unto him an angel of The Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. {12} And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. {13} But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. {14} And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. {15} For he shall be great in The Sight of The Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. {16} And MANY of the children of Israel shall he turn to The Lord their God. {17} And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of The Just; to make ready a people prepared for The Lord."

How ever irrelivent this passage is and none of it has yet to have been proven true. However the pasage in malachi has not been done yet as elijah has not returned to do so. so your assesment has problems with it.


Now, here's your options Eli, and they aren't pretty:

1) you can take the historical narrative at face value and admit that:
a) John the baptizer fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi and that
b) Jesus was The Messiah

2) you can dispute the historical narrative without a shred of contrary historical evidence and assert that:
a) John the baptizer did not fulfill the prophecy of Malachi and that
b) Jesus was not The Messiah and that
c) Zechariah the priest of God was a liar and a fraud!

How about my third option

3) John the baptist didnt do what was prescribed in malachai:
a) John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

b)Jesus is not the messiah

c)The second point is not accurate as the GNT has not been proven true..



Now, if you assert the second point then you are left with a dilemma - viz., you are "bearing false witness" not only against your neighbor (Exo 20:16), but against a "fellow Jew" - someone you claim to be kin to! Not only was Zechariah "Jewish" but as I stated above, he was a priest of God Most High. And if you do make this assertion, it will be just that - an assertion - and you will be doing this without "two or three witnesses" - also contrary to the Torah/Law of God (Deut 19:15), thus putting yourself in jeopardy of His Righteous Judgment.

This is a nice try to play on "false witness" however it does not to apply to me Knowing something isnt true in the first place. First off you must prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the record in the GNT is true, which you havent. So your false witness claim doesnt work here sorry..but nice try.


So, think carefully before you answer! (BTW, the above argument also hold true for Jesus' pedigree - whether of God or Joseph/Mary.)

I just disproved your assertion above and I will be more than happy to do the same for Jesus' pedigree....




RE: 1 Kings 9:1, notice that it was "Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do." This verse is talking about him building the temple, not fulfilling the seed promise to David.

RE: 1Kings 9:5, I noticed that you didn't include the preceding verse where the CONDITIONAL promise MADE TO Solomon is quoted: "IF you will:

· walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to
· do according to ALL that I have commanded you, AND will
· keep My Statutes and
· My Judgments:

THEN I shall uphold the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I spoke to your father David..."

The Scripture bears out that Solomon did not do this and the kingdom was torn from him in the days of his son Rehoboam, the son of Solomon's illegitimate union with an Ammonitess.

2 kings 11:33. Because they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Kemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in my eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.
34. But I will not take the whole kingdom from his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes

actually scripture says that the whole kingdom was not taken from him. and your Illegitimate son by an ammonites is in question, who ius to say she didnt convert to Judaism which would make her a Jew by choice.


Re: 2 Chron 9:1-8, this is a poor verse to use as a prop for your claim as it is a foreigner speaking to and blessing Solomon, not The Lord.

Re: Psa 89:4-5, this IS a good verse to use; however, it fails to support your case too because it simply says "offspring" and not "Solomon" thereby supporting MY case.

Actually it supports my position more than substantially. It supports it to the point where you have no answer to them and that is reflected in your answers above..



The promise to David was conditioned upon his children's obedience. It was David that chose Solomon and that contrary to the birthright/birth order in order to fulfill his (i.e. David's) promise to Bathsheba, his wife. Which is why Solomon can ask his mother about her state of mind when she asks that Abishag the Shunammite be allowed to marry his older brother, Adonijah, who had earlier declared himself king. Solomon responds:

if that is true then why did G-d only take a portion of the Kingdom away and not all of it here:

2 kings 11:33. Because they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Kemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in my eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.
34. But I will not take the whole kingdom from his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes.

That is a nice try but your reasoning doesn't survive.




1 Ki 2:19-24 "When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand. {20} "I have one small request to make of you," she said. "Do not refuse me." The king replied, "Make it, my mother; I will not refuse you." {21} So she said, "Let Abishag the Shunammite be given in marriage to your brother Adonijah." {22} King Solomon answered his mother, "Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? You might as well request the kingdom for him--after all, he is my older brother--yes, for him and for Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!" {23} Then King Solomon swore by the LORD: "May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if Adonijah does not pay with his life for this request! {24} And now, as surely as the LORD lives...Adonijah shall be put to death today!""

[COLOR=DarkRed]Solomon, unlike you Eli, knew of his tenuous position as king - that there were 9 other sons ahead of him in the birthorder (minus Absalom who had already tried to take the throne and had been killed) and that for Adonijah to ask for Abishag (the young virgin who had nursed their father during his old age) was akin to strengthening a superior claim to the throne.

That is where the Prophet Nathan comes in or did you forget about him in 1 Kings chapter 1 Nathan a prophet of G-d corrected David and made him put Solomon on the Throne. So that was of G-d and not man. Unless you fell like calling G-d A liar then you should take that up with him


Don't make me pull out more verses to contradict your assertion that God's Promise to David specifically meant Solomon!

Go ahead I will disprove your notion over and over again Just as I did to the ones above. So go ahead if you feel frisky


I won't go into everything you said about Jesus' pedigree right now - because I have to get ready for work - except to say that the same choices are open to you that you have with Zechariah the priest. Either you take the historical narrative as face value or you accuse a fellow Jew of lies without any historical evidence and contrary to the Torah.

It's your call.

What historical Narative again? As nothing you have said about the GNT has been proven true. So I ask again "What historical narrative again?"

[Cherith]

Malachi 3:1-3
The Person talking in Malachi 3:1 is The Lord. He says that He will send His "messenger," but then He goes on to say that it is He Himself who this messenger is preparing the way for: "Me, AND The Lord, Whom you seek will suddenly come to HIS Temple." And Who is this Lord Who will come to HIS Temple, why if it isn't "THE Messenger of the covenant, Whom you delight in!" And WHO is coming? The forerunner surely, but then WHO if not the Messiah and God says this Messiah is none other than Himself. The language IS that of Blessing AND Judgment. The text asks the rhetorical questions "and who may abide" and "who shall stand when He Appeareth"? Note also Malachi 4:5:


"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before [b]The Coming of The Great and Dreadful Day of The LORD!"

Mal 4:1 "For, behold, The Day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and The Day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

Now surely even you will not argue that "The Day of The Lord" had mixed connotations in ancient Israel. It meant judgment for the wicked and blessing for the righteous. (Sadly, Israel often fell in the wicked category.) But this "Coming" was the advent of the Sovereign Messiah - The Lord of Glory Himself and those who rejected Him would experience His Wrath. The context is right there in front of you! Only the Sovereign Lord has that Power! Only the Sovereign Lord comes in Judgment!

And let's don't forget the imagery of a Refiner. Of who else but God is this type of language used?


Zec 13:9 "And I Will Bring the third part through the fire, and I Will Refine them as silver is refined, and I Will Try them as gold is tried: they shall call on My Name, and I Will Hear them: I Will Say, It is My people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God."

Isa 1:25 "And I Will turn My Hand upon thee, and purely Refine away thy dross, and Take Away all thy tin:"

Jer 9:7 "Therefore thus saith The LORD of hosts, Behold, I Will Refine them, and try them; for how shall I do for the daughter of My people?"

Need I go on? It is God alone Who is "like a Refiner's Fire." It is God alone Who can wash someone and make them whiter than snow (Psa 51:7), Who "although your sins be as scarlet" He can make them "whiter than snow, though they be red like crimson" He can make them "as wool" (Isa 1:18), so that it is God alone Who is "like a Fuller's Soap"!

So, as I said, The Messiah must, of necessity, be Divine.

Now, on to your other problems.

John the Levitical Purifier
First, let's not forget that John the baptizer was the son of a Levite priest and thus a priest himself. He not only had the power to annoint the Messiah, but to annoint and purify other "sons of Levi." Second, John DID fulfill the role of the forerunner of the Messiah as I pointed out by the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi. It is your slanderous assertion that he did not fulfill this role by 1) bearing false witness against your fellow Jew and 2) without a second or third witness. Both egregious breaches of The Commandments. And this you do without ANY historical evidence to the contrary. Just because YOU don't believe something happened in history past doesn't make it untrue my friend. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a) it did not happen or b) that the historical account is fraudulent.

Regarding John not being Elijah - in case you missed it - the New Covenant verse that I posted had the angel of God saying:


"he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of The Just; to make ready a people prepared for The Lord."

Sure John said that he was not Elijah. Elijah had long been dead and buried and his body had returned to dust. But John was that forerunner that had been promised and he did indeed come "in the spirit and power of Elijah." Would you have ONLY the historical Elijah? If so, then you best be consistent when the Scripture says that the Messiah will be none other than King David himself! If you want ONLY the historical Elijah then be prepared to expect ONLY the historical David as well!

Lies, Slander & Libel
Slander is "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation." Libel is "a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt."

You are slandering historical Jewish figures in ancient, historical documents without a shred of contrary contemporary or modern evidence which would be inadmissible in a court of law. We are to believe you over and above the historical record when you weren't even there nor have any contrary proof?!

Would you like evidence for the veracity of the New Covenant? I tell you what, you tell me what kind of concrete, reliable OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE would suffice and then you prove to me based on that same kind of evidence that you require for the New Covenant that the Old Covenant is an accurate, historical and reliable document. Because, as it stands, you are asking us to reject the New Covenant account based solely on your personal, prejudicial and SUBJECTIVE OPINION without, as I said, a shred of contrary historical evidence. You are bearing false witness against ancient Jews and that without two or three WITNESSES as required by the Torah to corroborate your slander.

Solomon, the Covenant-Breaker and Conversion
Solomon married an Ammonite contrary to the Commandment of God.


Deut 23:3 "An Ammonite or Moabite shall NØT enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation they shall NØT enter into the congregation of the LORD forever:"

So there's no "well, who is to say she didnt convert to Judaism"! The Word of God doesn't share your OPINION of what MAY or COULD HAVE happened!


Neh 13:1, 3 "On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should EVER be admitted into the assembly of God," ...{3} "When the people heard this LAW, they excluded from Israel all who were of foreign DESCENT."

It's really late here, so I'll just post one or two other verses to touch on your misguided notion that ONLY Solomon and his descendants were to reign from David's throne.


2 Sam 7:12 "When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your OFFSPRING to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom."

Notice the Text doesn't specifically say "Solomon" but rather the generic term "offspring." And this promise was made prior to Absalom and Adonijah's grab for the throne... Next notice how David interpreted God's Promise:


1 Ki 2:1-4 "When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son. {2} "I am about to go the way of all the earth," he said. "So be strong, show yourself a man, {3} and observe what The LORD your God requires: walk in His Ways, and keep His Decrees and Commands, His Laws and Requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, {4} SO THAT The Lord MAY keep His Promise to me: 'IF your descendants watch how they live, and IF they walk faithfully before Me with ALL their heart and soul, THEN you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel'."

Notice that not only is God's Promise to David conditional (as evidenced by the CONDITIONAL, SUBJUCTIVE MOOD), but his "descendants" - again not just Solomon specifically - must keep the Law AND love God (a point many of them failed on). David, repeating God's Promise to one of his many sons, has God using the generic "your descendants" and never failing to have "a man" - not "Solomon" - "on the throne of Israel."

Your argument is silly for another reason. It is self evident that Solomon broke the commandments of God nullifying the Promise and this is why the kingdom was torn from his son, Rehoboam. Not only that, but following the Babylonian captivity there were no more reigning sons of David in Israel. There continued to be a Davidic line, but none of the sons reigned as king. In fact, if you discount Jesus' claim to the throne of Israel through Nathan then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face because the line effectively ended shortly thereafter. Not only that, but you are making the requirements for some future king even more restrictive by limiting it strictly to the descendants of Solomon - another fanciful genealogical feat that you people will never be able to prove!

[Menachem]

Malachi 3:1-3
The Person talking in Malachi 3:1 is The Lord. He says that He will send His "messenger," but then He goes on to say that it is He Himself who this messenger is preparing the way for: "Me, AND The Lord, Whom you seek will suddenly come to HIS Temple." And Who is this Lord Who will come to HIS Temple, why if it isn't "THE Messenger of the covenant, Whom you delight in!" And WHO is coming? The forerunner surely, but then WHO if not the Messiah and God says this Messiah is none other than Himself. The language IS that of Blessing AND Judgment. The text asks the rhetorical questions "and who may abide" and "who shall stand when He Appeareth"? Note also Malachi 4:5:


"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before [b]The Coming of The Great and Dreadful Day of The LORD!"

Mal 4:1 "For, behold, The Day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and The Day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

Now surely even you will not argue that "The Day of The Lord" had mixed connotations in ancient Israel. It meant judgment for the wicked and blessing for the righteous. (Sadly, Israel often fell in the wicked category.) But this "Coming" was the advent of the Sovereign Messiah - The Lord of Glory Himself and those who rejected Him would experience His Wrath. The context is right there in front of you! Only the Sovereign Lord has that Power! Only the Sovereign Lord comes in Judgment!

When this part touches on what I posted let me know.

Now as for you "messiah" you still have not shown where it says messiah will be divine. In fact quite the contrary it shows in Malachi as I have posted previously not to be the case.


And let's don't forget the imagery of a Refiner. Of who else but God is this type of language used?

actually that part is irrelivent as the word used and translated for refining is used for blacksmiths Jeremiah 6:29 , Proverbs 25:4



[COLOR=Blue]Zec 13:9 "And I Will Bring the third part through the fire, and I Will Refine them as silver is refined, and I Will Try them as gold is tried: they shall call on My Name, and I Will Hear them: I Will Say, It is My people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God."

Now lets put this in actual context: With verses 5-9:

Zecharia 13:5. But he shall say, I am not a prophet, I am a tiller of the soil; for a man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
6. And one shall say to him, What are these wounds in your hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
7. Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man who is my associate, says the Lord of hosts: strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn my hand against the little ones.
8. And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, says the Lord, two thirds shall be cut off and die; but one third shall be left alive.
9. And I will bring this third through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will test them as gold is tested; they shall call on my name, and I will hear them; I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, The Lord is my God

as we can see once we put inot context what you claim is G-d being divine the notion falls apart as it is the prophet doing the refining..


Isa 1:25 "And I Will turn My Hand upon thee, and purely Refine away thy dross, and Take Away all thy tin:"

Now lets see who is doing the speaking:

Isaiah 1:24. Therefore said the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of my adversaries, and avenge me of my enemies;
25. And I will turn my hand upon you, and smelt away your dross as with lye, and take away all your base alloy;
26. And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counsellors as at the beginning; afterward you shall be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

The prophet is speaking on behalf od G-d just as the others are. and who is going to do what is said the prophet of course.


Jer 9:7 "Therefore thus saith The LORD of hosts, Behold, I Will Refine them, and try them; for how shall I do for the daughter of My people?"

Jeremiah 9:5. Your habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, says the Lord.
6. Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, Behold, I will smelt them, and test them; for how else shall I do for the daughter of my people?
7. (K) Their tongue is a sharpened arrow; it speaks deceit; one speaks peacefully to his neighbor with his mouth, but in his heart he lies in ambush for him.
8. Shall I not punish them for these things? says the Lord; Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?


once again we still have the prophet speaking on behalf of G-d just as it was before In Isiaha after in zechariah and M<alachi. No offense but these dont mount ot any type of convincing argument for G-d becoming a man....


Need I go on? It is God alone Who is "like a Refiner's Fire." It is God alone Who can wash someone and make them whiter than snow (Psa 51:7), Who "although your sins be as scarlet" He can make them "whiter than snow, though they be red like crimson" He can make them "as wool" (Isa 1:18), so that it is God alone Who is "like a Fuller's Soap"!

Now if I actually put these quotes you gave into proper context what will they say:

Psalm 51:3. Be gracious to me, O God, according to your loving kindness; according to the multitude of your mercies blot out my transgressions.
4. (K) Cleanse me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
5. For I acknowledge my transgressions; and my sin is always before me.
6. Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight; so that you are justified in your sentence, and clear in your judgment.

unfortunately the way you apply this verse above would do this an injustice.

the second one has no support for your G-d becoming a man so your SOL here in both instances.



So, as I said, The Messiah must, of necessity, be Divine.

And I as I have disproven... And my point still stands on this one the messiah is not divine. Nor is G-d a Man. Hoshea 11:9 "for I am God, and not man"


Now, on to your other problems.

John the Levitical Purifier
First, let's not forget that John the baptizer was the son of a Levite priest and thus a priest himself. He not only had the power to annoint the Messiah, but to annoint and purify other "sons of Levi." Second, John DID fulfill the role of the forerunner of the Messiah as I pointed out by the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi. It is your slanderous assertion that he did not fulfill this role by 1) bearing false witness against your fellow Jew and 2) without a second or third witness. Both egregious breaches of The Commandments. And this you do without ANY historical evidence to the contrary. Just because YOU don't believe something happened in history past doesn't make it untrue my friend. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a) it did not happen or b) that the historical account is fraudulent.

Actually my bit proved he didn't. As the verse in first John proves:
a) he wasnt elijah
b) He wasnt a Prophet
c) And nothing of any concern

so yeah your just mad because you know he didnt now you are trying to allude to me by insulting me that I am bearing false withness by saying a document is untrue that quite Honestly is untrue until you can prove to me that it was. So no, You little attempt at putting a guilt trip here and falsely accusing me of false witness, which is Laughable, Only shows me that you are frustrated because you can break the point I made and that every point you bring up gets disproven at one point or another.

Face it Nothing shows me that I am winning better than false accusations and personal insults...I am just waiting for that personal insult to be not hidden so everyone can see it..

Actually the burden of Proof is on you since you cant prove it happened the way the GNT puts beyond any shadow of a doubt. Face it Cherith your mad because I disproved the case for John and my point is unshakable.


Regarding John not being Elijah - in case you missed it - the New Covenant verse that I posted had the angel of God saying:


"he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of The Just; to make ready a people prepared for The Lord."

Here is the problem with that. The verse in Malachi says Elijah himself will come back. AS Elijah ascended to heaven 2 kings 2. So you are faced with the problem of that verse not saying "the spirit of elijah will return" But rather " Behold i will send Elijah" effectively applying the verse disproves your assertion.....NEXT!


Sure John said that he was not Elijah. Elijah had long been dead and buried and his body had returned to dust. But John was that forerunner that had been promised and he did indeed come "in the spirit and power of Elijah." Would you have ONLY the historical Elijah? If so, then you best be consistent when the Scripture says that the Messiah will be none other than King David himself! If you want ONLY the historical Elijah then be prepared to expect ONLY the historical David as well!

Actually Elijah did not die he ascended to Heaven 2 Kings chapter 2. The problem with saying "in the spirit of Elijah" is that the verse in Malachi says "Elijah himself will come back"

also not to mention i can see you changed your point of assertion first you were claiming this person inmalachi was the messiah Now you are claiming it is John the baptist....so this begs the question " Which point are you really asserting?"


Lies, Slander & Libel
Slander is "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation." Libel is "a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt."[

You are slandering historical Jewish figures in ancient, historical documents without a shred of contrary contemporary or modern evidence which would be inadmissible in a court of law. We are to believe you over and above the historical record when you weren't even there nor have any contrary proof?!

On the contrary it is your job to prove this stuff in the GNT to me. as I dont hold them as scriptural nor truthful. as for your nonsense and flase accusations about me I can say nothing screams the upper hand in my favor any better than this...


Would you like evidence for the veracity of the New Covenant? I tell you what, you tell me what kind of concrete, reliable OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE would suffice and then you prove to me based on that same kind of evidence that you require for the New Covenant that the Old Covenant is an accurate, historical and reliable document. Because, as it stands, you are asking us to reject the New Covenant account based solely on your personal, prejudicial and SUBJECTIVE OPINION without, as I said, a shred of contrary historical evidence. You are bearing false witness against ancient Jews and that without two or three WITNESSES as required by the Torah to corroborate your slander.

oh now your upgrading to slander. It seems I am really winning this battle.

First off cherith the subject must be true in the first place in order for there to be a false witness charge. Second something that is not scriprutal is not true. Therefore I am in no danger of bearing false witness to anyone. this types of false accusation really shows that you are running out of excuses and are losing your cool. while im over here sitting laughing at the absurd comments and waiting to disprovce another one you throw at me...So face it Cherith your losing and you know it..


Solomon, the Covenant-Breaker and Conversion
Solomon married an Ammonite contrary to the Commandment of God.


Deut 23:3 "An Ammonite or Moabite shall NØT enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation they shall NØT enter into the congregation of the LORD forever:"

Now I almost accept your reasoning here cherith except the language only features Moavi(Moabite) and Ammoni(ammonite) which are Singular and masculine. No where in that verse are the terms Moavit(Moabitess) or Ammonit(Ammonitess) which are the singular Femeinine for Moabitess and Ammonitess. So this verse is a prohibition for men only from entering the congregation of haShem the verse says nothing about Women. So here you are caught....Nice try...



So there's no "well, who is to say she didnt convert to Judaism"! The Word of God doesn't share your OPINION of what MAY or COULD HAVE happened!

actually it does share my opinion see the disproving of your case above....



Neh 13:1, 3 "On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should EVER be admitted into the assembly of God," ...{3} "When the people heard this LAW, they excluded from Israel all who were of foreign DESCENT."

again the words Moavi and Ammoni appear here not the words Ammonit or Moavit which says this is only a prohibition on Men not women...sorry but the text itself disproves your assertion...


It's really late here, so I'll just post one or two other verses to touch on your misguided notion that ONLY Solomon and his descendants were to reign from David's throne.


2 Sam 7:12 "When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your OFFSPRING to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom."

Notice the Text doesn't specifically say "Solomon" but rather the generic term "offspring." And this promise was made prior to Absalom and Adonijah's grab for the throne... Next notice how David interpreted God's Promise:

the only problem with your assertion cherith is that the term for offspring Zarecha ZR(K is in the second person masculine singular. Which puts it to one person after him and when coupled with verse 13 "He shall build a Temple for My sake" this is undoubtedly referring to King Solomon...

And you can couple that with this

1Kings 5:16. And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying,
17. (K) You know how that David my father could not build a house to the name of the Lord his God on account of the wars which were around him on every side, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet.
18. But now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary nor evil hindrance.
19. And, behold, I intend to build a house to the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spoke to David my father, saying, Your son, whom I will set upon your throne in your place, he shall build a house to my name.




1 Ki 2:1-4 "When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son. {2} "I am about to go the way of all the earth," he said. "So be strong, show yourself a man, {3} and observe what The LORD your God requires: walk in His Ways, and keep His Decrees and Commands, His Laws and Requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, {4} SO THAT The Lord MAY keep His Promise to me: 'IF your descendants watch how they live, and IF they walk faithfully before Me with ALL their heart and soul, THEN you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel'."

Notice that not only is God's Promise to David conditional (as evidenced by the CONDITIONAL, SUBJUCTIVE MOOD), but his "descendants" - again not just Solomon specifically - must keep the Law AND love God (a point many of them failed on). David, repeating God's Promise to one of his many sons, has God using the generic "your descendants" and never failing to have "a man" - not "Solomon" - "on the throne of Israel."

Your argument is silly for another reason. It is self evident that Solomon broke the commandments of God nullifying the Promise and this is why the kingdom was torn from his son, Rehoboam. Not only that, but following the Babylonian captivity there were no more reigning sons of David in Israel. There continued to be a Davidic line, but none of the sons reigned as king. In fact, if you discount Jesus' claim to the throne of Israel through Nathan then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face because the line effectively ended shortly thereafter. Not only that, but you are making the requirements for some future king even more restrictive by limiting it strictly to the descendants of Solomon - another fanciful genealogical feat that you people will never be able to prove!

Cherith even with all of your facy explanation of the scenario your didnt even touch the points I made in fact i can tell you ignored them and went on and about mumbling nonsense as usual.

as this not only disproves your notion that Solomon lost it all but it also says the Davidic Messiah must still come through King David and through His son Solomon:

2 kings 11:33. Because they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Kemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in my eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.
34. But I will not take the whole kingdom from his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes


The rest fo your points are irrelivent nonsense based on ranting nonsense.


On the note of Nathan the Book of Numbers places Pedigrees and Lineage to the Fathers' side not the Mothers' side so Mary's line is Highly irrelivent when establishing jesus' geneology. besides Nathan is not the legitimate line anyway Solomon's line issince he was the one who got the kingship and built the Temple for G-d. so you can go on all you want every successive post you post is always disproven by mine.


Now if you dont mind i would actually like to move on to another messianic prophecy: I believe the next one up is Genesis 49:10 if im not mistaken.

[Cherith]

Well, Eli, you're finally right on two points:

One, I did make a mistake with the comment about Elijah being dead and buried. It totally slipped my mind about his ascension into heaven. (That heaven that Raine doesn't believe in.) However, I still stand by my comment that if you would have the historical Elijah return, then you must also be willing to concede that the historical David will be the messiah.

Two, you spoke truth again when you said that you have frustrated me. Your nonsensical interpretations of various verses where the Text clearly says that it is The Lord Who is speaking and yet you would deny this has become totally insufferable. Not only can you not see the forest for the trees, you can't even see one single tree right in front of your face!

As for you "winning" this debate Eli, ask around, you look like a fool.


300


1 Ki 9:1-9 "And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do, {2} That the LORD appeared to Solomon the second time, as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon. {3} And the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. {4} And IF thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to ALL that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: {5} THEN I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel. {6} BUT if ye shall AT ALL turn from following Me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: {7} THEN will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people: {8} And at this house, which is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and to this house? {9} And they shall answer, Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: THEREFORE hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil."

1 Ki 11:1-13 "But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; {2} Of the NATIONS concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. {3} And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. {4} For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. {5} For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. {6} And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father." ...{9} "And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, {10} And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. {11} Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant." ...{13} "Howbeit I will not rend away ALL the kingdom; but will give ONE TRIBE to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen."

Of course the Scripture says "Ammonites" as you yourself have pointed out, "nations" descend from the father not the mother. The Law is clear and Solomon broke the Law by marrying an Ammonitess.

[Menachem]

Well, Eli, you're finally right on two points:

wow an admission to something...


One, I did make a mistake with the comment about Elijah being dead and buried. It totally slipped my mind about his ascension into heaven. (That heaven that Raine doesn't believe in.) However, I still stand by my comment that if you would have the historical Elijah return, then you must also be willing to concede that the historical David will be the messiah.

except the point that David died and Elijah didnt. see since Elijah didnt die he can come back as himself While David who did die cant. So yes Elijah can come back as himself but David cannot it must be a descendant through Solomon.


Two, you spoke truth again when you said that you have frustrated me. Your nonsensical interpretations of various verses where the Text clearly says that it is The Lord Who is speaking and yet you would deny this has become totally insufferable. Not only can you not see the forest for the trees, you can't even see one single tree right in front of your face!

either they are nonsensible, which they are not, or they are devastating to your argument, which is the correct answer.

I dont deny that G-d is speaking and does these things I am simply placing His method of doing so...Assumptions, Assumptions....will they ever end...

Now when you are done rambling let me say that I see very clearly and can read the Hebrew texts really well. Which makes me see better than anything you can imagine....I can see the tree right down to the smallest leaf...


As for you "winning" this debate Eli, ask around, you look like a fool.

Says who again? If you are saying christians say this I fully expect it since christians can barely see past their own hand when it comes to truth.

When a Jew comes on here and says "Eli you are acting like a fool!" Then I might believe you...

now that we can get past our little argument lets all try to calm down and focus on the next one coming up if that is fair enough with everyone....Genesis 49:10...Yosh or anyone would you like to start us off...

[Conductor42]

A new thread for what topic, Yoshi. My response to Eli was born out of the context of the discussion of a "Messianic prophecy." Besides, both sides come at their various view from opposing paradigms, so these same problems (e.g. the nature of Adam's fall, etc.) will come up along the way and need to be addressed. I think Jezz would agree?

Debating over whether modern Jewry are Jews (or not) is not relevant to the issue of whether Jesus fulfilled the Messianic Prophecies.

[Cherith]

It is relevant if modern Jews hold out for someone else to fulfill those prophecies when the Abrahamic line, the priestly Levitical-Aaronic line, and the Davidic line are no more because of faithless intermarriage contrary to the covenant. But perhaps Eli can tell us why David's son Nathan is then mentioned hundreds of years later (if his offspring are irrelevant) in this prophecy:


Zec 12:12 "And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;" Because that verse follows on the heels of another messianic prophecy that speaks of the Messiah being the Lord Himself!

[Menachem]

It is relevant if modern Jews hold out for someone else to fulfill those prophecies when the Abrahamic line, the priestly Levitical-Aaronic line, and the Davidic line are no more because of faithless intermarriage contrary to the covenant. But perhaps Eli can tell us why David's son Nathan is then mentioned hundreds of years later (if his offspring are irrelevant) in this prophecy:


Zec 12:12 "And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;" Because that verse follows on the heels of another messianic prophecy that speaks of the Messiah being the Lord Himself!


The lines of Nathan and that of Shimei are sons of King David whose descendants formed distinct groups within the royal family.(Rashi)

And if your supposed verse referring to G-d as being messiah is in chapter 14 ,save it, I probably know which one it is and will shoot it down just like all the others...

[Cherith]

And if your supposed verse referring to G-d as being messiah is in chapter 14 ,save it, I probably know which one it is and will shoot it down just like all the others...

See Eli, that's your problem - you can't read! I clearly said Zech 12:12 "FOLLOWS on the heels of another messianic prophecy." To "follow" means to come AFTER. Zechariah chapter 12 is BEFORE Zechariah chapter 14.


Unless it's different in the "Hebrew" Bible...


Zec 12:10 "And I Will Pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

Jehovah is the One speaking. It is Jehovah Who is pierced. Oh, but how can that be O wise sage of Judaism? God is not a man! He can't take on human flesh even if He wanted to, because He's so limited in our theology...:pout: :pout:

[Menachem]

See Eli, that's your problem - you can't read! I clearly said Zech 12:12 "FOLLOWS on the heels of another messianic prophecy." To "follow" means to come AFTER. Zechariah chapter 12 is BEFORE Zechariah chapter 14.


Unless it's different in the "Hebrew" Bible...

gee pardon me for thinking that when a person says something "follows on the heels"of something that they are meaning that it is before something and not after. When I say "the person is following on my heels!" they surely arent in front of me but behind me on my heels.

With that being said shouldn't you have said " The prophecy follows on the heels of this verse"

anyhow it doesnt matter it is irrelivent to the topic.



Zec 12:10 "And I Will Pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

Jehovah is the One speaking. It is Jehovah Who is pierced. Oh, but how can that be O wise sage of Judaism? God is not a man! He can't take on human flesh even if He wanted to, because He's so limited in our theology...:pout: :pout:

Well this is a simple mistranslation of the passage itself. First lets look at this verse in the hebrew"

:W$pTY (L BYT DWYD W(L YW$B YRW$LM RWX XN WTXnWnYM WHBY+W )LY )T )$R DQRW WSpD (L HYXYD WHmR (LYW kHmR (L HBkWR

Now a proper english translation and we will build on the Highlighted points.

Zechariah 12:10 "I will pour out upon the House of David and upon the habitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. They will look toward Me because of whom they have stabbed. They will mourn over him as one mourns over an only [child], and be embittered over him like the embitterment over a [deceased] firstborn.

The first part highlighted are the words "because of" in my translation. I am going to explain this as simply as I can The word used in the text is the word )T this word is a sign of a definite accusative in Hebrew. While this is understood in Hebrew I made use of the verb "to be" since the verb itself in Hebrew can be inferred (i.e. not actually in the text). with the verb "to be" being inferred and with out the definite accusative the text would read "Those [who] will look toward me [are] whom they have stabbed." That there isn't enough with the presence of the definite accusative. So I used that along with the inferred "to be" and I get "They will look toward Me [because of those] whom they have stabbed." The rendering you gave was a very rough and a very poor translation of the Hebrew.

Oy! I dont know how they(christians) can stand to read such an crappy translation.

Next, I would like to comment on the word "Dakaru" DQRW that appears in the text. The word "Dakar" DQR has the meaning of pierce or stab, that is why I rendered my passage as "stabbed" because not only does it sound better but it doesnt leave the person begging the question "what are they piercing?" For all we know in this passage it could be talking about people getting their ears pierced. Though it doesn't directly say it, one could assume it does mean that. The rendering of stabbed in stead of pierced not only clears up the passage but doesn't leave one begging the question.

Plus I am going to quote a well known grammarian on this passage(Zechariah 12:10) "The salvation will be so complete that people will be astonished if even one man is killed by the enemy(Radak)."

now that we are done examining the first part and applying a little bit of Hebrew Grammer the "proof text" itself just falls apart. AS we can see the passage is not referring to G-d as a man but to a bunch of people.

Also, nothing limits G-d more than making him a human being. Which screams Idolatry in its strictest form...Peace

Next!

[Conductor42]

[COLOR=DarkRed]It is relevant if modern Jews hold out for someone else to fulfill those prophecies when the Abrahamic line, the priestly Levitical-Aaronic line, and the Davidic line are no more because of faithless intermarriage contrary to the covenant.

Sorry Cherith, but that's not the point of the thread. The thread is to debate whether than man known as Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, not whether or not someone else could.

[Conductor42]

While drinking Mountain Dew - a very kosher drink - Yoshi writes the following....

The next verse in question is Genesis 49:10


The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

The Christian argument, IIRC, is that this verse says that Jewish sovereign authority will end, following the coming of the Messiah. Since the termination of Jewish authority came in 70 a.d., no one else could fulfill this prophecy.

If this verse means that Jewish authority will end when the Messiah comes, I would have trouble believing in the Bible. Why? Because, as Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq069.html) notes, The last king from the tribe of Judah, Zedekiah, was taken captive about 586 B.C.E. Following the return to Zion from the Babylonian exile, the Jews were continually subject to foreign domination--Persian, Greek, Roman--with only a brief interlude of independence during the Maccabean period (165 B.C.E. to 63 B.C.E.), whose rulers were members of the tribe of Levi. Thus, there was a period of some six hundred years, prior to the birth of Jesus, during which the scepter of leadership had departed from the tribe of Judah.

On the side, I ought to mention a few things. The 1985 JPS translation renders the verse as:

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet; So that tribute shall come to him, and the homage of peoples be his.

In the footnotes, it says:



Shiloh, understood as shai loh "tribute to him" following Midrash; cf. Isa. 18.7. Meaning of Heb. uncertain, lit. "Until he comes to Shiloh."

Lastly, I was doing some research via google and came across an article on the samaritans website, which used this verse as proof for their belief that the messiah would be a male descendant of Judah. (in contrast to the Jewish view that it would be from the line of David, and his son Solomon)

[moshepat]

Quite a bit of conversation to communicate the collective singular of the Hebrew language, but nevertheless quite interesting. If you forget how to spell Deutoronomy, why not use the transliteration of the Hebrew, Devarim? As far as the specifics of these two quotes are concerned, they would seem very weak arguments for a messianic role. As these words and concepts are essentially Jewish/Hebrew, it would be of value to define exactly what you mean by Messiah. After all, the word actually means 'anointed one', and all of the kings of Israel and Judah were anointed. It is also used in a figurative sense of someone given a position or task by God, as in Isaiah's association of the term with Cyrus. I would assume that you assume a special and unique messiah -- ha'mashiach? If so, it would probably be more useful to start with those references which are MOST likely to refer to such an individual. It could then be discussed if the literature in itself supports a singular person, or several. For instance, there is an argument advanced that Isaiah 53 describes the messiah ben Joseph and NOT the messiah ben David (see Zechariah). Otherwise, depending on your religious orientation, the verses "yet it pleased the Lord to crush him by disease ... that he might see his seed, prolong his days" need to be explained. Before responding with a figurative use of 'seed', check the real Hebrew; it seems to definitely indicate progeny in the prosaic sense.

[Menachem]

While drinking Mountain Dew - a very kosher drink - Yoshi writes the following....

The next verse in question is Genesis 49:10


The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

The Christian argument, IIRC, is that this verse says that Jewish sovereign authority will end, following the coming of the Messiah. Since the termination of Jewish authority came in 70 a.d., no one else could fulfill this prophecy.

If this verse means that Jewish authority will end when the Messiah comes, I would have trouble believing in the Bible. Why? Because, as Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq069.html) notes, The last king from the tribe of Judah, Zedekiah, was taken captive about 586 B.C.E. Following the return to Zion from the Babylonian exile, the Jews were continually subject to foreign domination--Persian, Greek, Roman--with only a brief interlude of independence during the Maccabean period (165 B.C.E. to 63 B.C.E.), whose rulers were members of the tribe of Levi. Thus, there was a period of some six hundred years, prior to the birth of Jesus, during which the scepter of leadership had departed from the tribe of Judah.

On the side, I ought to mention a few things. The 1985 JPS translation renders the verse as:

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet; So that tribute shall come to him, and the homage of peoples be his.

In the footnotes, it says:



Lastly, I was doing some research via google and came across an article on the samaritans website, which used this verse as proof for their belief that the messiah would be a male descendant of Judah. (in contrast to the Jewish view that it would be from the line of David, and his son Solomon)


I guess no one likes Yoshiah's synopsis(which is excellent) of this "proof text".

Welcome Moshepat to the Tweb. Name, rank, and serial number please.....oh wait we arent supposed to discuss that here....LOL.....Just like to say welcome to the Tweb. Quick question for you. "What movement are you with in Judaism?"

Todah

[Conductor42]

Quite a bit of conversation to communicate the collective singular of the Hebrew language, but nevertheless quite interesting. If you forget how to spell Deutoronomy, why not use the transliteration of the Hebrew, Devarim?

Because not all of the members of this forum would know what "Devarim" is reffering to. I usually just get the first "e" and "u" mixed up.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

[Conductor42]

Welcome Moshepat to the Tweb. Name, rank, and serial number please.....oh wait we arent supposed to discuss that here....LOL.....Just like to say welcome to the Tweb. Quick question for you. "What movement are you with in Judaism?"


You Schmuck! You killed SSV and took over his position as the ancient sith tradition... er, the ancient jewish tradition.... ARG! Nevermind! But be warned, this treachery will not go unpunished! (lol)

[Menachem]

ROFL!!!!!

[Menachem]

I hope someone comments soon on Genesis 49:10 I think I'm going to go deaf with all of the silence attached to this "proof text."

[BurntOffering]

What a coin sin dent :rofl: this verse is underline in my bible, because I am Shilah and Judah. It relates to when those in power sought to kill the jews, and how Ruth had to remain silent, until the King and Her Husband, "pointed the Septure" at her allowing her to speak.

You see between Irael and Judah, Judah is the Sister, the Female Lioness. So when the bible says, He couched AS A Lion and As an Old Lion who rouse him up? The septre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh Come; and unto him shall the gather of the People be. ".....Dan shall judge His people as onoe of the tribeso fIreal. Dan shall be a Serpent bythe way, a dder in the path, that bieth the horse heels, so that his rider sahll fall BACKwards.

The serpent is also a female, or part of Dan who job was that Man fall backwards.

Peace out

[Conductor42]

This topic has been covered before in other threads, but I said I'll hit all of the verses in question, so here we go....

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

18. I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him. 19. And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him.

As we can see, the translations are almost exactly the same here, so there is no issue about it's translation.

The Christian interperetation of these verses is that it is a prophecy of Jesus. The Jewish interperetation says that this is not a prophecy at all, but rather describes any prophet who comes along.

I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you...

God will set up Israelite prophets

I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.

God will instruct the prophets to tell Israel various things.

And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him.

Commands given by God through a prophet must be obeyed.

Further evidence that it is talking about prophets in general are given in the following verses:

20. But the prophet who intentionally speaks a word in My name, which I did not command him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.

The death penalty is to be given to any false prophet

21. Now if you say to yourself, "How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?" 22. If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him.

You'll know if it's a prophet if the things he/she says comes true.

[moshepat]

Muchos gracias por sus bienvenidos! :teeth:

In answer to eliyosef's question, I have been Orthodox in orientation, but am reexamining my position relative to the inerrancy of the rabbis. This comment may seem odd to those outside of Judaism, but for those familiar, a reading of Menachem Elon's "Jewish Law" crystalized this problem for me by firmly enunciating that (on the basis of "it is not in heaven") the rabbis/scholars have the authority to (1) direct that a positive command of the Torah not be carried out (pg 505, Shev ve-Al Ta'aseh), (2) to expropriate property exclusive of laws in the Torah (pg 507, Hefker Bet Din Hefker), (3) may impose punishment not prescribed in the Torah (pg 515), (4) add laws to 'safeguard' Torah law -- make it more strict (pg. 533, Le-Migdar Milta), and (5) Direct performance of an act the Torah proscribes in special circumstances and with good cause (pg. 521, Kum va'Aseh). Arguments are then brought forth that a prophet is not allowed to interpret law (only the 'sages') (pg. 520) based on Elijah's sacrifice outside Jerusalem. I would argue the opposite: ONLY God can authorize (via His mouthpiece, a prophet) an interpretation or the appearance of a change to His Law.http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/icons/icon4.gif

We can discuss, if you wish, the essence of these arguments and the texts, but the abrogation by themselves to themselves, however well-meaning, of the ability to CHANGE the Law and not merely interpret it is in my mind tantamount to blasphemy. The Karaim are the closest to my position now, but I have not formally associated with any group and am still attending my local synagogue. There seems little choice. In the context, however, the position of Jesus against the Pharisees seems quite easy to understand (You teach as the law of God the traditions of men). I should note that all major branches of Judaism are rooted in this tradition -- the Reform have merely taken it to the "next level".

On Beresheit (Genesis) 49:10. I thought you both had already discussed this topic adequately. Traditional interpretation assigns these comments to the Messiah: ad ki y'ba Shi'loh. Shi is 'gift' and lo is 'to him'. Your comments about when the kings ended is pertinent. The true kingship ended in 586BCE, or certainly by the time of the Maccabees, unless the exilarch is considered, in which case it continued well into the twelfth century. In any case, except for the attempt to use this verse to determine a terminus, it provides no real information on which to evaluate a candidate for Ha-Mashiach.

[Conductor42]

:hi: If you decide Karaite is your choice, you should join our discussion group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/karaites/) - but be aware it takes up to 2 months before you are allowed in. Notable members include Hakham Rekhavi and Nehemia Gordon.

There aren't any Synagogues in Texas, but there are 6 or 7 Karaite families around the DFW area. The main contact in that area is Yohanan Jacobson, author of the articles 'Human Life Span' (http://1.ancient-paths.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=3&page=1) and 'What is Death? (http://1.ancient-paths.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=13&page=1)' on my website. (http://www.ancient-paths.net/)

Who knows though, the idea of building a Synagogue in Texas has been discussed, maybe by the end of the decade we'll see it happen

[moshepat]

I have done as you suggested and will await the results. In the meantime, do you think it is possible that HaShem sees the self-assignation by the rabbis of such power a Hillul HaShem? Could this be the origin of our suffering?

[Conductor42]

I created a new thread to deal with that:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=614813#post614813

[Cherith]

Zechariah 12:10 "I will pour out upon the House of David and upon the habitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. They will look toward Me because of whom they have stabbed. They will mourn over him as one mourns over an only [child], and be embittered over him like the embitterment over a [deceased] firstborn.

...For all we know in this passage it could be talking about people getting their ears pierced. Though it doesn't directly say it, one could assume it does mean that. The rendering of stabbed in stead of pierced not only clears up the passage but doesn't leave one begging the question.

Plus I am going to quote a well known grammarian on this passage (Zechariah 12:10) "The salvation will be so complete that people will be astonished if even one man is killed by the enemy (Radak)."

now that we are done examining the first part and applying a little bit of Hebrew Grammer the "proof text" itself just falls apart. AS we can see the passage is not referring to G-d as a man but to a bunch of people.

I really don't know how you live with yourself, Eli! And bringing up Rabbi David Kimchi (aka RaDaK) after my using him in the debate with Yoshi (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21895) (Post#7) to decimate your comments regarding Jer 31:32 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=483712&postcount=12)!

First Bird

First, it is Jehovah that is talking. It is Jehovah that is the "Me" in this passage (as evidenced by the alef and the tav, the Hebrew equivalent of alpha and omega in Greek). Therefore, it is Jehovah that is pierced. How could THE JEWS have pierced Jehovah unless Jehovah had been PHYSICALLY present? The same word is used a little farther down in Zech 13:3:


Zec 13:3 "And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth."

The word daqar means to pierce, strike, thrust through, or wound. So you (or Rabbi David Kimchi) translate it stabbed, so what? How does that change what is being said? It is Jehovah who is pierced, struck, thrust through, wounded or stabbed!

With this being so WHEN was Jehovah ever PHYISCALLY present to have this happen to Him?

Secondly, "asher is a connector and can be translated as who/whom, what or because (as RaDaK suggests) among others. (As an example, the NASB translates it as "because" over 120 times.) I can't say that I have ever seen it as "because OF WHOM." It is translated as who/whom/whoever and similiar words over 1000 times in the Tanakh."

Thus, grammatically, the people look upon:
· "Me WHOM they have pierced" or
· "Me BECAUSE they have pierced" (the implication being He Himself who was pierced, not some "enemy")

but NØT:
· "Me BECAUSE OF WHOM they have pierced"

However, your own ancients have admitted that the verse was referring to the Messiah so even were we to allow your translation you would still have the Jews murdering the messiah. Even your precious Talmud admits this verse is speaking of "Messiah Ben Joseph" (Sukkah52 (http://www.bethelnyc.org/images/Sukkah52aTXT.gif)). And let's not forget that the early Jews, to escape their difficulty that the messiah was a mere man but was indeed Jehovah that had declared "they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced" changed the text and made it read "him" instead of "Me." This was at first only a marginal reading, as appears in some of the MSS., but was afterwards admitted into the text! But many of the most able Jews rejected this gloss, and admitted that "Me" is the true reading. Scarcely any scholar of note admits this interpolation (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=interpolation&x=0&y=0)!

Thirdly, the word daqaru that connects "toward Me" or "upon Me" to asher daqaru is the word et. "They look upon Me because they pierced Me". That is the grammatical purpose of et in this sentence.

It also makes no sense to change the "they" in the first part from the Jews to be referring to an "enemy" with the second "they":

"they [the Jews] shall look upon Me Whom they [the enemies] have pierced."

While it is true that Messiahians (i.e. Christians) hold that it was a Roman soldier who ACTUALLY pierced the side of the Messiah, it is also true that the Romans cared nothing about Jesus' claim to be the Jewish Messiah, but merely carried out the evil plans of the Jewish heirarchy bent on maintaining their own authority.

Either the enemies look "to" or "toward" Jehovah whom THEY have pierced or it is the Jews who look "to" or "toward" Jehovah whom THEY have pierced.

It is NØT that "salvation will be so complete that people will be astonished if even one man is killed by the enemy" but rather that the people will be astonished because One Man - viz., the Messiah (as your own ancients admitted) was killed by the people themselves!

Other tactics taken by the ancients was to say that they "grieved" Jehovah not "pierced" Him. Of course, the Text wouldn't bear that. They then tried to say that it referred to Judas Maccabeus, but the Text wouldn't bear that either. So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would also try to wriggle out of the clear meaning of the Text so as to avoid the obvious!

Second Bird

Now as to Yoshi's assertion that this thread isn't about whether any OTHER Jew could fulfill the "messianic prophecies" only whether Jesus could have, I respectfully submit that this is the entire intent, for ONLY some ANCIENT Jew could have fulfilled these prophecies being limited by the time texts in Daniel 9:25-27 as well as the fact that the line of Judah through David is NO MORE. No Davidic line = no future Davidic Messiah.


Dan 9:25-27 "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto The Messiah The Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. {26} And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not FOR Himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of The [Jewish] War desolations are determined. {27} And He [i.e. the Messiah] shall confirm The [New] Covenant with many [not all] for one week: and in the midst of the week [i.e. after 3½ yrs of ministry to His people] He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease [by the sacrifice of Himself], and for the overspreading of abominations He shall make it desolate [i.e. the Old Covenant system; including the utter destruction of Jerusalem, the city of God], even until The Consummation [i.e. of the Old Covenant system], and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate [i.e. the [i]ruined people who would not submit to the New Covenant Will of God as prophesied in Jeremiah]."

BTW, welcome to Tweb Moshepat. I appreciated your comments on the rabbis and especially that quote by the greatest Rabbi Who has ever lived, as King David and the Talmud says:


“It is well according to him who explains that the cause is Messiah, the son of Joseph, who was slain, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, ‘And they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourns for his only Son' [Zech 12:10]. Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of Me anything, and I will give it to you’ [Psalm 2:8a], as it is said, ‘I will tell of the (Lord’s) decree, “You are My Son: this day have I begotten You, ask of Me and I will give the nations for Your inheritance'." [Psalm 2:8b] But when He will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph who was slain, he will say to him, ‘Lord of the Universe, I ask of You only the gift of life’. ’As to life’, He would answer him, ‘Your father David has already prophesied this concerning you’, as it is said, ‘He asked Life of You, You gave it him’." [Psalm 16].

As someone who holds to Sola Scriptura (i.e. the Bible alone), the only form of Judaism that I could even come close to respecting would be Yoshi's Karaite view because of exactly what you stated. It's odd to me that Eli would laud Yoshi's position, and yet refrain from taking it himself!

See also this image from the Dead Sea Scrolls:

[Conductor42]

Cherith, I'll ask you one more time to stop - the issue is whether your messiah fulfilled the requirements, not whether some else can. When this thread first started months ago, I asked the moderators if they would take action if it was getting off subject and they said they would, please don't have me get them involved.

[Conductor42]

Also... could we stay in order? I'd like for this thread to hit each scripture in question in order. (One of the reasons I'm avoding getting into the Zech. debate). Also, I'm saving all the geneology verses to deal with at the same time, since they are all talking about the same thing.

[Conductor42]

Now we're going to hit Isaiah 7 - perhaps the most hotly debated of them all. The most debated issue is whether or not it predicts a virgin birth - I'll cover it, but would like to make it clear that it is irrelevant to the fulfillment of this prophecy, for reasons I will explain below.

Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of his own accord! Look, העלמה is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

You'll have noticed I bolded a Hebrew phrase in there. That phrase is "Ha'Almah", formed of two parts :

ה = Ha = The

There's no dispute about the meaning of this word.

עלמה = Alma

The word alma is often - but not always - translated in this passage as "Virgin" in Christian Bibles, exceptions to this are the ISR, BBE, NEB, NJB, and RSV. The word עלמה does not mean 'virgin' - it means 'young woman'. The Hebrew word for virgin is בתולה - all Jewish translations render עלמה as 'young woman' or 'maiden'.

Regardless, the pregnacy has already happened at the time of this prophecy, as the scripture states:

Look, the you woman is with child....

So what are the requirements to fulfill this prophecy?

1) When he learns the difference between good and evil....

1a) The people will be eating curds and honey (v.15)
1b) The kings pestering Israel (King Rezin and King Pekah) will no longer be in power (v.16)

2) Days of Glory will come to Israel for a time (v.17)
3) Flies and bees will "alight" in wadis, rock clefts, and watering places. (v.18)
4) When this prophecy is fulfilled, Assyria's king will have his hair shaved (v.20)
5) Everyone will have a cow and 2 aniamls of the flock that will produce that person curds, in order that everyone will be able to eat curds and honey
6) Elegant vines will become thornbushes (23-24)

[Menachem]

I really don't know how you live with yourself, Eli! And bringing up Rabbi David Kimchi (aka RaDaK) after my using him in the debate with Yoshi (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21895) (Post#7) to decimate your comments regarding Jer 31:32 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=483712&postcount=12)!

I saw your post with Radak citing but without text of Radak(yes that means hebrew text) to actually see how and why Radak arrived at his conclusion. If you would put that up for viewing that would be most appreciative. I live with myself very well every day knowing that G-d is not wrong.


First Bird "Batter up"

First, it is Jehovah that is talking. It is Jehovah that is the "Me" in this passage (as evidenced by the alef and the tav, the Hebrew equivalent of alpha and omega in Greek). Therefore, it is Jehovah that is pierced. How could THE JEWS have pierced Jehovah unless Jehovah had been PHYSICALLY present? The same word is used a little farther down in Zech 13:3:


Zec 13:3 "And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth."

This is a prime example of what not to do when you have a lack of Hebrew knowledge. In hebrew the term )T is the sign of a definite accusative, this term assigns meaning to specific things. Sure enough G-d is speaking here but he is not the one being stabbed. examine the language. WHBY+W )LY )T )$R-DQRW according to the Hebrew the way this is going is that what is happening to G-d is that people "will look towards Him( WHBYTW )LY)" now since i couldnt completely put the text in here I did my best and put that line between )$R and DQRW This means that the two words are used in complements with each other. the persence of ET ( )T) assigns these words to a separate thing being a definite accusative. the only thing G-d is doing in this verse is speaking and saying "people will look toward Him." Why??? Because of [those] whom they have stabbed.

Now on to the verse you cited it has to do with false prophets and killing them. beyond that it doesnt help your point at all.


The word daqar means to pierce, strike, thrust through, or wound. So you (or Rabbi David Kimchi) translate it stabbed, so what? How does that change what is being said? It is Jehovah who is pierced, struck, thrust through, wounded or stabbed!

Dont forget that it means stabbed also! How about this lets see if it makes sense if I put others in there... "They will look to Me because of [those]whom they have struck[on the head]."; "They will look to Me because of [those] whom they have wounded." "They will look at me because of [those] whom they have thurst through."

Actually from the get go this part is not about G-d but about other people. The passage is very general in reference but definately not about what you ascribe as G-d being in Human form. Sorry Cherith you case does not hold up!


With this being so WHEN was Jehovah ever PHYISCALLY present to have this happen to Him?

It didnt as I have just shown this to not be about him.


Secondly, "asher is a connector and can be translated as who/whom, what or because (as RaDaK suggests) among others. (As an example, the NASB translates it as "because" over 120 times.) I can't say that I have ever seen it as "because OF WHOM." It is translated as who/whom/whoever and similiar words over 1000 times in the Tanakh."

That is because cherith you lack proper knowledge fo hebrew to apply hebrew words beyond reading them phonetically and looking them up in a dictionary. Plus you ignore the little line after "Asher" connecting it to the word "Daqaru" in which the definite accusative "Et" differentiates this part from the rest of the sentence.


Thus, grammatically, the people look upon:
· "Me WHOM they have pierced" or
· "Me BECAUSE they have pierced" (the implication being He Himself who was pierced, not some "enemy")

but NØT:
· "Me BECAUSE OF WHOM they have pierced"

This poor assesment of the Hebrew is disproven above....LoL(I could have field day with this part but I will be nice enough not to since I disproved it enough above.)


However, your own ancients have admitted that the verse was referring to the Messiah so even were we to allow your translation you would still have the Jews murdering the messiah. Even your precious Talmud admits this verse is speaking of "Messiah Ben Joseph" (Sukkah52 (http://www.bethelnyc.org/images/Sukkah52aTXT.gif)). And let's not forget that the early Jews, to escape their difficulty that the messiah was a mere man but was indeed Jehovah that had declared "they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced" changed the text and made it read "him" instead of "Me." This was at first only a marginal reading, as appears in some of the MSS., but was afterwards admitted into the text! But many of the most able Jews rejected this gloss, and admitted that "Me" is the true reading. Scarcely any scholar of note admits this interpolation (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=interpolation&x=0&y=0)!

here are two problems with your assesment:

One you are not reading the text correctly and two you dont know how to read the text of the Talmud.

The messiah ben Yosef is the son of the Patriarch Yosef, meaning he will be of either the tribe of Ephraim or Mannasseh.

Now as for where the text was changed I would love to see where you are getting this from!!!!

Now to quote the Talmud more specifically(the hebrew will not be posted because it wont copy.):


Talmud - Mas. Sukkah 52a

And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart. Is it not, they said, an a fortiori argument? If in the future when they will be engaged in mourning and the Evil Inclination will have no power over them, the Torah nevertheless says, men separately and women separately, how much more so now when they are engaged in rejoicing and the Evil Inclination has sway over them.

What is the cause of the mourning [mentioned in the last cited verse]? — R. Dosa and the Rabbis differ on the point. One explained, The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, The cause is the slaying of the Evil Inclination.

It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through(stabbed), and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son; but according to him who explains the cause to be the slaying of the Evil Inclination, is this [it may be objected] an occasion for mourning? Is it not rather an occasion for rejoicing? Why then should they weep? — [The explanation is] as R. Judah expounded: In the time to come9 the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the Evil Inclination and slay it in the presence of the righteous and the wicked. To the righteous it will have the appearance of a towering hill, and to the wicked it will have the appearance of a hair thread. Both the former and the latter will weep; the righteous will weep saying, ‘How were we able to overcome such a towering hill!’ The wicked also will weep saying, ‘How is it that we were unable to conquer this hair thread!’ And the Holy One, blessed be He, will also marvel together with them, as it is said, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, it shall also be marvellous in My eyes.

your reading and understanding of the Talmud is misguided and incorrect as they are applying the verse(zechariah 12:10) not to equate the person to G-d but to explain the slaying of Messiah ben Yosef who is to be the percursor of Messiah ben David. So claiming this you must acknowledge one of the following beliefs:

1. That jesus was not the Messiah, son of David, thus you can shelve the thought of jesus being the true herald of the Messianic age and the GNT is not truthful about him being Messiah,the Son of David, thus not being the Jewish messiah who was promised.

or

2. That this tractate has nothing to do with Jesus and you can go about trying to prove him in the Tanakh rather than try to prove him in the Talmud and get everything disproven from the get go..



Thirdly, the word daqaru that connects "toward Me" or "upon Me" to asher daqaru is the word et. "They look upon Me because they pierced Me". That is the grammatical purpose of et in this sentence.

LoL...I can tell you have no Idea what you are talking about. the word "Et()T) is a definite accusative and is not connecting the twop rather it is making the distinction between the two take a look at Genesis 1:1 Bereshit Bar'a Elohim et HaShamayim v'et ha'aretz
the word "Et" is differentiating the words Shamayim, Aretz, and Elohim. so that they are known to be separate things instead of being one garbled up mess.


It also makes no sense to change the "they" in the first part from the Jews to be referring to an "enemy" with the second "they":

excuse me when did "Jews" appear in that sentence. It makes no sense to put "Jews" in there either. For all you know it could be referring to the Chiniese. Talk about your all time christological nonsense being read into a text which doesn't support what they are trying to say it does. LoL anything else you want me to knock down I would be glad to do it.



"they [the Jews] shall look upon Me Whom they [the enemies] have pierced."

While it is true that Messiahians (i.e. Christians) hold that it was a Roman soldier who ACTUALLY pierced the side of the Messiah, it is also true that the Romans cared nothing about Jesus' claim to be the Jewish Messiah, but merely carried out the evil plans of the Jewish heirarchy bent on maintaining their own authority.

I have better rendering since you can no more put the Jews there than you can put the chinese.

"They[the chinese] will look toward Me becasue of [those] whom they[the chinese] have stabbed."

face it cherith your logic doesn't hold up in any case that we have examined....


Either the enemies look "to" or "toward" Jehovah whom THEY have pierced or it is the Jews who look "to" or "toward" Jehovah whom THEY have pierced.

this is false logic and circular reasoning. Plus not very accurate my example of putting the chinese in there leave you with one option that the Chinese will look toward G-d because of thosewhom the chiniese have stabbed.


It is NØT that "salvation will be so complete that people will be astonished if even one man is killed by the enemy" but rather that the people will be astonished because One Man - viz., the Messiah (as your own ancients admitted) was killed by the people themselves!

actually this(RaDaK's interpretation) makes more sense when applied to the context of the verse.

Plus the ancients do not attibute it to jesus. And if you were to use the instance in the Talmud you would have to admit one of the two things mentioned before.

1. That jesus was not the Messiah, son of David, thus you can shelve the thought of jesus being the true herald of the Messianic age and the GNT is not truthful about him being Messiah, the Son of David, thus not being the Jewish messiah who was promised.

or

2. That this tractate has nothing to do with Jesus and you can go about trying to prove him in the Tanakh rather than try to prove him in the Talmud and get everything disproven from the get go.



Other tactics taken by the ancients was to say that they "grieved" Jehovah not "pierced" Him. Of course, the Text wouldn't bear that. They then tried to say that it referred to Judas Maccabeus, but the Text wouldn't bear that either. So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would also try to wriggle out of the clear meaning of the Text so as to avoid the obvious!

actually all of what you are claiming here was refuted above in the post. As for your claim of the reading:

"Other tactics taken by the ancients was to say that they "grieved" Jehovah not "pierced" Him."

I would like to see the evidence divulged so that i may examine it closely.

First Bird has hit a home run! The stone was knocked out of the stadium!


Second Bird

Now as to Yoshi's assertion that this thread isn't about whether any OTHER Jew could fulfill the "messianic prophecies" only whether Jesus could have, I respectfully submit that this is the entire intent, for ONLY some ANCIENT Jew could have fulfilled these prophecies being limited by the time texts in Daniel 9:25-27 as well as the fact that the line of Judah through David is NO MORE. No Davidic line = no future Davidic Messiah.


Dan 9:25-27 "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto The Messiah The Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. {26} And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not FOR Himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of The [Jewish] War desolations are determined. {27} And He shall confirm The [New] Covenant with many [not all] for one week: and in the midst of the week [i.e. after 3½ yrs of ministry to His people] He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease [by the sacrifice of Himself], and for the overspreading of abominations He shall make it desolate [i.e. the Old Covenant system; including the utter destruction of Jerusalem, the city of God], even until The Consummation [i.e. of the Old Covenant system], and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate [i.e. the [i]ruined people who would not submit to the New Covenant Will of God as prophesied in Jeremiah]."

BTW, welcome to Tweb Moshepat. I appreciated your comments on the rabbis and especially that quote by the greatest Rabbi Who has ever lived, as King David and the Talmud says:


“It is well according to him who explains that the cause is Messiah, the son of Joseph, who was slain, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, ‘And they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourns for his only Son' [Zech 12:10]. Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of Me anything, and I will give it to you’ [Psalm 2:8a], as it is said, ‘I will tell of the (Lord’s) decree, “You are My Son: this day have I begotten You, ask of Me and I will give the nations for Your inheritance'." [Psalm 2:8b] But when He will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph who was slain, he will say to him, ‘Lord of the Universe, I ask of You only the gift of life’. ’As to life’, He would answer him, ‘Your father David has already prophesied this concerning you’, as it is said, ‘He asked Life of You, You gave it him’." [Psalm 16].

As someone who holds to [i]Sola Scriptura (i.e. the Bible alone), the only form of Judaism that I could even come close to respecting would be Yoshi's Karaite view because of exactly what you stated. It's odd to me that Eli would laud Yoshi's position, and yet refrain from taking it himself!

See also this image from the Dead Sea Scrolls:

This section is addressed to Yoshiah and Moshepat.

The reason I use the Tanakh alone is becasue the christains do not hold the Talmud as scriptural if you did then I would use it.

As for Yoshiah I respect his usage of the tanakh and I do the same by using solely the Tanakh since you all(christians) do not accept the Talmud or Midrashim as scriptural. As For Yoshiah's position, I laud his position and views on the Tanakh as a Jew.

[Menachem]

If the picture of the DSS were actually clear to read I would take a look at it but the picture is so fuzzy it is impossible to read the actual text instead of the misguided pointings on there.

[Cherith]

Honestly, Eli, you drive me insane with your nonsensical reasoning/talk. All your talk about "showing" this or that or "proving" this or that is a just a figment of your imagination. You have done no such thing in ANY of your posts. You repeatedly show yourself inept at dealing with a single verse or word.

And if you don't trust that what I said regarding RaDaK's interpretation of Jer 31 is true, then it is up to you to look it up. I'll not do your homework for you!

But I will further mention what RaDaK says about Gen 3:15:


"As thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people by the hands of Meshiha, the Son of David, who shall wound satan, who is the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked..."

To this agrees Bereshith Rabba (the Midrash/Commentary on Genesis)


"This is that Seed that is coming from another place, and who is this? This is the King Messiah."


The messiah ben Yosef is the son of the Patriarch Yosef, meaning he will be of either the tribe of Ephraim or Mannasseh.

...the Talmud is ... applying the verse (zechariah 12:10) not to equate the person to G-d but to explain the slaying of Messiah ben Yosef who is to be the percursor of Messiah ben David.

Oh, see I thought we were talking about prophecies regarding one messiah. I didn't realize you held to that old misguided notion of two messiahs! Tell me, Eli, do you believe either one or the other has yet come?

Your "options" that you listed (like all of your other comments) mean absolutely nothing. They are nonsensical and as such will have to be rephrased if I am to deal with them.


excuse me when did "Jews" appear in that sentence. It makes no sense to put "Jews" in there either. For all you know it could be referring to the Chiniese.

It is SO hard to refrain from calling you all kinds of epithets! The Text says "the house of David" AND "the inhabitants of Jerusalem"! Since when are the Chinese descendants of David or inhabitants of Jerusalem!?! Oh, I know, since no Jew can prove their ancestry. Yeah, since then EVERYBODY is a Jew (http://www.moshiach.com/features/tribes/china.php) (except those who accept Jesus as the Messiah), that's why there are tons of ETHNIC Chinese that are admitted into Israel these days - under the "Law of Return" - as if they were ETHNIC Jews whose ancestors were ever there to begin with!

Sid and Al were sitting in a Chinese restaurant. "Sid," asked Al, "are there any Jews in China?"

"I don't know," Sid replied. "Why don't we ask the waiter?"

When the waiter came by, Al asked him, "Are there any Chinese Jews?"

"I don't know sir, let me ask," the waiter replied, and he went into the kitchen. He returned in a few minutes and said, "No, sir. No, Chinese Jews."

"Are you sure?" Al asked.

"I will check again, sir," the waiter replied and went back to the kitchen. While he was still gone, Sid said, "I cannot believe there are no Jews in China. Our people are scattered everywhere."

When the waiter returned he said, "Sir, no Chinese Jews."

"Are you really sure?" Al asked again.

"I cannot believe there are no Chinese Jews."

"Sir, I ask everyone," the waiter replied exasperated. "We have Orange Jews, Prune Jews, Tomato Jews and Grape Jews, but we have no Chinese Jews."



As for Yoshiah I respect his usage of the tanakh and I do the same by using solely the Tanakh since you all (christians) do not accept the Talmud or Midrashim as scriptural. As For Yoshiah's position, I laud his position and views on the Tanakh as a Jew.

What I was referring to was an earlier statement by you lauding the fact that Yoshi CAN rely solely on the Bible for his information, yet you apparently CAN NØT but have to rely on non-authoritative mystical sources.

[Menachem]

Honestly, Eli, you drive me insane with your nonsensical reasoning/talk. All your talk about "showing" this or that or "proving" this or that is a just a figment of your imagination. You have done no such thing in ANY of your posts. You repeatedly show yourself inept at dealing with a single verse or word.

Actually, quite the contrary the only thing you do is rant nonsense. In every one of my post all of my claims remain unanswered and untouched, the fact that you cant touch them or dont understand them is on you not me.


And if you don't trust that what I said regarding RaDaK's interpretation of Jer 31 is true, then it is up to you to look it up. I'll not do your homework for you!

fair enough since christians are notorious for only disclosing half of what is discussed by a specific commentator of Judaism.


But I will further mention what RaDaK says about Gen 3:15:


"As thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people by the hands of Meshiha, the Son of David, who shall wound satan, who is the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked..."

To this agrees Bereshith Rabba (the Midrash/Commentary on Genesis)


"This is that Seed that is coming from another place, and who is this? This is the King Messiah."

The Radak quotation I did look up on this one and plus i looked up a few others. I can see you rely on translations rather than the original language.

Radak here is relying on Symbolization in the form of the evil inclination(which is also symbolized by the serpent in the Midrashim), while the translation of "Satan" is incorrect he is basing this on the Midrash HaNeilam which, From Radak's point of view the evil inclination "Leshon HaRa" is mans adversary(שטן) who is in his opinion is a representation of the Evil inclination of Midrash HaNeilam. Furthermore Midrashim are not serious commentaries.

So if you are going to quote midrashim and commentators then logic dictates you accept them as scriptural and accept what Rashi(the father of commentators) said about Isaiah 53 and 7:14.



Oh, see I thought we were talking about prophecies regarding one messiah. I didn't realize you held to that old misguided notion of two messiahs! Tell me, Eli, do you believe either one or the other has yet come?

Face it your quotation of the Talmud was misguided and wrong since it is clear Messiah ben Yosef and Messian ben David are not the same person and that once you make the claim that jesus is Messiah ben Yosef(which he is certainly not) then you would have to, Based on the Talmud and its separation of the two, exclude the possibility of him being Messiah ben David.


Your "options" that you listed (like all of your other comments) mean absolutely nothing. They are nonsensical and as such will have to be rephrased if I am to deal with them.

My options are quite clear and still stand based on the reading of the Talmud. The fact that you sort of want to disregard them is not a problem. Since:

1. you claimed him to be the Messiah ben Yosef and being that, he was not Messiah ben David. You in effect went against the GNT and said he was Messiah Ben Yosef in the Talmud. The two are clearly not the same person in the Talmud and brings the problem with your reasoning straight to the surface.

or

2. You can say the tractate in the Talmud has nothing to do with jesus and that trying to place Messiah ben Yosef in the Talmud as jesus would contradict the claim of the GNT because the Messiah ben Yosef and Messiah Ben David are not the same person, move on trying to prove jesus in the Tanakh you have better chances of doing that than in the talmud itself.


It is SO hard to refrain from calling you all kinds of epithets! The Text says "the house of David" AND "the inhabitants of Jerusalem"! Since when are the Chinese descendants of David or inhabitants of Jerusalem!?! Oh, I know, since no Jew can prove their ancestry. Yeah, since then EVERYBODY is a Jew (http://www.moshiach.com/features/tribes/china.php) (except those who accept Jesus as the Messiah), that's why there are tons of ETHNIC Chinese that are admitted into Israel these days - under the "Law of Return" - as if they were ETHNIC Jews whose ancestors were ever there to begin with!

This make me wonder if you have ever heard of "applying one logic to another thing to see if it stands" Plus I didnt not say it was meant for the chinese people I simply said "For all we know it could be about the chinese."
If you cant handle me applying you logic then dont make absurd claims.

Plus the Chinese who converted to Judaism long ago are just as Jewish as the Black Jews here in the US. The fact that you dont understadn Judaism and the Jewish people make your view here somewhat not credible.


Sid and Al were sitting in a Chinese restaurant. "Sid," asked Al, "are there any Jews in China?"

"I don't know," Sid replied. "Why don't we ask the waiter?"

When the waiter came by, Al asked him, "Are there any Chinese Jews?"

"I don't know sir, let me ask," the waiter replied, and he went into the kitchen. He returned in a few minutes and said, "No, sir. No, Chinese Jews."

"Are you sure?" Al asked.

"I will check again, sir," the waiter replied and went back to the kitchen. While he was still gone, Sid said, "I cannot believe there are no Jews in China. Our people are scattered everywhere."

When the waiter returned he said, "Sir, no Chinese Jews."

"Are you really sure?" Al asked again.

"I cannot believe there are no Chinese Jews."

"Sir, I ask everyone," the waiter replied exasperated. "We have Orange Jews, Prune Jews, Tomato Jews and Grape Jews, but we have no Chinese Jews."

Ha, Ha irrelivent.. as my application of your logic was not serious. Plus I never equated the chinese as Jews I simply took the verse out of context(which you and other christians do all the time) and applied it to the Chinese people. Here is the end of my sarcasm.



What I was referring to was an earlier statement by you lauding the fact that Yoshi CAN rely solely on the Bible for his information, yet you apparently CAN NØT but have to rely on non-authoritative mystical sources.

Funny every time I try to do that my words seem to sound like a biblical commentator's. since you mention it cherith...."If they are non- authoritative why did you quote them above????" They are authoritative to me in the effect some are to be taken seriously and others are Rabbinical tales of the Bible. The difference betwen you and I is that i can tell the difference between the two...
PLus Yoshiah Is a Karaite and I am not that alone explains certain differences between us...

[moshepat]

This discussion is becoming rapidly unfruitful. I would implore both eliyosef and cherith to refrain from insults and emotional attacks, as these serve in no way to convince, but merely waste time and space. If there is a point that you feel is inadequately understood by the other party, try restating the argument again simply and the reason you believe the counter-argument offered is incorrect. Also, if an assertion is made with reference and another party requests the precise place to verify that reference, the proper thing is to provide same. If you are correct, your interlocutor will be aware, and if you are incorrect, then the counter will be true. In either case, the discussion can continue forward and all may learn something.

It might also be noted that a series of requirements for a given position are just that: a list in which EACH thing is necessary but NOT sufficient. As an example, a definition of "even number" would include a positive, rational, integer divisible evenly by 2. For the purposes of our discussion, a positive number (pi) is not even, though it satisfies the first requirement. 3/2 is not an integer. 3 is positive, rational and an integer, but still not evenly divisble by 2 and therefore not even. The point is that satisfying any number of requirements for the Messiah is insufficient: only he who satisfies ALL can be HaMashiach. The prophecies discussed so far are extremely weak predictors, since many interpretations can be placed on these verses. Perhaps we should examine those verses which Jesus Ha-Notzri does not appear to satisfy and then work back? But I will defer to Yoshi who defined this field originally. I would request of him, however, a numbered comprehensive listing of messianic references. That would identify for the rest of us the basis in toto of our discussion.

[Cherith]

I agree that this discussion is unfruitful, but then again I knew that it would be from the get-go. Nothing a Christian says - even using Jewish sages, Jewish interpretations and Jewish texts - will ever convince someone who willfully refuses to be convinced. As the old adage goes: "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

The problem (though Yoshi would deny it) is this:

1.) A modern Jew CANNØT fulfill the messianic prophecies. ONLY some ancient Jew could have fulfilled them for the reasons that I have stated before - viz., the time texts, the covenant faithlessness of Israel and Judah, the lack of genealogical records, etc.

2.) Jesus did fulfill the messianic prophecies and that within the time frame predicted, while the covenant was still operational, before the dispersion and subsequent intermarriages that made the nation of Judah obsolete, etc.

Eli doesn't want to admit the New Covenant as a historical record, yet it has more historical validity and stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical literature including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus. There are only seven of Plato's manuscripts in existence today and there is a 1,300-year gap separating the earliest copy from the original writing as opposed to more than 5,000 copies of Greek manuscripts for the New Covenant and as many as 20,000 more translations in such languages as Latin, Coptic and Syriac. In fact, the earliest manuscript fragments date all the way back to the second half of the 1st century. That is within 30-50 years of the original writing, well within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teaching about Jesus were going around. But I ask, where are the contradictory historical sources? Eli would have Zechariah the priest, along with his son John the baptizer, Joseph and Mary (descendants of the Royal family) and all the other Jews of the first century to be liars without a shred of contrary historical proof (i.e. witnesses) contrary to the commands of the Torah!

Secular historians - including Josephus (before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus (c. AD 120), the Roman Suetonius (c. AD 110), and the Roman govenor Pliny the Younger (c. AD 110) - confirm many of the events, people, places, and customs chronicled in the New Covenant. The earliest church leaders (many of them Jews) also shed light on the accuracy of the New Covenant. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Covenant is a remarkable historical document.

So, when we start out with Gen 3:15 and ancient Jewish sages say that it is a messianic prophecy and refers to "Messiah the King" then we are to discount them and listen to Yoshi and Eli who say that it is not?

When I quote a portion of Eli's precious Talmud that speaks of the "Messiah, son of Joseph, who WAS slain" (not "WILL BE" but "WAS"), he wants to dismiss even that and make it mean something that it didn't originally! He wants two messiahs - one from the tribe of Ephraim (a tribe that is no longer in existence by ANYONE's account!) and one from the tribe of Judah (also a non-existent, distinguishable tribe!).

I could go on about the other prophecies but needless to say they fall under the same guidelines that I enumerated above - viz., ONLY an ancient Jew can fulfill the messianic prophecies!

--C

P.S. Besides the fact that these guys don't like my posts, apparently I'm the only one here who is even slightly interested in continuing the conversation!

[shunyadragon]

I agree that this discussion is unfruitful, but then again I knew that it would be from the get-go. Nothing a Christian says - even using Jewish sages, Jewish interpretations and Jewish texts - will ever convince someone who willfully refuses to be convinced. As the old adage goes: "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."


P.S. Besides the fact that these guys don't like my posts, apparently I'm the only one here who is even slightly interested in continuing the conversation! Your post is unnecessarilly negative. Why did you say no one else is even slightly interested? I am very much interested in the thread. You presented your case and eliyosef responded well with an excellent demonstration of knowledge of Hebrew. It is your turn to counter. Can you without the negative comments?

Please go on about the other prophecies. I am interested in hearing the point of view of the different prophecies.

[Conductor42]

Agreed. While the theological viewpoints between I & Jeez are almost polar opposites (He's almost Orthodox Christian, I'm a Karaite Jew), our discussions have been much, much more fruitful because neither of us would resort to insulting the other.

[Jezz]

Rashi gives his commentary on verse 15 in Chapter 18 talking about "From your midst, from your bretheren, like me." "Saying Moshe told the nation of Israel that just as he was one of them so G-d would designate future prophets from among the people to bring them the word of G-d."(Rashi)
Ramban further commentates on "from your midst" saying, " From your midst implies that prophecy would be limited to Eretz Y'israel(land of Israel) and even such prophets, such as Ezekiel, who prophecied elsewhere, had begun to prophesy in the land." And he commentates on "from your bretheren" saying " This implies that G-d would let his spirit rest only upon members of Israel(Ramban).
Well, I only have minor disagreements with that which aren't worth pursing at this point, as they're not relevant to your main point. So for the purposes of this thread, I agree with the above statement.


Now in Deuteronomy 34 verse [10] "Never again has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moshe, whom HaShem had known face to face, [11] As evidenced by all the signs and wonders that HaShem sent himto perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharoh and all his courtiers and all his land,[12] and by all the strong hand and awesome power that Moshe performed before the eyes of all Israel. This passage here is saying that there is no one who knows HaSHem face to face or on a very personal level as Moses did. Rashi commentates on face to face (Panim 'al Panim) saying " Moses was familiar with G-d and was able to speak with Him whenever he wished(Rashi).
Yes, I agree with that 100%. That's exactly what I was trying to point out.


The passage is saying that no other Prophet will be able to do that as per verse 12. Ramban said " that this refers not to the familiarity Moshe had with G-d but to the degree of closeness that Moshe was allowed to have with G-d, citing that his prophetic visions were as clear as if two firends were conversing face to face , understanding one another not only through words but through facial expressions."(Ramban) The Sages comments that this says " That no other prophets will come close to the stature of Moshe as they can only be summoned by G-d to speak a certain message while Moshe could speak to G-d anytime about any message at all.
I do not see that in the passage. The passage says "since that time, no prophet has arisen like Moses". It does not say "and there never will be in the future either" - unless there is a subtlety in the Hebrew that I am not aware of which doesn't come through in the English translation.


This passage(Deuteronomy 34) isn't giving the point of view of a scribe that there hasn't been a Prophet like Moshe in the way you are describing "like Moshe." It is saying certain qualities that Moshe had such as speaking directly with G-d on a very personal level has never been seen again.
??? Your last sentence is exactly the point I was trying to make, so I don't know what you were trying to say i the first sentence. :hrm: It seems to me that you were trying to avoid agreeing with me at all costs, so in order to keep up that impression you invented a strawman position to disagree with, and then proceeded to agree with me anyway. :teeth:


Chapter 18 was all about the word fo G-d reaching the people: Deuteronomy 18:18 G-d saying to Moshe That "I will establish a prophet for them from among their bretheren, like you, and I will place my words in his mouth; He shall speak to them everything that I will command him." If you are wanting to establish this link with other prophets look for passages that says " Thus says HaShem your G-d" Or "HaShem has commanded me" they are all over the prophetic writings. Joshua fit this profile perfectly Look at Joshua 3:7-9 and this is just one example of Joshua fitting the profile of Deuteronomy 18:15-18.
Of course, there were lots of prophets after Moses. Some of them were even a little bit like Moses. But none of them were really like Moses. It is the Christian belief that Jesus was the prophet to be, not just really like Moses, but exceed him. Moses was G-d's trusted head servant, which is why he could speak to G-d at any time (at the time, the head servant was second-in-command to the householder as long as the sons were too young to take on that role themselves). On the other hand, Jesus' relationship with G-d was even more intimate, because Jesus was G-d Son.

I know that you don't believe that Jesus was G-d's Son. But, supposing for the minute that this is true - wouldn't you agree that that would make Jesus a superior prophet to Moses? In a sense, He "out-Mosesed" Moses? That is the point I was trying to make.


Will agree that it is poorly translated
:thumb:


From what I could tell jesus didnt preach any new laws. All of the things jesus said are in the Torah and precede him. Jesus taught pretty much nothing new except a deviated form of traditional Judaism of which he threw in his own interpretations of. If there are new things Paul was responible for them.
Just as Moshe instituted new holiness codes and ritual laws to be obeyed, Jesus instituted new holy rituals of Baptism and the Eucharist. True, both were existed in a form prior to Jesus, but He invested them with new meaning - eg, commanding baptism in the name of the Trinity.

Jesus also gave the new commandment "Love one another as I have loved you." - again a modification, invested with new significance.

More generally, when He spoke about the law, He spoke with authority - not as someone offering an opinion on interpretation, but as one who had authority. I wouldn't expect Jesus to have too many new laws to add to the Torah (after all, the Torah of HaShem is perfect, I'm told... :wink:), especially not to the point of instituting an entire new code, but He did issue some and reaffirm others on His own authority - something only a lawgiver could do.


The thing about jesus is that human sacrifices are forbidden by the Torah. If jesus was supposed to intercede for Humanity how did he do so, because if he went against the Torah and christians say he was a sacrifice then he surely was not what he said he was.
Sure, human ritual sacrifices are forbidden by the Torah. But in case you didn't notice, Jesus' sacrifice was not a ritual sacrifice. The Torah does not forbid non-ritual sacrifice, to my knowledge.

I mean, consider the following example: Fred in a trench warfare situation with a bunch of his buddies. A grenade lobs into his trench right next to him. Quickly Fred throws himself on the grenade, covering it just before it explodes. The explosion kills him, but his quick action saves the lives of his comrades. Questions:

1. Did Fred sacrifice his own life to save the lives of his friends?
2. Assume for the moment that Fred is a human being. :teeth: Was Fred's sacrifice a human sacrifice?
3. According to Torah, was Fred's action permissible?


the rest of your points about jesus are very contestable but my time is limited so i can only comment on a few.
Of course, I'm arguing from the Christian POV. Assuming that the NT happened as it did, then I don't think my points are that debatable at all.


I dont recall Moshe ever being High Priest I believe he was told by G-d to make Aharon the High Priest. Moses could have been since he was of the right lineage to be High priest.
Only a High Priest may consecrate a new High Priest, correct? Therefore, since Moshe consecrated Aharon, he must have been High Priest prior to that time.


However jesus being all three I doubt that very much for several reasons:

1. Jesus was not a Levite nor was he a Kohen(son of Aharon) Moses was the brother of Aharon which would make him a Kohen also. and they were both of levitical descent so Moshe could have been but i dont recall if he was called that or not.
On Moshe being High Priest - I dealt with that above.

As for Jesus being ineligible to be High Priest on account of the fact that He was not a Levitical descendent - in response I have another question for you: was Melchizedek, priest of G-d Most High, a Levitical descendent? Because Jesus was said to be a priest of Melchizedek's order - not of Levi's order (see Hebrews, also Psalm 110).


2. none of the activities in the christain bible have been proven true.
I find this to be a somewhat desparate ploy, even bordering on dishonest. The activities in the Christian Bible are more thoroughly verified than are the activities in the Tanakh. If you try to go down this path, you will end up biting the hand that feeds you.


On jesus' name I thought his name was Yeshu'a a dimunitive form of Yehoshu'a.
In all probability, he was called by both names, as the names were interchangable around this time. Much as my name is Jeremy, and yet I am often known as Jezz. And as you are no doubt aware, Yehoshua son of Nun was called Jesus in the LXX (and in the GNT), and was also called Yeshua in other parts of the Hebrew Bible, so whichever way you want to play it you can't get away from the fact that Moshe's successor had the same name as the Christian Messiah. And also, Yehoshua's name was given to him specially by Moshe when he was renamed from Hoshea - remembering that characters in the OT were renamed as a sign of special significance. The significance here was that Moshe's successor was supposed to be called Yehoshua. Coincidence?


does this also apply to "Las manos"
Yes, but "mano" is one of only a few Spanish words that are actually feminine and yet end in "o" instead of "a". Almost every language has its little irregularities like that. :smile:

[Menachem]

So, when we start out with Gen 3:15 and ancient Jewish sages say that it is a messianic prophecy and refers to "Messiah the King" then we are to discount them and listen to Yoshi and Eli who say that it is not?

Some sages on the Darash level of interpretation do want to place this as King Messiah your right. The thing that destroys the notion of jesus being it and the sages were careful to word it this way was that it is King Messiah. When was jesus the king over Israel when he lived? He certainly wasnt the king of Israel at all. So careful wording excludes jesus from the picture.


When I quote a portion of Eli's precious Talmud that speaks of the[/color] "Messiah, son of Joseph, who WAS slain" (not "WILL BE" but "WAS"), he wants to dismiss even that and make it mean something that it didn't originally! He wants two messiahs - one from the tribe of Ephraim (a tribe that is no longer in existence by ANYONE's account!) and one from the tribe of Judah (also a non-existent, distinguishable tribe!).

LoL actually the english even words it(the Talmud passage) differentthan what you gave as "Was Slain." "Was Slain" disagrees with the Aramaic/Hebrew texts and the engish presented below is as close to accurate as money can buy:

Sukkah 52a: It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because of whom they have thrust through(stabbed), and they will mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son; but according to him who explains the cause to be the slaying of the Evil Inclination, is this [it may be objected] an occasion for mourning?

The Talmud doesn't put this in the past it places it at an unknown time in the future but certainly not in the past. The scripture verse cited to help their position even shows it as well.


Ahem! I could sit here for one minute disproving your notion that the Rabbinic Paradigm in the Talmud is presenting one messiah in two forms. Because it isnt. If you try to place jesus as messiah ben Yosef in the Talmud then you must admit he is not Messiah ben David thus contradicting what the GNT says he is. The Paradigm is presenting the reader with two messiah's one who will die in the last battle(Gog and MaGog) the other the King Messiah son of David will fulfill all messianic prophecies associated to the King Messiah. This all came about when a contradiction in the way the messiah comes was shown. The Two messiah theory doesnt hold on very well and is soon dismissed as a rabbinical Haggadah.

Plus I never said I want two messiah's your making the claim I do. False claims dont count for much cherith and here is one of many for you.

lets see if they are two distinct people in the Talmud:

Sukkah 52b: "And the Lord showed me four craftsmen." Who are these ‘four craftsmen’? — R. Hana b. Bizna citing R. Simeon Hasida replied: The Messiah the son of David, the Messiah the son of Joseph, Elijah and the Righteous Priest. R. Shesheth objected, If so, was it correct to write, These37 are the horns which scattered Judah, seeing that they came to turn [them] back? — The other answered him, Go to the end of the verse: These then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horns against the Land of Judah, to scatter it etc. Why, said R. Shesheth to him, should I argue with Hana in Aggada?

The answer is YES!

as for you reference to the Tribe of Judah disappearing that is your Opinion, not mine.


I could go on about the other prophecies but needless to say they fall under the same guidelines that I enumerated above - viz., ONLY an ancient Jew can fulfill the messianic prophecies!

well the next messianic prophecy is I believe Isaiah 9:5[6] since Yoshiah had touched on Isaiah 7:14, and Genesis 49:10 and no one commented on the christian side. so you can either comment on them or wait and comment on Isaiah 9:5[6] or go ahead and post on Isaiah 9:5[6].

as for the second part of this, that is your Opinion of the matter.



P.S. Besides the fact that these guys don't like my posts, apparently I'm the only one here who is even slightly interested in continuing the conversation!

It is not that we dont like your posts, its just when its time to move on to the next one, its time to move on....

[Menachem]

Well, I only have minor disagreements with that which aren't worth pursing at this point, as they're not relevant to your main point. So for the purposes of this thread, I agree with the above statement.

moving on



Yes, I agree with that 100%. That's exactly what I was trying to point out.

since we agree....Next!


I do not see that in the passage. The passage says "since that time, no prophet has arisen like Moses". It does not say "and there never will be in the future either" - unless there is a subtlety in the Hebrew that I am not aware of which doesn't come through in the English translation.

well when it happens let me know. However the words of the commentators were proven the case as none of the post-Moshe prophets communicated to G-d on the same level as Moshe did.



??? Your last sentence is exactly the point I was trying to make, so I don't know what you were trying to say i the first sentence. :hrm: It seems to me that you were trying to avoid agreeing with me at all costs, so in order to keep up that impression you invented a strawman position to disagree with, and then proceeded to agree with me anyway. :teeth:

and still hasnt been seen to this day. no one in biblical history has come close to doing what Moses did even the events surrounding Christianity's central figure jesus doesnt hold a candle to the level at which moses communicated with G-d.



Of course, there were lots of prophets after Moses. Some of them were even a little bit like Moses. But none of them were really like Moses. It is the Christian belief that Jesus was the prophet to be, not just really like Moses, but exceed him. Moses was G-d's trusted head servant, which is why he could speak to G-d at any time (at the time, the head servant was second-in-command to the householder as long as the sons were too young to take on that role themselves). On the other hand, Jesus' relationship with G-d was even more intimate, because Jesus was G-d Son.

They were like Moshe in that they recieved the word of G-d and Gave it to their Bretheren "from amongst your bretheren." but they were not Like moses in teh way of communication as Deuteronomy 34 says "whom HaShem had known face to face(panim al panim)."


I know that you don't believe that Jesus was G-d's Son. But, supposing for the minute that this is true - wouldn't you agree that that would make Jesus a superior prophet to Moses? In a sense, He "out-Mosesed" Moses? That is the point I was trying to make.

While jesus was the son of G-d, Moshe was a god: Exodus 7:1. And the Lord said to Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. :thumb:

That above was a joke and not to be taken seriously.


:thumb:

cool


Just as Moshe instituted new holiness codes and ritual laws to be obeyed, Jesus instituted new holy rituals of Baptism and the Eucharist. True, both were existed in a form prior to Jesus, but He invested them with new meaning - eg, commanding baptism in the name of the Trinity.

Baptism- immersion in water for ritual purposes. Compare to Mikvah-immersion in water for ritual purity.

Eucharist- a possible root to the passover seder a stirred from tradition form of one. Compare to passover seder.



Jesus also gave the new commandment "Love one another as I have loved you." - again a modification, invested with new significance.

Leviticus 19:34. But the stranger who dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 19:18. You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.

Rabbi Hillel (30 B.C.E. - 10 C.E.) "what is hateful to you do not do unto others"

all of these precede jesus.


lMore generally, when He spoke about the law, He spoke with authority - not as someone offering an opinion on interpretation, but as one who had authority. I wouldn't expect Jesus to have too many new laws to add to the Torah (after all, the Torah of HaShem is perfect, I'm told... :wink:), especially not to the point of instituting an entire new code, but He did issue some and reaffirm others on His own authority - something only a lawgiver could do.

actually it was not Moshe's place to interpret the Torah G-d did that in the form of the Oral Torah also given to Moshe and later codified in the Mishnah and Gemara.



Sure, human ritual sacrifices are forbidden by the Torah. But in case you didn't notice, Jesus' sacrifice was not a ritual sacrifice. The Torah does not forbid non-ritual sacrifice, to my knowledge.

so you are claiming jesus was a Martyr. A long and very reaching stretch here. Plus it goes against the notion of jesus being the perfect sacrifice. a Sacrifice is ritual in the Hebrew bible especially when it is directed to atonement of unintentional sins as sacrifices were for.


I mean, consider the following example: Fred in a trench warfare situation with a bunch of his buddies. A grenade lobs into his trench right next to him. Quickly Fred throws himself on the grenade, covering it just before it explodes. The explosion kills him, but his quick action saves the lives of his comrades. Questions:

1. Did Fred sacrifice his own life to save the lives of his friends?
2. Assume for the moment that Fred is a human being. :teeth: Was Fred's sacrifice a human sacrifice?
3. According to Torah, was Fred's action permissible?

nice story but that is not how it is applied int eh GNT to jesus. In the GNT he is a sacrifice to atone(do away with) for the sins of the world.
In your example:

a. Fred is not saving the world from its sin's.

b. he is not claiming to be sent from G-d as his son.

c. the claim above is not a ritual atonement sacrifice as it is put in the GNT for Jesus.



Of course, I'm arguing from the Christian POV. Assuming that the NT happened as it did, then I don't think my points are that debatable at all.

of course they are especially when the contradict Jewish scriptures



Only a High Priest may consecrate a new High Priest, correct? Therefore, since Moshe consecrated Aharon, he must have been High Priest prior to that time.

the only problem with that is Moses could not be the High Priest as he was not a son of Aharon nor was he Aharon. Also G-d told Moses to anoint him as High priest to establish the priest hood(Kohenim).

Exodus 30:6. And you shall put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre.
7. Then shall you take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him.
8. And you shall bring his sons, and put coats upon them.
9. And you shall gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the turbans on them; and the priest’s office shall be theirs for an everlasting statute; and you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons.

Exodus 40:13. And you shall put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister to me in the priest’s office.
14. And you shall bring his sons, and dress them with coats;
15. And you shall anoint them, as you did anoint their father, that they may minister to me in the priest’s office; for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.
16. Thus did Moses; according to all that the Lord commanded him, so did he.



On Moshe being High Priest - I dealt with that above.

so did I


As for Jesus being ineligible to be High Priest on account of the fact that He was not a Levitical descendent - in response I have another question for you: was Melchizedek, priest of G-d Most High, a Levitical descendent? Because Jesus was said to be a priest of Melchizedek's order - not of Levi's order (see Hebrews, also Psalm 110).

if you are going to make the claim that jesus was of the "order of malki-tzadek he must be a Gentile as Malki-Tzadek was a gentile priest. jesus by what the GNT says was a Jew. so that would be hard to do.

Also the translation of Psalms 110:4 is a very poor translation as "after teh order of Malki-Tzadek"

a proper translation from the Hebrew and knowing that Malki-Tzadek in the Psalms is not a name we have the rendering " You are a priest forever,(Atah Koheyn Leolam) by my decree/word(Al Diverati) a rightous king(malki=king; Tzadek=rightous)

the Psalm really isnt saying that at all but rather it is placing king David as a Rightous King by the Decree of G-d.

as for the priest part this is saying the King should be like a Priest, Drawing G-d's people closer to G-d.


I find this to be a somewhat desparate ploy, even bordering on dishonest. The activities in the Christian Bible are more thoroughly verified than are the activities in the Tanakh. If you try to go down this path, you will end up biting the hand that feeds you.

No it isnt dishonest and not a ploy since that is my view of the GNT. Really then tell me why Mary and Joseph later on couldnt remember ever being visited by angels when jesus was born. And dont ever seem to remember ever calling him Immanuel after the supposed fulfillment of the "prophecy"?

I would be curious to know why?


In all probability, he was called by both names, as the names were interchangable around this time. Much as my name is Jeremy, and yet I am often known as Jezz. And as you are no doubt aware, Yehoshua son of Nun was called Jesus in the LXX (and in the GNT), and was also called Yeshua in other parts of the Hebrew Bible, so whichever way you want to play it you can't get away from the fact that Moshe's successor had the same name as the Christian Messiah. And also, Yehoshua's name was given to him specially by Moshe when he was renamed from Hoshea - remembering that characters in the OT were renamed as a sign of special significance. The significance here was that Moshe's successor was supposed to be called Yehoshua. Coincidence?

LoL....So it is claimed to be his hebrew name they arent even sure of that since Moishe(Martin) Rosen coined the name Yeshu'a as a tactic to convert Jews to christianity. it would be mere coincidence that yeshu'a would be his hebrew name especially when trying to place it with the word Yeshuah meaning "salvation." So now whatever happened to being called Immanuel?



Yes, but "mano" is one of only a few Spanish words that are actually feminine and yet end in "o" instead of "a". Almost every language has its little irregularities like that. :smile:

teehee!

[shunyadragon]

I disagree in some ways with both sides in how prophecy and scripture is understood.

(1) I agree with eliyosef that many of the prophesies claimed by Christians do not fit well.

(2) I believe Jesus was a messiah.

(3) I believe Biblically for prophecy that Jesus is a messiah like Moses and not greater or lesser than Moses. I do not believe Moses did anything more extraudinary than Jesus. Both did what were sent to do.

(3) I believe there should not be as many differences between the theology of Christianity and Judaism as there are. I believe Christianity became Romanized and corrupted. I turn Judism has remained insular and self-justified isolated from the rest of the world.

[Menachem]

The next prophecy I would like to move on to will be Isaiah 9:5[6]. I will post my thoughts on this later today.

[theseed]

The application of the term (zar’ah), her seed, in Genesis 3:15 is to denote Eve’s generic descendants, i.e., humanity, since Adam and Eve are considered as the progenitors of all of us according to the account of Creation in Genesis. The belief that this is a messianic prophecy, unambiguosly and distincly, is very far fetched. Once proper examination of the Hebrew occurs the prophecy as it is known simply falls apart
Is "thy head" and "thy heal" plura too?

[BurntOffering]

Is "thy head" and "thy heal" plura too?

Thy head and thy Heal are Plural; because they represent; the Whole Body; as well as why Satan struck Job with Boils from the Crown of His Head to His Toes; It also represent, the curse against the WOMAN that says it shall bruise they Head, and thou shat burise His Heel.

Yes it is Plural; but Again Most of you dont know the meaning of AND! :blush:

Peace out

[theseed]

Zera is often used in the singular as well.

And Adam knew his wife again: and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed (zera) instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." (Genesis 4:25-26)

There is also Jewish traditions that support a messianic interpretion of Gen. 3.15.

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between the offspring of your sons and the offspring of her sons; and it shall be that when the sons of the woman observe the commandments of the Torah, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head, but when they forsake the commandments of the Torah you will direct yourself' to bite them on the heel. However, there is a remedy for them, but no remedy for you. THEY ARE DESTINED TO MAKE PEACE IN THE END, IN THE DAYS OF THE KING MESSIAH." (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; emphasis added) [Webster (4): 156]

"And it shall be that when the sons of the woman study the Torah diligently and obey its injunctions, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head and slay you; but when the sons of the woman forsake the commandments of the Torah and do not obey its injunctions, you will direct yourself to bite them on the heel and afflict them. However, there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. THEY SHALL MAKE PEACE WITH ONE ANOTHER IN THE END, IN THE VERY END OF DAYS, IN THE DAYS OF THE KING MESSIAH." (Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch; emphasis added) [Webster (4): 156]

Bereshith Rabba (the Midrash or Commentary on Genesis ):

"This is That Seed that is coming from another place, and who is this? This is the King Messiah."

--------------------------
There are many more arguments on this website below, it makes a very long and thorough examinaiton of Gen. 3.15 as Messianic.

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#three

[theseed]

Eliyosef, you have made an error in your Hebrew. Zerah is in fact masculine instead of feminine.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1096133979-2808.html

[shunyadragon]

Eliyosef, you have made an error in your Hebrew. Zerah is in fact masculine instead of feminine.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1096133979-2808.html
The truth is that Zera (Zerah) can be feminine, masculine or refer to the plural they. I am neither a Bible scholar nor an expert in Hebrew, but over the years I have checked proper translation of words in important quotes of the Bible, like essential and important prophesies used by Christians. When I have a question on Hebrew I check with people knowledgable in Hebrew, for Greek I check Greek scholars, and usually more than one. Years ago when I wanted to understand this passage better I consulted several Hebrew scholars and got consistent answers as I found now in this reference noted below.

The advantage I have is that I am not biased either way as to whether the passages in Genesis are prophecies for Jesus Christ, but based on my research the passages are general in nature referring to the desendents of Eve and not one man a messiah. This coraborates with other referneces to zera in the OT.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/gen315.html

[Menachem]

Eliyosef, you have made an error in your Hebrew. Zerah is in fact masculine instead of feminine.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1096133979-2808.html


actually I am right in my Hebrew....The hebrew word Zerah זרעה is in the third person and is feminine. This is the word used in Bereshit 3:15. The word you are hoping to identify, but cant, is a conjugated form of this זרע Zer'a which does not appear in this particular portion and is masculine...but again it does not appear in this verse.....Me thinks you need to learn hebrew before you make this claim...

[Menachem]

Zera is often used in the singular as well.

And Adam knew his wife again: and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed (zera) instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." (Genesis 4:25-26)

And there are many more places where the word zer'a and zerah are used as plural....This case in Bereshit 4:25 the word zer'a is assigned by context a singular meaning and applied to Seth...in the instance in Bereshit 3:15 the context does not say it is singluar nor is it applied strictly as in this case...


There is also Jewish traditions that support a messianic interpretion of Gen. 3.15.

all of which rule jesus out of being the messiah


"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between the offspring of your sons and the offspring of her sons; and it shall be that when the sons of the woman observe the commandments of the Torah, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head, but when they forsake the commandments of the Torah you will direct yourself' to bite them on the heel. However, there is a remedy for them, but no remedy for you. THEY ARE DESTINED TO MAKE PEACE IN THE END, IN THE DAYS OF THE KING MESSIAH." (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; emphasis added) [Webster (4): 156]

you really must like helping my interpretation of this out....just to regain focus on "seed/offspring" lets see how this Targum interprets it.... "the offspring of your sons" and "the offspring of her sons" Gee..the Targumist seems to uphold my view and the Jewish view that the seed/offspring in this passage is in fact plural and referring not to a single person but to Humankind....I should employ you to help me at points and if you have any problems with this here is the text of the Targum yonatan:

ודבבו אישוי בינך ובין איתתא בין זרעית בנך ובין זרעית בנהא ויהי כד יהוון בנהא דאיתתא נטרין מצוותא דאורייתא יהוון מכוונין ומחיין יתך על רישך וכד שבקין מצוותא דאורייתא תהוי מתכווין ונכית יתהון בעיקביהון ברם להון יהי אסו ולך לא יהי אסו ועתידין הינון למיעבד שפיותא בעיקבא ביומי מלכא משיחא

thanks for helping my interpretation on this one also the messianic quote....They(the sons of woman)[plural] destined to make amends in the end, in the days of "The King Messiah" also disproves jesus in that Jesus was never King nor was he "the king messiah." And when was the end...again...



"And it shall be that when the sons of the woman study the Torah diligently and obey its injunctions, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head and slay you; but when the sons of the woman forsake the commandments of the Torah and do not obey its injunctions, you will direct yourself to bite them on the heel and afflict them. However, there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. THEY SHALL MAKE PEACE WITH ONE ANOTHER IN THE END, IN THE VERY END OF DAYS, IN THE DAYS OF THE KING MESSIAH." (Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch; emphasis added) [Webster (4): 156]

You must still be workign for me as again this Targum fragment does the same thing as the Targum Yonatan did...saying that the seed/offspring is plural... "the sons of the woman " also this is taking the context to mean "Study of Torah." I sure wish that you knew which targum it was from i would get the Armaic text and we could move more from that..but I guess that is ok you helped my claim right along....as for the messiah reference it is again referring to "The King Messiah" and jesus was never king over anything...so now lets move on...

Good choice on the Targums they help me much :thumb:


Bereshith Rabba (the Midrash or Commentary on Genesis ):

"This is That Seed that is coming from another place, and who is this? This is the King Messiah."

--------------------------
There are many more arguments on this website below, it makes a very long and thorough examinaiton of Gen. 3.15 as Messianic.

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#three

I should have guessed this misinformation would come from J.P. Holding's website...... Now on to bereshit Rabbah

Hmm....Lets quote the Bereshit Rabbah that holds this particular quote...and not quote only part of it and say it is applied to genesis 3:15

"Midrash Rabbah - Genesis XXIII:5"

5. [AND ADAM KNEW HIS WIFE FURTHERMORE.] Desire was added to his desire.7 Formerly he had experienced no desire when he did not see her, but now he desired her whether he saw her or not. R. Abba b. Judan said in R. Aha's name: This is a hint to seafarers toremember their homes [i.e. their wives] and repair thither immediately. AND SHE CALLED HlS NAME SETH: FOR GOD HAS APPOINTED ME ANOTHER SEED, etc. R. Tanhuma said in the name of Samuel Kozith2: [She hinted at] that seed which would arise from another source,3 viz. the king Messiah.] INSTEAD OF ABEL, FOR CAIN SLEW HlM. Through the sin against Abel, Cain was slain.4 It was as if two trees were standing near each other, and a wind uprooted one of them, which fell upon the other and uprooted it too. Similarly, you read, INSTEAD OF ABEL, FOR HE SLEW CAIN.

Gee... this seems to be talking about Genesis 4:25 not 3:15...and they are placing that there is a hint in this passage that "the Messiah" will come from another source...according to the midrash this source is of non-Jewish stock which is "Ruth" the moabitess...Ruth ultimately converts and is a Jew by choice but she was not born Jewish...

A point is not worth 50% of the point nor 25% of the point....once the pattern of disproving a point flows the rest of the point is not worth disproving because it alread has been....1x0=0 :wink:

[theseed]

And there are many more places where the word zer'a and zerah are used as plural....
How does making it plural rule out the verse as Messianic? It can be plural and messianic.


all of which rule jesus out of being the messiah
Who said Yeshua was the Messiah? Your getting ahead. We are just trying to establish that Gen. 3.15 is Messianic.



You must still be workign for me as again this Targum fragment does the same thing as the Targum Yonatan did...saying that the seed/offspring is plural... "the sons of the woman " also this is taking the context to mean "Study of Torah." I sure wish that you knew which targum it was from i would get the Armaic text and we could move more from that..but I guess that is ok you helped my claim right along....as for the messiah reference it is again referring to "The King Messiah" and jesus was never king over anything...so now lets move on...
So now you don't deny that Gen. 3.15 is Messianic?

Hmm....Lets quote the Bereshit Rabbah that holds this particular quote...and not quote only part of it and say it is applied to genesis 3:15
I'm confused because my quote said something about a snake did it not?

[theseed]

This is not a messianic prophecy by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing in this verse refers explicitly to the Messiah other than in the generic sense, that the Messiah will be a human being who descended from Adam and Eve
This is a contradictory statement, nevertheless it supports that Gen. 3.15 has Messianic value.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/gen315.html (http://www.messiahtruth.com/gen315.html)

[Menachem]

How does making it plural rule out the verse as Messianic? It can be plural and messianic.

if it is plural and referring to more than one person then you must admit that if you consider it messianic that there are more than one messiah's running around somewhere...and your hopes of having this point to jesus fail right in front of your eyes....



Who said Yeshua was the Messiah? Your getting ahead. We are just trying to establish that Gen. 3.15 is Messianic.

when reading the hebrew text it is quite clear this verse is not messianic at all...



So now you don't deny that Gen. 3.15 is Messianic?

I'm confused because my quote said something about a snake did it not?

I dont deny that some commentators think that it had a messianic implication(vastly different than the claims of this being about jesus).
However I do deny that this verse is messianic and that it is about jesus or yeshu.

I see that this passage is referring to Humanity as a whole...since we humans are offspring of Adam and Eve...

in the targum Yonatan, the verse before, that mentions the serpent and how there will be no remedy for the serpent and how the serpent will bite them(the sons of the woman) on the heels if they fail in observance of Torah....

the same with the second Targum except it actually mentions "the serpent" in the verse saying "but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy."

I fail to see why your confused....please explain your confusion

[Menachem]

This is a contradictory statement, nevertheless it supports that Gen. 3.15 has Messianic value.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/gen315.html (http://www.messiahtruth.com/gen315.html)

Not a contradiction at all...all they are saying is that the messiah would have to come from Adam and Eve just as every other human being does the logic is not hard at all to comprehend....So you could say the messiah comes from Adam and Eve just as all humans do....

[theseed]

I found three sites that stated it was masculine.

[shunyadragon]

I found three sites that stated it was masculine.Were these Christian sites biased on supporting the view that 3:15 is explicitly prophecy, or sites that document the Hebrew meaning in the context of the whole OT.

There is the incorrect logic that states; Zera may be masculine singular in some cases, therefore the translation is masculine singular because the reference must be a messianic prophecy for Christ.

Please cite the sites.

[learning]

I have a request. I have been reading this line of debate, and would like to have a chart or list of verses that list what is an acceptable Jewish Messiah, and what it is that you consider an acceptable (according to Christian standards) Christian Messiah. I am particulary interested in how one sees the Jewish Messiah coming from the line of David (and Solomon, the verses that support that) and also a chart on what the Messiah is supposed to do, from both view points. It would help to clarify some of the discussion for me. Links for this are acceptable. Thanks.

[learning]

Well, I am waiting for the Jewish Messianic prophesies, I am especially interested in the verses related to two Messiahs, ben-Joseph and ben-David, and what they are supposed to do and so on. I would greatly appreciate this as this is the first time I have heard of this.


I found a chart in one of my study Bibles that have the Christian Messianic prophesies, but they leave out one that I see as essential. It is Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. To me, that is a foreshadowing of what God would do, and how He provides the Ram.
Oh yes, and the Passover lamb, to me that also is a foreshadowing of Christ, but I am a visual person, so perhaps these visual things mean more to me. Anyways, here are the 44 Messianic prophesies I found.

Here's the verses from the Old Testament with the New Testament beside.

1. seed of a woman Gen 3:15, Galatians 4:4
2. descendant of Abraham Gen 12:3, Matthew 1:1
3. descendant of Isaac Gen 17:19, Luke 3:34
4. descendant of Jacob Numbers 24:14, Matthew 1:2
5. descendant of Judah Gen 49:10, Luke 3:33
6. heir to the throne of David Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32,33
7. anointed & eternal Psalm 45:6,7; Hebrews 1:8-12
8. born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4,5,7.
9. time for His birth Daniel 9:25; Luke 2:1,2
10. to be born of a virgin Isaiah 4:7; Luke 1:26,27,30,31.

11. slaughter of children Jer. 31:15; Matt. 2:16-18.
12. flight to Egypt Hosea 11:1; matt. 2:14,15.
13. the way prepared Isaiah 40:3-5; Luke 3:3-6
14. preceded by a forerunner Mal 3:1; Luke 7:24,27.
15. preceded by Elijah Mal. 4:5,6.; Matt. 11:13,14.
16. declared the Son of God Psalm 2:7; Matt. 3:17
17. Galilean ministry Isaiah 9:1,2; Matt. 4:13-16.
18. speaks in parables Psalm 78:2-4; Matt. 13:34,35.
19. a prophet Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:20,22.

20. to bind up the broken hearted Isaiah 61:1,2; Luke 4:18,19.
21. rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3; John 1:11, Luke 23:18
22. priest after order of Melchizedek Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:5
23. triumphal entry Zech 9:9; Mark 11:7, 9,11.
24. adored by infants Psalm 8:2; Matt. 21:15,16.
25. not believed Isaiah 53:1; John 12:37,38.
26. betrayed by a close friend Psalm 41:9, Luke 22:47,48.
27. betrayed for thirty pieces of silver Zech 11:12; Matt. 26:15
28. accused by false witnesses Psalm 35:11; Mark 14:57,58.
29. silent to accusations Isaiah 53:7; Mark 15:4,5.

30. spat on and struck Isaiah 50:6; Matt. 26:67.
31. hated without reason Psalm 35:19; John 15:24,25
32. vicarious sacrifice Isaiah 53:5; Romans 5:6,8
33. crucified with malefactors Isaiah 53:12; Mark 15:27,28
34. pierced through hand and feet Zech 12:10; John 20:27
35. sneered and mocked Psalm 22:7,8; Luke 23:35
36. was reproached Psalm 69:9; Romans 15:3
37. prayer for his enemies Psalm 109.4; Luke 23:34
38. soldiers gambled for His clothing Psalm 22:17,18; Matt. 27:35,36.
39. forsaken by God Psalm 22:1; Matt. 27:46

40. no bones broken Psalm 34:20; John 19:32,33,36.
41. His side pierced Zech 12:10; John 19:34.
42. buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9; Matt. 27:57-60.
43. to be resurrected Psalm 16:10; Psalm 49:15; Mark 16:6,7.
44. His ascension to God's right hand Psalm 68:18; Mark 16:19,
I Corinthians 15:4, Ephesians 4:8

this is from 'The Open Bible', New American Standard by Nelson. and they say that the above prophesies are placed in the order that they happened.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Well, I am waiting for the Jewish Messianic prophesies, I am especially interested in the verses related to two Messiahs, ben-Joseph and ben-David, and what they are supposed to do and so on. I would greatly appreciate this as this is the first time I have heard of this.


I found a chart in one of my study Bibles that have the Christian Messianic prophesies, but they leave out one that I see as essential. It is Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. To me, that is a foreshadowing of what God would do, and how He provides the Ram.
Oh yes, and the Passover lamb, to me that also is a foreshadowing of Christ, but I am a visual person, so perhaps these visual things mean more to me. Anyways, here are the 44 Messianic prophesies I found.

Here's the verses from the Old Testament with the New Testament beside.

1. seed of a woman Gen 3:15, Galatians 4:4
2. descendant of Abraham Gen 12:3, Matthew 1:1
3. descendant of Isaac Gen 17:19, Luke 3:34
4. descendant of Jacob Numbers 24:14, Matthew 1:2
5. descendant of Judah Gen 49:10, Luke 3:33
6. heir to the throne of David Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32,33
7. anointed & eternal Psalm 45:6,7; Hebrews 1:8-12
8. born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4,5,7.
9. time for His birth Daniel 9:25; Luke 2:1,2
10. to be born of a virgin Isaiah 4:7; Luke 1:26,27,30,31.

11. slaughter of children Jer. 31:15; Matt. 2:16-18.
12. flight to Egypt Hosea 11:1; matt. 2:14,15.
13. the way prepared Isaiah 40:3-5; Luke 3:3-6
14. preceded by a forerunner Mal 3:1; Luke 7:24,27.
15. preceded by Elijah Mal. 4:5,6.; Matt. 11:13,14.
16. declared the Son of God Psalm 2:7; Matt. 3:17
17. Galilean ministry Isaiah 9:1,2; Matt. 4:13-16.
18. speaks in parables Psalm 78:2-4; Matt. 13:34,35.
19. a prophet Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:20,22.

20. to bind up the broken hearted Isaiah 61:1,2; Luke 4:18,19.
21. rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3; John 1:11, Luke 23:18
22. priest after order of Melchizedek Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:5
23. triumphal entry Zech 9:9; Mark 11:7, 9,11.
24. adored by infants Psalm 8:2; Matt. 21:15,16.
25. not believed Isaiah 53:1; John 12:37,38.
26. betrayed by a close friend Psalm 41:9, Luke 22:47,48.
27. betrayed for thirty pieces of silver Zech 11:12; Matt. 26:15
28. accused by false witnesses Psalm 35:11; Mark 14:57,58.
29. silent to accusations Isaiah 53:7; Mark 15:4,5.

30. spat on and struck Isaiah 50:6; Matt. 26:67.
31. hated without reason Psalm 35:19; John 15:24,25
32. vicarious sacrifice Isaiah 53:5; Romans 5:6,8
33. crucified with malefactors Isaiah 53:12; Mark 15:27,28
34. pierced through hand and feet Zech 12:10; John 20:27
35. sneered and mocked Psalm 22:7,8; Luke 23:35
36. was reproached Psalm 69:9; Romans 15:3
37. prayer for his enemies Psalm 109.4; Luke 23:34
38. soldiers gambled for His clothing Psalm 22:17,18; Matt. 27:35,36.
39. forsaken by God Psalm 22:1; Matt. 27:46

40. no bones broken Psalm 34:20; John 19:32,33,36.
41. His side pierced Zech 12:10; John 19:34.
42. buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9; Matt. 27:57-60.
43. to be resurrected Psalm 16:10; Psalm 49:15; Mark 16:6,7.
44. His ascension to God's right hand Psalm 68:18; Mark 16:19,
I Corinthians 15:4, Ephesians 4:8

this is from 'The Open Bible', New American Standard by Nelson. and they say that the above prophesies are placed in the order that they happened.
Begging your pardon, but several of those 'prophecies' are based on mistranslations.

For example, isaiah 7:14 is ALMAH, which means young woman, such as it is used in the song of solomon as 'the way with a man with a young woman'.

Isaiah 53 is talking about the Nation of Isreal, which you can see if you read Isaiah 41-48.

Isaiah 9:7 is talking about Hezekiah, King Ahaz's son.

[shunyadragon]

Well, I am waiting for the Jewish Messianic prophesies, I am especially interested in the verses related to two Messiahs, ben-Joseph and ben-David, and what they are supposed to do and so on. I would greatly appreciate this as this is the first time I have heard of this.


I found a chart in one of my study Bibles that have the Christian Messianic prophesies, but they leave out one that I see as essential. It is Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. To me, that is a foreshadowing of what God would do, and how He provides the Ram.
Oh yes, and the Passover lamb, to me that also is a foreshadowing of Christ, but I am a visual person, so perhaps these visual things mean more to me. Anyways, here are the 44 Messianic prophesies I found.

Here's the verses from the Old Testament with the New Testament beside.

1. seed of a woman Gen 3:15, Galatians 4:4
2. descendant of Abraham Gen 12:3, Matthew 1:1
3. descendant of Isaac Gen 17:19, Luke 3:34
4. descendant of Jacob Numbers 24:14, Matthew 1:2
5. descendant of Judah Gen 49:10, Luke 3:33
6. heir to the throne of David Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32,33
7. anointed & eternal Psalm 45:6,7; Hebrews 1:8-12
8. born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4,5,7.
9. time for His birth Daniel 9:25; Luke 2:1,2
10. to be born of a virgin Isaiah 4:7; Luke 1:26,27,30,31.

11. slaughter of children Jer. 31:15; Matt. 2:16-18.
12. flight to Egypt Hosea 11:1; matt. 2:14,15.
13. the way prepared Isaiah 40:3-5; Luke 3:3-6
14. preceded by a forerunner Mal 3:1; Luke 7:24,27.
15. preceded by Elijah Mal. 4:5,6.; Matt. 11:13,14.
16. declared the Son of God Psalm 2:7; Matt. 3:17
17. Galilean ministry Isaiah 9:1,2; Matt. 4:13-16.
18. speaks in parables Psalm 78:2-4; Matt. 13:34,35.
19. a prophet Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:20,22.

20. to bind up the broken hearted Isaiah 61:1,2; Luke 4:18,19.
21. rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3; John 1:11, Luke 23:18
22. priest after order of Melchizedek Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:5
23. triumphal entry Zech 9:9; Mark 11:7, 9,11.
24. adored by infants Psalm 8:2; Matt. 21:15,16.
25. not believed Isaiah 53:1; John 12:37,38.
26. betrayed by a close friend Psalm 41:9, Luke 22:47,48.
27. betrayed for thirty pieces of silver Zech 11:12; Matt. 26:15
28. accused by false witnesses Psalm 35:11; Mark 14:57,58.
29. silent to accusations Isaiah 53:7; Mark 15:4,5.

30. spat on and struck Isaiah 50:6; Matt. 26:67.
31. hated without reason Psalm 35:19; John 15:24,25
32. vicarious sacrifice Isaiah 53:5; Romans 5:6,8
33. crucified with malefactors Isaiah 53:12; Mark 15:27,28
34. pierced through hand and feet Zech 12:10; John 20:27
35. sneered and mocked Psalm 22:7,8; Luke 23:35
36. was reproached Psalm 69:9; Romans 15:3
37. prayer for his enemies Psalm 109.4; Luke 23:34
38. soldiers gambled for His clothing Psalm 22:17,18; Matt. 27:35,36.
39. forsaken by God Psalm 22:1; Matt. 27:46

40. no bones broken Psalm 34:20; John 19:32,33,36.
41. His side pierced Zech 12:10; John 19:34.
42. buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9; Matt. 27:57-60.
43. to be resurrected Psalm 16:10; Psalm 49:15; Mark 16:6,7.
44. His ascension to God's right hand Psalm 68:18; Mark 16:19,
I Corinthians 15:4, Ephesians 4:8

this is from 'The Open Bible', New American Standard by Nelson. and they say that the above prophesies are placed in the order that they happened.
I was going to answer your quest for the prophecies for Jesus, but your patience was not long. Your list will do okay for the general list used by Christians. I consider some of these prophecies to refer to Jesus, others refer to all messiahs including Jesus and some are not prophecies.

Examples.

I believe the timing phrophecies of Dan 9-11 refer to Christ.

Genesis 3:15 refers to the role of all the prophets of the ages of humanity and not just Jesus. I consider zera plural.

I believe #14 and #15 refer to more than one messih where a forerunner foretells of the coming of the messiah.

#21, #25 and #30 may also refers to more than one messiah being abused, not believed, rejected and persecuted.

Some of the others have been debated on this forum and I consider them not to be prophecies, but refer to other things lke the history of the Hebrews and their nation.

[learning]

Begging your pardon, but several of those 'prophecies' are based on mistranslations.

For example, isaiah 7:14 is ALMAH, which means young woman, such as it is used in the song of solomon as 'the way with a man with a young woman'.

Isaiah 53 is talking about the Nation of Isreal, which you can see if you read Isaiah 41-48.

Isaiah 9:7 is talking about Hezekiah, King Ahaz's son.

Hi, I can see the Isaiah 7:14 being a different word, but it also can mean virgin too, couldn't it?

and as for Isaiah 53, I do believe that most of the chapters before and after are indeed about Israel, but I find it hard to see Isaiah 53:9, and 12 being about a nation. I also see that when it describes Israel being punished, it is usually for some sin, and this 'servant' is said to be punished without sin, so I don't see how that fits Israel at this time.

As for Isaiah 9:7, yes, I believe it fits that but also can fit the future, especially Isaiah 9:6
" For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
How can that verse refer to a King who is just a man? (You can give me the Hebrew-English translation if it is different)

[shunyadragon]

Well, I am waiting for the Jewish Messianic prophesies, I am especially interested in the verses related to two Messiahs, ben-Joseph and ben-David, and what they are supposed to do and so on. I would greatly appreciate this as this is the first time I have heard of this.


I found a chart in one of my study Bibles that have the Christian Messianic prophesies, but they leave out one that I see as essential. It is Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. To me, that is a foreshadowing of what God would do, and how He provides the Ram.
Oh yes, and the Passover lamb, to me that also is a foreshadowing of Christ, but I am a visual person, so perhaps these visual things mean more to me. Anyways, here are the 44 Messianic prophesies I found.

Here's the verses from the Old Testament with the New Testament beside.

1. seed of a woman Gen 3:15, Galatians 4:4
2. descendant of Abraham Gen 12:3, Matthew 1:1
3. descendant of Isaac Gen 17:19, Luke 3:34
4. descendant of Jacob Numbers 24:14, Matthew 1:2
5. descendant of Judah Gen 49:10, Luke 3:33
6. heir to the throne of David Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32,33
7. anointed & eternal Psalm 45:6,7; Hebrews 1:8-12
8. born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4,5,7.
9. time for His birth Daniel 9:25; Luke 2:1,2
10. to be born of a virgin Isaiah 4:7; Luke 1:26,27,30,31.

11. slaughter of children Jer. 31:15; Matt. 2:16-18.
12. flight to Egypt Hosea 11:1; matt. 2:14,15.
13. the way prepared Isaiah 40:3-5; Luke 3:3-6
14. preceded by a forerunner Mal 3:1; Luke 7:24,27.
15. preceded by Elijah Mal. 4:5,6.; Matt. 11:13,14.
16. declared the Son of God Psalm 2:7; Matt. 3:17
17. Galilean ministry Isaiah 9:1,2; Matt. 4:13-16.
18. speaks in parables Psalm 78:2-4; Matt. 13:34,35.
19. a prophet Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:20,22.

20. to bind up the broken hearted Isaiah 61:1,2; Luke 4:18,19.
21. rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3; John 1:11, Luke 23:18
22. priest after order of Melchizedek Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:5
23. triumphal entry Zech 9:9; Mark 11:7, 9,11.
24. adored by infants Psalm 8:2; Matt. 21:15,16.
25. not believed Isaiah 53:1; John 12:37,38.
26. betrayed by a close friend Psalm 41:9, Luke 22:47,48.
27. betrayed for thirty pieces of silver Zech 11:12; Matt. 26:15
28. accused by false witnesses Psalm 35:11; Mark 14:57,58.
29. silent to accusations Isaiah 53:7; Mark 15:4,5.

30. spat on and struck Isaiah 50:6; Matt. 26:67.
31. hated without reason Psalm 35:19; John 15:24,25
32. vicarious sacrifice Isaiah 53:5; Romans 5:6,8
33. crucified with malefactors Isaiah 53:12; Mark 15:27,28
34. pierced through hand and feet Zech 12:10; John 20:27
35. sneered and mocked Psalm 22:7,8; Luke 23:35
36. was reproached Psalm 69:9; Romans 15:3
37. prayer for his enemies Psalm 109.4; Luke 23:34
38. soldiers gambled for His clothing Psalm 22:17,18; Matt. 27:35,36.
39. forsaken by God Psalm 22:1; Matt. 27:46

40. no bones broken Psalm 34:20; John 19:32,33,36.
41. His side pierced Zech 12:10; John 19:34.
42. buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9; Matt. 27:57-60.
43. to be resurrected Psalm 16:10; Psalm 49:15; Mark 16:6,7.
44. His ascension to God's right hand Psalm 68:18; Mark 16:19,
I Corinthians 15:4, Ephesians 4:8

this is from 'The Open Bible', New American Standard by Nelson. and they say that the above prophesies are placed in the order that they happened.I was going to respond, but your list is an interesting beginning for the traditional and NT Biblical Christian prophecies. I place these prophecies and others in three categories.

(1) Those that refer to the messiah Jesus Christ. For example Daniel 9-11.

(2) Prophecies that refer to more than one messiah and the lineage of messiahs. Examples from your list -#1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30, 31 & 35.

(3) Prophecies that refer to other things like the history of the Hebrew people, or they are vague and possibly not prophecies. Some of these may or may not be prophecies, but I think their meaningis often over stated.

Some of these have been debated on this forum and I will not deal specifically with them unless there are further questions. I lean toward the traditional Hebrew interpretation of the vague quotes often referred to as prophecies.

(4) Prophecies that refer to the other messiahs than Christ.

This is an interesting list in OT often used to refer to the return of Christ, but I view as referring to others in the lineage of messiahs referred to in Genesis 3:15. I may address these later.

[theseed]

Here is the site that explains 300 prophecies about the Messiah.

http://www.messiahrevealed.org/

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi, I can see the Isaiah 7:14 being a different word, but it also can mean virgin too, couldn't it?

and as for Isaiah 53, I do believe that most of the chapters before and after are indeed about Israel, but I find it hard to see Isaiah 53:9, and 12 being about a nation. I also see that when it describes Israel being punished, it is usually for some sin, and this 'servant' is said to be punished without sin, so I don't see how that fits Israel at this time.

As for Isaiah 9:7, yes, I believe it fits that but also can fit the future, especially Isaiah 9:6
" For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
How can that verse refer to a King who is just a man? (You can give me the Hebrew-English translation if it is different)
Well, it doesn't rule OUT virgin, since young maidens can be virgins, however, there is a specific word for virgin 'Bethulla', that Isaiah uses.

In addition, if you read Isaiah 8.4, you can see where Isaiah tells how the
young woman conceived (he went to the prophetess (i.e.) his wife).


As for Isaiah 9:6, he is talking about Hezekiah, since Heizkekel is caleld
Wonderful Councilor because of God's design upon him

Hezekiah is called "the mighty God" because this name is a sign that foretells God's defense of Jerusalem through the miraculous sudden mass death of Sennacherib's army.

Hezekiah is called "the everlasting Father" because this name is a sign, which foretells that God will add years to his life. "Go, and say to Hezekiah: Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add to your days fifteen years" (Isaiah 38:5).

Isaiah is writing for the present. He is not above doing a bit of flattery to the powers that be either, apparently.

[theseed]

According to Strongs Condcordance, #2233, zera is the word used in Genesis. In fact it is the only word used for seed beteen Gen. 1.1 and Daniel 1.3. Of course, the KJV may have translated other "seed" words in other ways. Why does every source I've read on the internet say the Hebrew is masculine here, but you, Eliyosef, say it is feminine? Something is not right.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/h040.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1096386357-100.html#15

[theseed]

According to messiahtruth.com, femine form of Zera is not pertinant. It actually makes since that it would be feminine since it is her seed (Eve), but I am no student of Hebrew. The site argues that seed is probably plural. However, that is irrelevant. JP Holding's arguemnt is not based on that.

Also, antimissionaries are missing the bigger picture. Gen. 3.15 claims that Satan will be defeated. If one is to claim that this is not a messianic passaged, then one must prove that the Messiah has no part in the defeat of Satan. So, now I have turned the burden of proof over to the new claimants--the antimissionaries.

Somebody please show me where in The Bible it says that HaMoshiak has no part in defeating Satan?

So what may I conclude from this? If Yeshua is the true Messiah, and he defeats Satan, then Yeshua fulfills the prophecie made by the LORD in Genesis 3:15

[Menachem]

Here is the site that explains 300 prophecies about the Messiah.

http://www.messiahrevealed.org/

And all 300 are easily disproven with Hebrew Knowledge and the Tanakh....

[Menachem]

According to Strongs Condcordance, #2233, zera is the word used in Genesis. In fact it is the only word used for seed beteen Gen. 1.1 and Daniel 1.3. Of course, the KJV may have translated other "seed" words in other ways. Why does every source I've read on the internet say the Hebrew is masculine here, but you, Eliyosef, say it is feminine? Something is not right.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/h040.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1096386357-100.html#15


Strongs concordinence is no substitute for Hebrew knowledge. while strongs trieds to be correct he just cant seem to get it right....

AS for Zerah. The Word used in Genesis 3:15 is the word Zerah (zayin, Resh. Ayin, Heh זרעה ) Which makes it feminine form of the this word. The masculine form of this word zer'a is spelled (zayin, resh, ayin [size=14] זרע [/size and is the masculine form..

I am quite correct in my Hebrew...

Your internet sources only search for the masculine form, In Hebrew you have more than one gender and more than one person when it comes to Hebrew words.....Any good Hebrew dictionary would uphold my position....

Remember thats (Zayin, Resh, Ayin, Heh) not (Zayin, Resh, Ayin)

[Menachem]

According to messiahtruth.com, femine form of Zera is not pertinant. It actually makes since that it would be feminine since it is her seed (Eve), but I am no student of Hebrew. The site argues that seed is probably plural. However, that is irrelevant. JP Holding's arguemnt is not based on that.

Actually it makes more sense to use the feminine form of that word as the person being addressed is not a male but a female and in the case of Genesis 3:15 it is Eve. The site definately argues as I do that this particular verse is in the plural and is upheld by many places in the tanakh as the verses cited show... JP Holding's article is irrelivent and easily brushed aside by anyone who knows the Hebrew and knows what crap he does cite as a source...His Bereshit Rabbah quote was false G-d only knows what other things are false quoteations as well..


Also, antimissionaries are missing the bigger picture. Gen. 3.15 claims that Satan will be defeated. If one is to claim that this is not a messianic passaged, then one must prove that the Messiah has no part in the defeat of Satan. So, now I have turned the burden of proof over to the new claimants--the antimissionaries.

News Flash....There is no satan in this verse.. The satan bit was invented by the christians. The Jews dont believe in a Satan...so this verse was never about a "Satan"...actually The burden to prove that the messiah is to "defeat Satan" as you put it...And do please show me where in the Tanakh(Old Testament)


Somebody please show me where in The Bible it says that HaMoshiak has no part in defeating Satan?

Actually why dont you show me where in the Tanakh it says what you are claiming...Let me actually give you a hint...There isnt one...

(Genesis 3:15 doesnt do you any justice as you haven't substantiated your claim beyond me knocking it down)


So what may I conclude from this? If Yeshua is the true Messiah, and he defeats Satan, then Yeshua fulfills the prophecie made by the LORD in Genesis 3:15

Conclude what you like...The facts are against your POV...If you can find one statement in the tanakh that says "The Messiah defeats Satan" let us all know.....Also this verse(genesis 3:15) doesnt do, as your point is not supported by anything other than your hopes and dreams it is about what you are talking about..


P.S. People go around saying it is about the "woman's seed." Ask yourself this question " What Human is not born of a Woman?" If you find one let us all know.....

[shunyadragon]

According to messiahtruth.com, femine form of Zera is not pertinant. It actually makes since that it would be feminine since it is her seed (Eve), but I am no student of Hebrew. The site argues that seed is probably plural. However, that is irrelevant. JP Holding's arguemnt is not based on that.

Also, antimissionaries are missing the bigger picture. Gen. 3.15 claims that Satan will be defeated. If one is to claim that this is not a messianic passaged, then one must prove that the Messiah has no part in the defeat of Satan. So, now I have turned the burden of proof over to the new claimants--the antimissionaries.

Somebody please show me where in The Bible it says that HaMoshiak has no part in defeating Satan?

So what may I conclude from this? If Yeshua is the true Messiah, and he defeats Satan, then Yeshua fulfills the prophecie made by the LORD in Genesis 3:15
I agree with eliyosef Holding. and other Christian sources reflect a poor understanding of Hebrew which is selective and biased.

3:15 does nor refer to defeating Satan, this is Christian stretch of meaning that does not fit the Hebrew meaning.

[shunyadragon]

Here is the site that explains 300 prophecies about the Messiah.

http://www.messiahrevealed.org/
Most are not valid, some fit and some may refer to messiahs.

[theseed]

Perhaps, If they back it up with the New Testament, then they are considered valid. If they are prophecies that Christ fulfills in the NT, then they are valid.

[theseed]

JP Holding's article is irrelivent and easily brushed aside by anyone who knows the Hebrew and knows what crap he does cite as a source...His Bereshit Rabbah quote was false G-d only knows what other things are false quoteations as well..
Even the quote mentioning the snake, heal, and head? All those words connect it directly to Gen. 3.15, which connected the King-Messiah to Gen. 3.15.


News Flash....There is no satan in this verse.. The satan bit was invented by the christians. The Jews dont believe in a Satan...so this verse was never about a "Satan"...actually The burden to prove that the messiah is to "defeat Satan" as you put it...And do please show me where in the Tanakh(Old Testament)
Actually, Gen. 3.15. The word "satan" comes from the Greek for adversary. So, since enmity is placed between the snake and the woman's seed the snake by definition is satan. Also do you reject the book of Job? It would not surprise me. Judaism today is not the what Moses and the Prophets believed. Judaism has evolved into a religion of refuting Christianity.

Actually why dont you show me where in the Tanakh it says what you are
claiming...Let me actually give you a hint...There isnt one...

(Genesis 3:15 doesnt do you any justice as you haven't substantiated your claim beyond me knocking it down)

God only has to say something once for it to be true.


Conclude what you like...The facts are against your POV...If you can find one statement in the tanakh that says "The Messiah defeats Satan" let us all know.....Also this verse(genesis 3:15) doesnt do, as your point is not supported by anything other than your hopes and dreams it is about what you are talking about..

Hopes and dreams? Now you are attacking my charactor, which is the position of a desperate man. And you should be desparate, because there is nothing you can do to alleviate God's wrath with Jesus Christ.

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps, If they back it up with the New Testament, then they are considered valid. If they are prophecies that Christ fulfills in the NT, then they are valid.This is circular reasoning. This only satisfies those that believe the NT is literal and innerent.

Some of the OT prophecies claimed to be fulfilled in the NT are questionable in the sense that the understanding of Hebrew and Jewish tradition is either wrong or terribly weak.

This and other problems with the NT make me question some the authors background knowledge of Hebrew and Judaism.

[Menachem]

Even the quote mentioning the snake, heal, and head? All those words connect it directly to Gen. 3.15, which connected the King-Messiah to Gen. 3.15.

Show me where in Genesis 3:15 it says anything about the King-Messiah. then next you must prove that Jesus was the king over anything....



Actually, Gen. 3.15. The word "satan" comes from the Greek for adversary. So, since enmity is placed between the snake and the woman's seed the snake by definition is satan. Also do you reject the book of Job? It would not surprise me. Judaism today is not the what Moses and the Prophets believed. Judaism has evolved into a religion of refuting Christianity.

lol....lets have another roll at false logic...you are arguing based on assumption..The assumption that I accept the doctrine of a "Satan Character" which has no basis in the Hebrew Bible. Also Satan is not a Greek word it a a Hebrew word and it does mean adversary.. If it is in Greek it was probably a transliteration...However, yes I do accept the Book of Job, "The Adversary" which is how it is in Job, Ha'Satan not Satan, "Heh" meaning "The", "Satan" meaning "Adversary." sorry no "Satan" here as you would like to call it.

Judaism today is very much what Moses taught we are just unable to do sacrifices becasue they were only to be done in the Temple. Judaism has never evolved into a religion of refuting christainity, the refutation part came along with several thousand years of persecution by christians. A matter of defense of faith...You really need to get the facts straight....


Actually why dont you show me where in the Tanakh it says what you are
God only has to say something once for it to be true.

Didnt he say "you shall be a nation of priests, a Holy Nation."(Exodus 19:6) He was speaking to my ancestors...and the first time he said it it was true...

also applies to what you said above "God only has to say something once for it to be true."


Hopes and dreams? Now you are attacking my charactor, which is the position of a desperate man. And you should be desparate, because there is nothing you can do to alleviate God's wrath with Jesus Christ.

attacking your character??... LOL..... No, this attacks your argument calling a wild stretch and part of your Hopes and Dreams...So quick to point the finger and say he attacked me because you are losing this argument....that sounds like your more desperate than I ever was when your questions arose...

I should be desperate....lol and what wrath was that again I seemed to have missed this non-existant wrath??

If you are talking about the Christian inquisitions...that wasnt wrath that was plain murder on the church's part....the crusades....sorry just plain murder on the church's part again....Hitler was a pagan....so your argument goes away there too as he did not believe in the christian G-d....Tell me what was that wrath again??

[theseed]

Show me where in Genesis 3:15 it says anything about the King-Messiah. then next you must prove that Jesus was the king over anything....
The point of the quote is that it shows a Rabbinic Messianic interpretation before Christianity.



lol....lets have another roll at false logic...you are arguing based on assumption..The assumption that I accept the doctrine of a "Satan Character" which has no basis in the Hebrew Bible. Also Satan is not a Greek word it a a Hebrew word and it does mean adversary.. If it is in Greek it was probably a transliteration...However, yes I do accept the Book of Job, "The Adversary" which is how it is in Job, Ha'Satan not Satan, "Heh" meaning "The", "Satan" meaning "Adversary." sorry no "Satan" here as you would like to call it.


So you are saying that it says "The Satan" in Job? That would lend support to my argument that Satan is a person.


Judaism today is very much what Moses taught we are just unable to do sacrifices becasue they were only to be done in the Temple. Judaism has never evolved into a religion of refuting christainity, the refutation part came along with several thousand years of persecution by christians. A matter of defense of faith...You really need to get the facts straight....
Get the facts straight? I'm not the one who things Christianity has been around for several thousand years.


Didnt he say "you shall be a nation of priests, a Holy Nation."(Exodus 19:6) He was speaking to my ancestors...and the first time he said it it was true...

Are you a nation? Are you priests? Are you a Holy Nation? Where's your capital city, Jerusalem? Didn't Christ and his Apostles come from Israel?



If you are talking about the Christian inquisitions...that wasnt wrath that was plain murder on the church's part....the crusades....sorry just plain murder on the church's part again....Hitler was a pagan....so your argument goes away there too as he did not believe in the christian G-d....Tell me what was that wrath again??

Yes it was plain murder, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about the wrath of God. Just has it is in the days of Noah, so it is now. The ax lays at the tree. Any tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down. Every man women and child should flee from the wrath to come, and not look back.

Often Christians speak of love and mercy and grace, but the other side of the coin is God's wrath.

"Their foot will slide in due time" (Deut. 32.35)

'I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." Isaiah 63.3

"And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." (Isaiah 66.23,24)





The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. It is true, that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hitherto; the floods of God's vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the mean time is constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are constantly rising, and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, that holds the waters back, that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward. If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power; and if your strength were ten thousand times greater than it is, yea, ten thousand times greater than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it. . .

And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell

And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; . http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm

Do I expect you to believe all of this? No, you will probably write it off as more Christian superstition because you are blind to your desperate sinful state. At which point, I can only pray that the light that elightens men will enlight you (John 1.9).

[Menachem]

The point of the quote is that it shows a Rabbinic Messianic interpretation before Christianity.

True some Rabbis believed it may be messianic in a Drashic(Interpretive storytelling) point of View..However the fact still remains that this isnot a messianic prophecy at all...Your quotation of Bereshit Rabbah proved in the Midrash that it was not referring to Genesis 3:15 but rather Genesis 4:25...



So you are saying that it says "The Satan" in Job? That would lend support to my argument that Satan is a person.

Nice attempt on a desperate play on my words....And no if you actually read what I said It actually refutes what you are claiming as the Hebrew shows otherwise to your claim..



Get the facts straight? I'm not the one who things Christianity has been around for several thousand years.

so you are denying that it has been around for more than a thousand years..so you deny it started in the first century 2000 years ago....OK I have no problem with that you dig your own grave...



Are you a nation? Are you priests? Are you a Holy Nation? Where's your capital city, Jerusalem? Didn't Christ and his Apostles come from Israel?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Maybe...What was your point on the last part???



Yes it was plain murder, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about the wrath of God. Just has it is in the days of Noah, so it is now. The ax lays at the tree. Any tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down. Every man women and child should flee from the wrath to come, and not look back.

Nice quote but not in The Tanakh


Often Christians speak of love and mercy and grace, but the other side of the coin is God's wrath.

and then....


"Their foot will slide in due time" (Deut. 32.35)

read on the next few verses afterwards verses 36-43 you will see it is a comfort to Israel in that he will relent the anger in verse 19 because of what is said in verse 18. what you are misquoting is a comfort to Israel not a wrath put upon Israel but upon other nations.....


'I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." Isaiah 63.3

Antoehr misquote....This is talking about a person who is coming from Edom to conquer Israel...this is talking about G-d on the Edomites not the Israelites


"And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." (Isaiah 66.23,24)

These verses are advocating worship of G-d as opposed to dissent against G-d....this is applied to all mankind(only Rightous Gentiles) not the Jews as the verses 18 and 19 suggest.

This translation was pretty bad in itself but I guess I can let that one go.

As for the disobeying of G-d I still do not see a connection here on any of the verses you quoted...All three of your quotes were comforts to israel and against those who seek to destroy us...The last one is a reminder to follow G-d and His Torah and the price of dissent....The wrath seems to not be focused on the Jews but everyone who seeks to destroy the Jews or try to stray them from their following G-d and His Torah...

Thanks for helping my points greatly....:wink:




http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm

Do I expect you to believe all of this? No, you will probably write it off as more Christian superstition because you are blind to your desperate sinful state. At which point, I can only pray that the light that elightens men will enlight you (John 1.9).

LoL.....a quaint personal attack as to being blind and desperate.....

The only one desperate here is you. Seeing how you are losing this argument, and badly I might add....Everything you seem to come up with is getting knocked down.....

It was a interresting little story but Not a Jewish one...

"blind to my desperate and sinful state..." LoL...are Ad Hominems the only way you can make yourself feel better...I have an Idea, Why dont you actually try to win the argument instead of attacking me??? You may look better in the end.....

[learning]

Do you guys know of a Jewish english Hebrew translation of the Bible on the net?

Then I'ld know if I was reading something as you want to have it read?

[theseed]

Here you go. I have found that the JPS translation is not much different than most translations.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

[theseed]

LoL.....a quaint personal attack as to being blind and desperate.....
Not personal at all. All men without Christ are blind and live in darkness (John 1.9-18, 3.18-21)

Furthermore, your responses are glib. All those verses speak of the judgement of God. If God is wrathful to his own people, then why would he spare anyone? (Deut. 32.28-32 vs Psalm 73.18,19).

The OT is full of examples of how Israel falls into sin, denies thier sin, and perscutes the prophets. only later to have God. It's like there is some repetive cycle ;)

The root of Jewish rejection of both the prophet, Messiah, and King--Yeshua---is the denial of sin. With the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin (Lev. 17.11).

[Conductor42]

Here you go. I have found that the JPS translation is not much different than most translations.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

That is the 1917, which was nothing more than a partial edit of the KJV.

[Conductor42]

The root of Jewish rejection of both the prophet, Messiah, and King--Yeshua---is the denial of sin. With the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin (Lev. 17.11).

Your apostle Paul thought otherwise.

Hebrews 9:22 "And according to the Law, one can almost say all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

Additionally, there are clear cut examples in the Tanakh showing that forgiveness can be given without Blood Sacrifices. For example, Isaiah 40:1-2 speaks of Israel having paid double for it's sin, through it's exile.

[Conductor42]

en. 3.15 claims that Satan will be defeated. If one is to claim that this is not a messianic passaged, then one must prove that the Messiah has no part in the defeat of Satan.

It doesn't say anything about a Satan.


So what may I conclude from this? If Yeshua is the true Messiah, and he defeats Satan, then Yeshua fulfills the prophecie made by the LORD in Genesis 3:15

He, just like you and I, can be part of the fullfilment of that prophecy.

[Conductor42]

Do you guys know of a Jewish english Hebrew translation of the Bible on the net?

Then I'ld know if I was reading something as you want to have it read?

I know that the Judaica Press translation is avaliable at: http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive.asp?AID=63255

I don't know how reliable it is, but Chabad obviously thought it's good enough.

[learning]

thank you

[Menachem]

Not personal at all. All men without Christ are blind and live in darkness (John 1.9-18, 3.18-21)

Which is a quiant personal attack no matter where it is written or said...And also there are two sides to that either you are blind or you see something that others dont... The one I know it is, is that I see something you dont...


Furthermore, your responses are glib. All those verses speak of the judgement of God. If God is wrathful to his own people, then why would he spare anyone? (Deut. 32.28-32 vs Psalm 73.18,19).

One imortant thing you are missing about your quote of Deuteronomy 32:28-32 is that it is about Israel's enemies and not about Israel. The wrath showed to them was a comfort to them and a blow at their enemies. G-d is not without compassion to his creation in that he would not totally destroy his creation.

on your mentioning of Psalms did you just completely throw out the rest of the Pslam??


The OT is full of examples of how Israel falls into sin, denies thier sin, and perscutes the prophets. only later to have God. It's like there is some repetive cycle ;)

the issue in the Tanakh is not whether we fall into sin but whther we try or not to avoid it. Some of the times some did not try to avoid sin, others did.

Of all of the prophets how many were actually persecuted but the people, Jeremiah was for his message that Jerusalem was going to fall to the babylonians...If you were a Israelite living at that time would you want to have message fo destruction or a message of Hope from Isaiah.....This is a matter of perspective...


The root of Jewish rejection of both the prophet, Messiah, and King--Yeshua---is the denial of sin. With the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin (Lev. 17.11).


LoL.... your going to try and post leviticus 17:11....Here is a heads up to those who love to quote it out of context...Try reading the verses before and after Leviticus 17:11 you will see that it is a prohibition against eating blood and says nothing of what you are trying to say about it..... Are you trying to make this easy or what?

LoL.... on the position of denial of sin...Tell you what you show me where that is in the Tanakh and I will believe what you said....

Quick hint.....There is no such reference...

[theseed]

One imortant thing you are missing about your quote of Deuteronomy 32:28-32 is that it is about Israel's enemies and not about Israel. The wrath showed to them was a comfort to them and a blow at their enemies. G-d is not without compassion to his creation in that he would not totally destroy his creation
Correct, this is why he has elected some to salvation.


Quick hint.....There is no such reference...
There is no sin or nobody in the OT has never denied sin???!!???

Leviticus 17 (NIV)
11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

This verse is explicit that blood makes atonement for sin. Nothing else makes atonement except blood.

Leviticus 17.11 (JPS)
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.

[theseed]

Your apostle Paul thought otherwise. I meant "without". I made a typo:blush:

Hebrews 9:22 "And according to the Law, one can almost say all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."This is a reference to Lev. 17.11, that forgiveness comes through bloodshedding alone.

Also, it is pure conjecture that Paul wrote Hebrews. It is a systematic theology though, like the one found in Romans.

[Conductor42]

Which is a quiant personal attack no matter where it is written or said...And also there are two sides to that either you are blind or you see something that others dont... The one I know it is, is that I see something you dont...

That is no more of a personal attack than the Orthodox claim that you can't understand any of the Tanakh without the Oral Torah.

[Conductor42]

Do you accept the entire New Testament, theseed?

Did God lie when he said Israel had paid double the amount for all it's sins during the exile, as it is written in the verse I previously mentioned?

[theseed]

Do you accept the entire New Testament, theseed?

Did God lie when he said Israel had paid double the amount for all it's sins during the exile, as it is written in the verse I previously mentioned?
It does not say Israel paid double, it says that "she has recieved double" for her sins. The question remains, double what? It may be that she recieved double grace and mercy.

[Menachem]

Correct, this is why he has elected some to salvation.

some elected to slavation??? WHere do you get "electing some to salvation" from "comforting Israel?"



There is no sin or nobody in the OT has never denied sin???!!???

Leviticus 17 (NIV)
11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

This verse is explicit that blood makes atonement for sin. Nothing else makes atonement except blood.

Leviticus 17.11 (JPS)
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.


Since you obviously cant read the verses before and after this verse, lets do that, so we can devastate your argument about this. shall we.

Leviticus 17:10. And whoever there is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who eats any kind of blood; I will set my face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
12. Therefore I said to the people of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

What this part is saying is that none of you shall eat blood.....

So now we do as Hoshea 14:3 suggests we "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord; say to him: Forgive all iniquity, and receive us graciously; so will we offer the words of our lips instead of calves.(Hoshea 14:3)"




Nothing else makes atonement except for blood you say.... How about these verses.....

Leviticus 5:11 But if he is not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, nor shall he put any frankincense on it; for it is a sin offering. [12] Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, a memorial part of it, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to the Lord; it is a sin offering.

Exodus 30:15. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering to the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.
16. And you shall take the atonement money of the people of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting; that it may be a memorial to the people of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.


So as we can see sacrifices of blood were not the only method of getting rid of these unintentional sins or sins out of ignorance..

[Menachem]

That is no more of a personal attack than the Orthodox claim that you can't understand any of the Tanakh without the Oral Torah.


I was thinking more of comparing it to "calling someone stupid because they can't understand a book."

[learning]

I know that the Judaica Press translation is avaliable at: http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive.asp?AID=63255

I don't know how reliable it is, but Chabad obviously thought it's good enough.

Who or what is 'Chabad'?

[shunyadragon]

Who or what is 'Chabad'?
Chabad is an Orthodox Jewish organization belonging to Hasidic Judaism.

See the following site for details, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_Lubavitch

[theseed]

I was thinking more of comparing it to "calling someone stupid because they can't understand a book."
I'm not talking about a book; I'm talking about your sin. And actually, According to 1 Corinthians 2, God has chosen the weak to be strong in faith.


WHere do you get "electing some to salvation" from "comforting Israel?"

I don't. And I agree that God was comforting Israel in Deut. 32.35. However, that in now way refutes God's wrath regarding sin.



Leviticus 17:10. And whoever there is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who eats any kind of blood; I will set my face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
12. Therefore I said to the people of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.


In the context, I see that Lev. 17.11 is a parenthetical statement, meaning that the verse stands by itself. The main reason God commands not to eat animal blood is because it is used for the atonement of sin, an atonement for the soul.



So now we do as Hoshea 14:3 suggests we "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord; say to him: Forgive all iniquity, and receive us graciously; so will we offer the words of our lips instead of calves.(Hoshea 14:3)"
I think you mean Hosea 14.2.

Exodus 30.15 actually speaks nothing about sin. The money thier seems to be a kind of tax.

If we look at Lev. 16, we see that on The Day of Atonement, blood must be shed. This was a universal atonement for the sins of Israel. Thise atonemnt clensed all the sins (16.30), and it was a time of rest (v. 31). This law is forever (v. 34).

Hence, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Asking forgivness as it says in Hosea 14.2 is not good enough, because we men of unclean lips, in the midst of an unclean people. Our rightous works are as filthy rags (used toilet paper). Therefore, you should be all the more desparate because no sacrifice has been made for 1,938 years by a high priest (except Jesus Christ).

See Isaiah 6.5, 65.6.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not talking about a book; I'm talking about your sin. And actually, According to 1 Corinthians 2, God has chosen the weak to be strong in faith.You still need to argue more from the point of view that the interpretation of the OT is sound by itself. The NT cannot be used by itself to justify the OT.


In the context, I see that Lev. 17.11 is a parenthetical statement, meaning that the verse stands by itself. The main reason God commands not to eat animal blood is because it is used for the atonement of sin, an atonement for the soul.This is a significant problem with the interpretation of the OT by traditional Christianity. These passages were never writen to be taken as parentheical statements to stand by themselves. Taking passages out of context to justify ones own belief looks very foolish. It is important to understand that seperations and numbering of passages is modern context and not original with scripture.


If we look at Lev. 16, we see that on The Day of Atonement, blood must be shed. This was a universal atonement for the sins of Israel. Thise atonemnt clensed all the sins (16.30), and it was a time of rest (v. 31). This law is forever (v. 34).

Hence, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Asking forgivness as it says in Hosea 14.2 is not good enough, because we men of unclean lips, in the midst of an unclean people. Our rightous works are as filthy rags (used toilet paper). Therefore, you should be all the more desparate because no sacrifice has been made for 1,938 years by a high priest (except Jesus Christ).This still neglects taking the OT as a whole and relying on selective passages to justify your interpretation.

[theseed]

Shunyadragon, you do not know what I am talking about. A parenthetical statment does not depend on numerical markings; it depends on the context itself.

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon, you do not know what I am talking about. A parenthetical statment does not depend on numerical markings; it depends on the context itself.
I understand perfectly well what you are talking about, but the text of these writings that you are referring to are connected and continuous with a different meaning than you are giving the one statement.

It is still an artificial construct out of context.

[theseed]

I understand perfectly well what you are talking about, but the text of these writings that you are referring to are connected and continuous with a different meaning than you are giving the one statement.

It is still an artificial construct out of context.
Proove it. Because you say so does not make it true.

[shunyadragon]

Proove it. Because you say so does not make it true.The reverse is also a legitimate challenge.

I am not sure what proof you would expect in this case. Hebrew scholarship and understanding of the context of these texts would show that this text is one continuous passage. The passages before and after this one demonstrate a continuous statement.

It is true that the blood sacrafice is for the atonement of sins in the OT, but there is no place in the OT that it will end forever with the blood sacrafice of the messiah.

[theseed]

Because it is a continous passage does not an any way refute what I have said. Also, it does not mean that it does not contian an parenthetical statment. The passage before and after in no way change what is said. Leveticus 17.11 is explicit--not vague. It is an independant clause--it requires no context.

[shunyadragon]

I think you mean Hosea 14.2.

Exodus 30.15 actually speaks nothing about sin. The money thier seems to be a kind of tax.Atonement is a request for forgivness and not some kind of tax.


If we look at Lev. 16, we see that on The Day of Atonement, blood must be shed. This was a universal atonement for the sins of Israel. Thise atonemnt clensed all the sins (16.30), and it was a time of rest (v. 31). This law is forever (v. 34).Do you interpret this to refer to Jesus Christ?

34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make attonement for the children of Isreal for all their sins once a year.


Hence, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Asking forgivness as it says in Hosea 14.2 is not good enough, because we men of unclean lips, in the midst of an unclean people. Our rightous works are as filthy rags (used toilet paper). Therefore, you should be all the more desparate because no sacrifice has been made for 1,938 years by a high priest (except Jesus Christ).

See Isaiah 6.5, 65.6.I do not see anything that would refer to the above.

[theseed]

Atonement is a request for forgivness and not some kind of tax.

No, atonement is "at one ment".


Do you interpret this to refer to Jesus Christ?
Yes, Christ fulfills this law. See Hebrews 9.13-22


I do not see anything that would refer to the above.
Ok.

[Pitiricus]

No, atonement is "at one ment".


Yes, Christ fulfills this law. See Hebrews 9.13-22


Ok.
No atonement isn't a tax... And you cannot quote the NT about the Tanakh...

[shunyadragon]

No, atonement is "at one ment".

Yes, Christ fulfills this law. See Hebrews 9.13-22

Ok.The passages you cited in Leviticus say that God shall annoint(chose) a priest who will make a sacrafice for the sins of Jews once a year on a specific day. There is nothing here about a prophecy that a messiah will come to shed blood for a one time sacrifice for the sins of all humanity for all time.

34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make attonement for the children of Isreal for all their sins once a year.

Hebrews 9:13-22 is a claim that Christ has come to shed his blood for a one time sacrifice for the sins of humanity (those that believe).

Where is the prophecy in the OT that refers to Christs one time only sacrifice?

'At one ment' is a cute play on words, but has no meaning in terms of OT Hebrew.

[theseed]

The passages you cited in Leviticus say that God shall annoint(chose) a priest who will make a sacrafice for the sins of Jews once a year on a specific day. There is nothing here about a prophecy that a messiah will come to shed blood for a one time sacrifice for the sins of all humanity for all time.
Correct


'At one ment' is a cute play on words, but has no meaning in terms of OT Hebrew.
It's not a play on words at all. When your ready to consider my arguments seriously, I will listen. But until then, your wasting my time because your not putting any effort to understand the things I say.

[theseed]

Actually, I can quote the NT about the OT; I do it all the time. And because you say something is not so does not mean it is not so. I've backed by arguments with definitions and grammer. What do you have?

[shunyadragon]

Actually, I can quote the NT about the OT; I do it all the time. And because you say something is not so does not mean it is not so. I've backed by arguments with definitions and grammer. What do you have?

Questions and not answers.

Where is the prophecy in the OT that refers to Christs one time only sacrifice?

[learning]

Questions and not answers.

Where is the prophecy in the OT that refers to Christs one time only sacrifice?

Isaiah 53

[Sacrificial Ram]

Actually, I can quote the NT about the OT; I do it all the time. And because you say something is not so does not mean it is not so. I've backed by arguments with definitions and grammer. What do you have?


Yes, you can quote. However, your quote would mean nothing to the meaning of
the Jewish Scriptures, and how the Jewish religion views the Messiah.

The problem is that the writers of the Gospels were writing to make it appear that Jesus fullfilled a whole bunch of prophecies, and quote mined the Tankah to make it appear that he did. Many of the alledged prophecies were not prophies at all, but rather out of context quotes or mistranslations.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53 is specificlaly talking about the nation of Israel. If you read Isaiah in CONTEXT.. (You do know what context is, don't you), you will see that Isaiah is talking about Israel. Isaiah says it himself.

44:1
Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
44:2
Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

[shunyadragon]

Isaiah 53
Can yo be more specific.

[learning]

How about verse 11 and 12.

[theseed]

Isaiah 53 is specificlaly talking about the nation of Israel. If you read Isaiah in CONTEXT.. (You do know what context is, don't you), you will see that Isaiah is talking about Israel. Isaiah says it himself.
That's easily refuted when you consider that Israel sins, and the suffering servant is blameless. Also, the traditional intrepretation of Isaiah 53 was Messianic before the Advent of Christ.

Also you are spuriously assuming that Isaiah does not change the subject between Ch. 44 and 53.

[Sacrificial Ram]

That's easily refuted when you consider that Israel sins, and the suffering servant is blameless. Also, the traditional intrepretation of Isaiah 53 was Messianic before the Advent of Christ.

Also you are spuriously assuming that Isaiah does not change the subject between Ch. 44 and 53.

You are assuming he does. You have to remember that numbering of the verses is relatively new, not in isaiah's time. If you read the whole thing, it is very obvious he did not change subjects. The work of Isaiah is taken as a whole, not for quote mining.

[theseed]

You are assuming he does. You have to remember that numbering of the verses is relatively new, not in isaiah's time. If you read the whole thing, it is very obvious he did not change subjects. The work of Isaiah is taken as a whole, not for quote mining.
No, I'm not assuming. I know, I've argued Isaiah 53 extensively before. The numerical markings are irrelevant. Why do you think my case stands on that? Even if you take Isaiah has a whole, you still find that he often speaks of the Messiah. Also, you know that Israel is sinful (Isaiah 6.4), therefore in Isaiah 53, he can not be speaking of Israel has being blameless.

[Sacrificial Ram]

No, I'm not assuming. I know, I've argued Isaiah 53 extensively before. The numerical markings are irrelevant. Why do you think my case stands on that? Even if you take Isaiah has a whole, you still find that he often speaks of the Messiah. Also, you know that Israel is sinful (Isaiah 6.4), therefore in Isaiah 53, he can not be speaking of Israel has being blameless.

I am sure you have argued extensively for it. Doesn't make it any more correct.
That arguement between those of the Jewish Faith , and Christians looking to quote mine has been going on since at LEAST Justin Martyr's time in the second century. If you notice, Justin wrote about a debate he had with it from Tyro, (a jew). Justin Martyr took your point of view. Tyro explained that Isaiah 53 was talking about the nation of Israel. Christians still haven't got it.
even after 1900 years.

[theseed]

I am sure you have argued extensively for it. Doesn't make it any more correct.
That arguement between those of the Jewish Faith , and Christians looking to quote mine has been going on since at LEAST Justin Martyr's time in the second century. If you notice, Justin wrote about a debate he had with it from Tyro, (a jew). Justin Martyr took your point of view. Tyro explained that Isaiah 53 was talking about the nation of Israel. Christians still haven't got it.
even after 1900 years.
No, Jews have been lying for 1900 years. You find corrobation for the disagreement much early than 100 AD, you can find the Eunuch asking questions in Acts.

[Sacrificial Ram]

No, Jews have been lying for 1900 years. You find corrobation for the disagreement much early than 100 AD, you can find the Eunuch asking questions in Acts.

The book of acts is just a book written by man, not inspired by god at all.

In addition, the date of Acts was around 100 A.D. Some date it as early as 100 A.D., but some as late as 130 A.D.

And, of course, Isaiah was around a lot longer than that.

[theseed]

Your missing the point. If you can get the point, then there is no reasoning with you. Your being superficial in your responses rather than trying to hear what I am saying.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Your missing the point. If you can get the point, then there is no reasoning with you. Your being superficial in your responses rather than trying to hear what I am saying.


The point is that the passage you claim to be a prophecy, if read in context, is nothing of the sort.

The Christians have been quote mining the Tanakh to justify their belief in Jesus from square one, starting with Matthews vast misunderstanding of Jewish scripture, and the mistranslations he used of it.

Just look at what you have to do to justify Isaiah 53 being the Messiah and that messiah being Jesus.. you have to say that Isaiah decieded to change subjects in just a few short lines.

[Pitiricus]

I am sure you have argued extensively for it. Doesn't make it any more correct.
That arguement between those of the Jewish Faith , and Christians looking to quote mine has been going on since at LEAST Justin Martyr's time in the second century. If you notice, Justin wrote about a debate he had with it from Tyro, (a jew). Justin Martyr took your point of view. Tyro explained that Isaiah 53 was talking about the nation of Israel. Christians still haven't got it.
even after 1900 years.
So true...

They also haven't gotten over the fact that almah doen't mean a virgin...

[theseed]

The point is that the passage you claim to be a prophecy, if read in context, is nothing of the sort.
It's can't be Israel because she is sinful (Isaiah 6.4).



The Christians have been quote mining the Tanakh to justify their belief in Jesus from square one, starting with Matthews vast misunderstanding of Jewish scripture, and the mistranslations he used of it.

Again, the Israel intrepretation does not fit.



Just look at what you have to do to justify Isaiah 53 being the Messiah and that messiah being Jesus.. you have to say that Isaiah decieded to change subjects in just a few short lines.

Nine chapters is hardly a few lines.

BTW, this thread is not about the NT, it is about the OT and Messianic prophecies. I don't need to show that Jesus is the Messiah in order to show that an OT passage is Messianic.

[theseed]

No it means maid right? Someone who has never been married right? Therefore a virgin. Ha!

[Sacrificial Ram]

It's can't be Israel because she is sinful (Isaiah 6.4).


Again, the Israel intrepretation does not fit.


Nine chapters is hardly a few lines.

BTW, this thread is not about the NT, it is about the OT and Messianic prophecies. I don't need to show that Jesus is the Messiah in order to show that an OT passage is Messianic.

And where does it say the servant is sinless?? That is a christian exgensis, not in the text??

For that matter, lets look ASSUME (But assumption), that it is talking
about the messiah.

Let's look at Isaiah 53:10

53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

So, did Jesus have extended life?? Did Jesus have childred?? (he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days)..

Nope.. Jesus did not have children, according to the New Testament.. Can't be Jesus.

[learning]

Well, we can agree to disagree on this, but I still believe G-d doesn't change His mind, and that the Jewish and/or Israel, is still His chosen people, and that those who bless them will be blessed,
so 'Bless You!' and 'May He make His face to shine on you.'

I believe that the end of Isaiah, where it prophesizes something about 'Will I bring to birth and not deliver?' is the promise of the new nation of Israel that became a nation in a day. Heh Heh, that is the only argument I have with atheists that they usually cannot say anything against, because it took the United Nations only one day to decide to declare Israel a nation back in the 1947. Isaiah 66:7-9.

(see, I'm a very selfish person. I want to be blessed. :) )

[theseed]

And where does it say the servant is sinless?? That is a christian exgensis, not in the text??
Actually, it is.



53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

So, did Jesus have extended life?? Did Jesus have childred?? (he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days)..

Nope.. Jesus did not have children, according to the New Testament.. Can't be Jesus.


Again, that does not mean that the prophecy is not Messianic.
Isaiah 53 (Jewish Publication Society)
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.

So if this is Isaiah speaking as you have asserted, then the punishment was for Israel, not this guy that he speaks of. After who he says, "my people". That's only one reason why it can not be Messianc

Also, we read here that the Messiah would be cut off from the land of the living. And if we read furhter to verse 10, as you have stated, we find that his days are prolonged.

Isaiah 53 (JPS)
9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.'

He did not violate any laws and he never lied or mislead anybody. This can not be said about Israel.

11 Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.

Here we read that the the Servant is rightous, and will bear the sins of many.

All of this comes from a Jewish translation.

BTW, if this is from a Christian exegesis, then by definition that means that I am taking not reading into the text but only claiming what it explicitly say.

[Sacrificial Ram]

No it means maid right? Someone who has never been married right? Therefore a virgin. Ha!


No, It can mean maid. It means YOUNG WOMAN though. A young woman can be married.

Look at the way it is used in the Song of Solomon. That reference is high sexual, and certainly not refering to a virgin.

For that matter, look how Homer uses the term Parthenos in his writing. Often, it is refering to a young woman who is not a virgin. For example, Homer refers to a young woman using the term Parthenos to a woman that exposes her newborn child on the mountain.

[Sacrificial Ram]

No it means maid right? Someone who has never been married right? Therefore a virgin. Ha!


No, It can mean maid. It means YOUNG WOMAN though. A young woman can be married.

Look at the way it is used in the Song of Solomon. That reference is high sexual, and certainly not refering to a virgin.

For that matter, look how Homer uses the term Parthenos in his writing. Often, it is refering to a young woman who is not a virgin. In an other example, someone refers to a young woman using the term Parthenos to a woman that exposes her newborn child on the mountain. Parthenos is how the term ALmah is translated into the Greek.

[theseed]

No, It can mean maid. It means YOUNG WOMAN though. A young woman can be married.

Look at the way it is used in the Song of Solomon. That reference is high sexual, and certainly not refering to a virgin.

For that matter, look how Homer uses the term Parthenos in his writing. Often, it is refering to a young woman who is not a virgin. In an other example, someone refers to a young woman using the term Parthenos to a woman that exposes her newborn child on the mountain.




You are right, it is fond in Song of Solomon, however you are wrong about how it is used. It used to refer to a chaste maiden.


See Gen. 24.43, Ex. 2.8, Ps. 68.25, Prov. 30.19, and Song 1.3, and 6.8. S.o.S. does not start out with sex, that happens in Chapter 4.

[Sacrificial Ram]

You are right, it is fond in Song of Solomon, however you are wrong about how it is used. It used to refer to a chaste maiden.


See Gen. 24.43, Ex. 2.8, Ps. 68.25, Prov. 30.19, and Song 1.3, and 6.8. S.o.S. does not start out with sex, that happens in Chapter 4.

On the contrary...song of solomon is obviously not a virgin.. no matter how it is translated in the KVJ.

Why don't you look at other translaitons?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/sol001.htm#003

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/sol006.htm#008

[Conductor42]

"at one ment" is a English thingy. You can't do to the word in the original language(s).

[Menachem]

I'm not talking about a book; I'm talking about your sin. And actually, According to 1 Corinthians 2, God has chosen the weak to be strong in faith.

and 1 corinthians 2 means exactly what to me???

about my sin ok lets use this one this...its like calling someone an Idiot for not understanding sin the same way you do....That sounds a bit better....



I don't. And I agree that God was comforting Israel in Deut. 32.35. However, that in now way refutes God's wrath regarding sin.

If you are saying that comfort is G-d's wrath you are negating the purpose of citing this verse. If G-d's wrath is anything less than harsh, people will not stop to to any of the mitzvot given By G-d. You refuted your own point by the quotation of this verse. G-d comforting Israel is not comparable to G-d's wrath...



In the context, I see that Lev. 17.11 is a parenthetical statement, meaning that the verse stands by itself. The main reason God commands not to eat animal blood is because it is used for the atonement of sin, an atonement for the soul.


Leviticus 17:11 no more stands alone than Genesis 3:15 does.. Neither of them stand alone....The story told is what determines the meaning of the verse itself....If you take it out of context as you just did you subject the word of G-d to any little twist you want to put on it...in fact that is how christains try and justuify jesus in the tanakh....the context of every "proof text" defeats jesus claim every time....




I think you mean Hosea 14.2.

in the christain version of the bible. Yes. In the Jewish Bible it is Hoshea 14:3.


Exodus 30.15 actually speaks nothing about sin. The money thier seems to be a kind of tax.

LoL...A tax....A tax on what your soul....if One atones for the sould what is he atoneing for....what is atonement....as you later talk about the day of atonement, people are atoning for their souls. what are the atoning for...their sin which "stains the soul." The word here in hebrew כפר (Kaper) is used also here in leviticus 16 for the day of atonement Yom Kipur יום כפר so yes you will be stetching very hard trying to place this as a "tax."


If we look at Lev. 16, we see that on The Day of Atonement, blood must be shed. This was a universal atonement for the sins of Israel. Thise atonemnt clensed all the sins (16.30), and it was a time of rest (v. 31). This law is forever (v. 34).

actually the day of atonement isn't mentioned until Leviticus ch. 23 and in ch. 25 here are the verses:

Leviticus 23: 27. Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement; it shall be a holy gathering to you; and you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the Lord.
28. And you shall do no work in that same day; for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God.
29. For whatever soul it is who shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.
30. And whatever soul it is who does any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.
31. You shall do no kind of work; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

Leviticus 25:9. Then shall you cause the shofar to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the Day of Atonement shall you sound the shofar throughout all your land.

Now to elaborate more on: "offer an offering made by fire to the Lord."

The offering referred to here is to be made in the temple and only at the Temple in Yerushalem. Since it is G-d's house on earth. This, as obvious as it is, can not be done since the Temple has not been rebuilt. So then what do we do? We look to the words of Hoshea 14:3[2] and say "Hey! G-d wants the words of our lips over sacrifices"...so we can safely say "Prayer(the words of our lips) is a substitute for sacrifices as Hoshea suggests...




Hence, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Asking forgivness as it says in Hosea 14.2 is not good enough, because we men of unclean lips, in the midst of an unclean people. Our rightous works are as filthy rags (used toilet paper). Therefore, you should be all the more desparate because no sacrifice has been made for 1,938 years by a high priest (except Jesus Christ).
See Isaiah 6.5, 65.6.


actually this was taken care of above.. "as filthy rags."...LoL I can obviously tell that you have never taken the time to fulfill a mitzvot...Tzedeka is an act of rightousness while you view it as useless and pointless as your last statement suggests i view it as a good start toward working for the betterment of Humanity...

"I should be desperate"...I just refuted you twice over in this post and you have nothing better to say "that I'm desperate"

If Human sacrifices are the case for Jesus why then does the Torah forbid Human sacrifices in Deuteronomy 12:31. How do you reconcile that with jesus?????

Also Jesus is not of the proper lineage to be high priest as he is not a Kohen(of the descent of Aaron) nor is He even a Levite...so his lineage gets him there.

Plus the whole argument of "the order of Melchi-Tzadek" doesn't work for him either as He is not a Gentile as Melchi-Tzadek was and the fact that Psalm 110 doesn't support that claim because the usage melchi-Tzadek in Psalm 110 is not a name but a title....We can discuss the hebrew of that later...


As for your citations of Isaiah 6:5 see Isaiah said he was doomed becasue he got a glimpse of G-d and as per Exodus 33:20 no one can see G-d's Face and live...as the context earlier suggests. A note on the "Impure lips" This language when compared to verse 7 suggests that he is not talking about his Lips but about his soul and the iniquity attached to it.

And the message behind verse 5 " I am a man of impure lips and I dwell among a people with impure lips, for my eyes have seen the King, HaShem, Master of Legions."
What this is essentially saying is "How can a person like me see G-d, because I live amongst those who sin and am one, and live(per Exodus 33:20)."

Next....

[Pitiricus]

Now I have heard everything... Since when Jesus, who if he existed was of the tribe of Judah is a "high priest"?

I know not you, the person you answered to!

[theseed]

Now I have heard everything... Since when Jesus, who if he existed was of the tribe of Judah is a "high priest"?

I know not you, the person you answered to!
If you read the book of Hebrews in the New Testament you would know the answer to that question. Jesus Christ is not a priest after Levi, but after Mikelzdek.

Hebrews 5:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+5:6&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."[ Psalm 110:4]

Hebrews 7 (NIV)
1This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." 3Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

See Genesis 14.18-20

[theseed]

and 1 corinthians 2 means exactly what to me??? To you it means that you are wrong about what I believe and think.


about my sin ok lets use this one this...its like calling someone an Idiot for not understanding sin the same way you do....That sounds a bit better....Again this contradicts the teaching of the NT. Christians believe that salvation is not based on intellect but faith. I am not saying you are dumb, bur spiritally blind and dead.

Leviticus 17:11 no more stands alone than Genesis 3:15 does.. Neither of them stand alone....The story told is what determines the meaning of the verse itself....If you take it out of context as you just did you subject the word of G-d to any little twist you want to put on it...in fact that is how christains try and justuify jesus in the tanakh....the context of every "proof text" defeats jesus claim every time.... It stands alone and in context--the meaning is the same regardless. Lev. 17.11 is parenthetic, meaning that it explains the context. But it is also a break from the flow.

Moreover, your Anti-Missionary/Chrsitian Jews agree that Lev. 17.11 does in fact mean that atonement is ultimately based on blood sacrifice.

I had refrained from showing you because I'm afraid that it will give you ideas to refute my argument. But after posting in the past week, I have found the arguments in this thread wanton for scholarship.


Jesus (unclean human species and blemished) did not die within the Temple precinct, at the hands of an Aaronic priest, or through the shedding of blood. Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the altar by the Aaronic high priest (Leviticus 16:18-19). Animal sacrifice, offered as a blood atonement, must conform to the biblical guidelines set down in Leviticus 17:11: (a) Bloodshed (by means of shechitah--Deuteronomy 12:21), (b) Given solely to the Jewish people, (c) Blood sprinkled upon the Temple altar. http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq032.html



The offering referred to here is to be made in the temple and only at the Temple in Yerushalem. Since it is G-d's house on earth. This, as obvious as it is, can not be done since the Temple has not been rebuilt. So then what do we do? We look to the words of Hoshea 14:3[2] and say "Hey! G-d wants the words of our lips over sacrifices"...so we can safely say "Prayer(the words of our lips) is a substitute for sacrifices as Hoshea suggests...According to the JewsforJudaism website that is only good for Gentiles. I'm guesing that they are Ultraorthodox Jews--hard core Jews. I only consider them to be the closed to the teachings of the Torah.


Plus the whole argument of "the order of Melchi-Tzadek" doesn't work for him either as He is not a Gentile as Melchi-Tzadek was and the fact that Psalm 110 doesn't support that claim because the usage melchi-Tzadek in Psalm 110 is not a name but a title....We can discuss the hebrew of that later...Ruth was a Gentile. Also, if he was a descendant of Shem, then he was a Semite.


As for your citations of Isaiah 6:5 see Isaiah said he was doomed becasue he got a glimpse of G-d and as per Exodus 33:20 no one can see G-d's Face and live...as the context earlier suggests. A note on the "Impure lips" This language when compared to verse 7 suggests that he is not talking about his Lips but about his soul and the iniquity attached to it. I agree, and this proves my point, unless we are reconciled to God then we will not be saved. When someone reconciles thier checkbook with their bank account they account for the difference. This is true with God. Unless we become Holy has He is Holy, we are damned. He does not tolerate sin. This is the desperation that Isaiah speaks of here, and the desperation that I felt when first saw The Light (John 3.18-21).



And the message behind verse 5 " I am a man of impure lips and I dwell among a people with impure lips, for my eyes have seen the King, HaShem, Master of Legions."
What this is essentially saying is "How can a person like me see G-d, because I live amongst those who sin and am one, and live(per Exodus 33:20)."

Same argument here. It is my contention that you can't be forgiven without the the shedding of blood.


and 1 corinthians 2 means exactly what to me???
To you it means that you are wrong about what I believe and think.


about my sin ok lets use this one this...its like calling someone an Idiot for not understanding sin the same way you do....That sounds a bit better....
Again this contradicts the teaching of the NT. Christians believe that salvation is not based on intellect but faith. I am not saying you are dumb, bur spiritally blind and dead.

Leviticus 17:11 no more stands alone than Genesis 3:15 does.. Neither of them stand alone....The story told is what determines the meaning of the verse itself....If you take it out of context as you just did you subject the word of G-d to any little twist you want to put on it...in fact that is how christains try and justuify jesus in the tanakh....the context of every "proof text" defeats jesus claim every time....
It stands alone and in context--the meaning is the same regardless. Lev. 17.11 is parenthetic, meaning that it explains the context. But it is also a break from the flow.

Moreover, your Anti-Missionary/Chrsitian Jews agree that Lev. 17.11 does in fact mean that atonement is ultimately based on blood sacrifice.

I had refrained from showing you because I'm afraid that it will give you ideas to refute my argument. But after posting in the past week, I have found the arguments in this thread wanton for scholarship.


Jesus (unclean human species and blemished) did not die within the Temple precinct, at the hands of an Aaronic priest, or through the shedding of blood. Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the altar by the Aaronic high priest (Leviticus 16:18-19). Animal sacrifice, offered as a blood atonement, must conform to the biblical guidelines set down in Leviticus 17:11: (a) Bloodshed (by means of shechitah--Deuteronomy 12:21), (b) Given solely to the Jewish people, (c) Blood sprinkled upon the Temple altar.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq032.html



The offering referred to here is to be made in the temple and only at the Temple in Yerushalem. Since it is G-d's house on earth. This, as obvious as it is, can not be done since the Temple has not been rebuilt. So then what do we do? We look to the words of Hoshea 14:3[2] and say "Hey! G-d wants the words of our lips over sacrifices"...so we can safely say "Prayer(the words of our lips) is a substitute for sacrifices as Hoshea suggests...
According to the JewsforJudaism website that is only good for Gentiles. I'm guesing that they are Ultraorthodox Jews--hard core Jews. I only consider them to be the closed to the teachings of the Torah.


Plus the whole argument of "the order of Melchi-Tzadek" doesn't work for him either as He is not a Gentile as Melchi-Tzadek was and the fact that Psalm 110 doesn't support that claim because the usage melchi-Tzadek in Psalm 110 is not a name but a title....We can discuss the hebrew of that later...
Ruth was a Gentile. Also, if he was a descendant of Shem, then he was a Semite.


As for your citations of Isaiah 6:5 see Isaiah said he was doomed becasue he got a glimpse of G-d and as per Exodus 33:20 no one can see G-d's Face and live...as the context earlier suggests. A note on the "Impure lips" This language when compared to verse 7 suggests that he is not talking about his Lips but about his soul and the iniquity attached to it.
I agree, and this proves my point, unless we are reconciled to God then we will not be saved. When someone reconciles thier checkbook with their bank account they account for the difference. This is true with God. Unless we become Holy has He is Holy, we are damned. He does not tolerate sin. This is the desperation that Isaiah speaks of here, and the desperation that I felt when first saw The Light (John 3.18-21).



And the message behind verse 5 " I am a man of impure lips and I dwell among a people with impure lips, for my eyes have seen the King, HaShem, Master of Legions."
What this is essentially saying is "How can a person like me see G-d, because I live amongst those who sin and am one, and live(per Exodus 33:20)."


Same argument here.

EDIT: I may be misreading the Jews4Judaism website, I'm really sleepy :clueless:

[Conductor42]

*detecting too many "bots" (in the words of DDW)... exiting this thread for an undisclosed time*

[theseed]

On the contrary...song of solomon is obviously not a virgin.. no matter how it is translated in the KVJ.

Why don't you look at other translaitons?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/sol001.htm#003

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/sol006.htm#008
Sacrifical Ram, you have proven that you are way off base and do not know much about the OT. As an athiest Jew, I would have thought that you would at least know the gist of Song of Solomon. BTW, JPS has "maidens" which are unmarried people in SoS. Haven't you ever heard of a "maiden" name, which is a woman's last name before she was married?

[theseed]

What are bots? I thought they were automated posts

[shunyadragon]

How about verse 11 and 12.
Even if I accepted Isaiah 53 as prophesy for Jesus Christ potentially giving his live for the sins of many. There is absolutely nothing in this whole chapter concerning the the messiah dieing for the one time redemtion of the sins of humanity and ending the sacrifice of blood in the temple.

[Pitiricus]

If you read the book of Hebrews in the New Testament you would know the answer to that question. Jesus Christ is not a priest after Levi, but after Mikelzdek.

Hebrews 5:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+5:6&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."[ Psalm 110:4]

Hebrews 7 (NIV)
1This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." 3Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

See Genesis 14.18-20
I really couldn't care less what is or isn't written in what you call the New testament...

Fact is that Jesus wasn't ever a priest! And even less a high priest (a mamzer couldn't anyway)

[Pitiricus]

Sacrifical Ram, you have proven that you are way off base and do not know much about the OT. As an athiest Jew, I would have thought that you would at least know the gist of Song of Solomon. BTW, JPS has "maidens" which are unmarried people in SoS. Haven't you ever heard of a "maiden" name, which is a woman's last name before she was married?
Use of Almah as not virgin:

Songs of Solomon 6:8
There are sixty queens and eight concubines, and almah without number.
The occupants of harems are not, as a rule, virgins.


Proverbs 30:18-19
Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand; the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man in an almah. While the use of the Hebrew word can sometimes mean a young girl of marriable age, as for instance, when it was applied to Rebecca before her marriage to Isaac (Genesis 24:43), sometimes simply a woman (see Proverbs 30:18-19 above) and sometimes even for women in a harem!

[theseed]

Songs of Solomon 6:8
There are sixty queens and eight concubines, and almah without number.
The occupants of harems are not, as a rule, virgins. Actually, the context reveals that they are neither wives nore concubines, that only leaves virgins. Furthermore, the Jewish publication society translates the word as "maidan's twice. By definition, a maid or maiden is someone who has never been married. Do you disagree with the scholarly Jews of JPS? I would imagine that these maidens were engaged to be married--they were betrothed.


maid·en http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmaiden) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifdhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifn)
n.

<LI type=a>An unmarried girl or woman.
A virgin.


A machine resembling the guillotine, used in Scotland in the 16th and 17th centuries to behead criminals.
Sports.


A racehorse that has never won a race.
A maiden over

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=maiden

[Menachem]

To you it means that you are wrong about what I believe and think.

actually this quote means nothing to me as it is not scriptural


Again this contradicts the teaching of the NT. Christians believe that salvation is not based on intellect but faith. I am not saying you are dumb, bur spiritally blind and dead.
It stands alone and in context--the meaning is the same regardless. Lev. 17.11 is parenthetic, meaning that it explains the context. But it is also a break from the flow.

and I care if it contradicts christianity how??? Precicesly you just showed me that the NT contradicts the Tanakh and mainstream christianity would say there is no contradiction... Thanks for that, I wonder what else is a contradiction?

This verse(leviticus 17:11) does not stand alone. The meaning changes as you drag it out of context just as christians do... You say it refers to the only way to atone for your sins is to shed blood...I showed other instance s in the Torah where flour could be offered and money could be offered and you brushed them away.....Also witht he context of the other verses we see that it is in fact a prohibition of eating blood and this verse tells you why it is prohibited from eating it, That the blood(of animals) is used for sin offerings so you shouldnt eat it... See how much context and other instances in the Torah kills the christian claim of this verse.


Moreover, your Anti-Missionary/Chrsitian Jews agree that Lev. 17.11 does in fact mean that atonement is ultimately based on blood sacrifice.

I had refrained from showing you because I'm afraid that it will give you ideas to refute my argument. But after posting in the past week, I have found the arguments in this thread wanton for scholarship.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq032.html



your quoting of this might acctually be helped if you had read the paper.

The argument quoted in this article is about refuting the "human sacrifice of jesus" It says and I quote, well why dont I just post the article and let everyone see how far you stretched this one...


Question: Did Jesus' manner of death satisfy the animal atonement sacrifice provisions for remission of sin of the Hebrew Scriptures?



Answer: According to the Hebrew Scriptures, the only animals permitted for sacrificial purposes are those that have split hooves and chew their cud. The carcass of an unclean animal defiles (Leviticus 11:26). On these grounds alone, human beings are disqualified for sacrificial purposes. Jesus, as a human being, was unfit for sacrificial purposes.

An animal blood atonement offering must be physically unblemished (Leviticus 22:18- 25). According to the evangelists, Jesus was physically abused prior to his execution (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, John 19:1; John 20:25; Matthew 27:29, Mark 15:17, John 19:2). According to Paul, Jesus' circumcision constituted "mutilation" (Philippians 3:2) and is likened to "castration" (Galatians 5:12). As a result, Jesus would again be disqualified as a valid sacrifice.

The New Testament's claim that Jesus' death was "one sacrifice for sin for all time" (Hebrews 10:12) is not supported by the Hebrew Scriptures. Mere death, no matter what was the extent of the preceding violence or pain, does not satisfy the biblical requirements for those times when a blood atonement sacrifice is offered. In a blood atonement offering the animal (clean species and unblemished) must actually die as a result of blood loss. That is why it is called "a blood atonement sacrifice."

Jesus (unclean human species and blemished) did not die within the Temple precinct, at the hands of an Aaronic priest, or through the shedding of blood. Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the altar by the Aaronic high priest (Leviticus 16:18-19). Animal sacrifice, offered as a blood atonement, must conform to the biblical guidelines set down in Leviticus 17:11: (a) Bloodshed (by means of shechitah--Deuteronomy 12:21), (b) Given solely to the Jewish people, (c) Blood sprinkled upon the Temple altar.

Jesus' humanity, the physical state of his body, and the manner of his death (crucifixion) do not satisfy any blood atonement provisions found in the Hebrew Scriptures.


Content Copyright Gerald Sigal, 1999-2003

Not only does this article not say what you say it says but it clearly shows that it is refuting the Human sacrifice of Jesus by the querstion imposed. The article is talking about what is required for sacrifice and not that blood sacrifices are needed.. Moreover It is safe to say your claim about this article is false...



According to the JewsforJudaism website that is only good for Gentiles. I'm guesing that they are Ultraorthodox Jews--hard core Jews. I only consider them to be the closed to the teachings of the Torah.

again your inaccuracies show. as this article is not about sacrifices itself but whether or not this portion is a messianic prophecy and whether jesus was a "sacrfice" or not....




Ruth was a Gentile. Also, if he was a descendant of Shem, then he was a Semite.


Yet only the descendants of Avraham were placed under the covenant which is the covenant of the Jews. Ruth was allowed into the congregation on the grounds that she accepted the covenant of Avraham as a sort of conversion into the faith. Therefore she became a Jew by choice..

Mechi-Tzadek no matter how you try to place him as a Semite was not under the covenant of the Jews, therefore he was still a gentile and not a Jew.


I agree, and this proves my point, unless we are reconciled to God then we will not be saved. When someone reconciles thier checkbook with their bank account they account for the difference. This is true with God. Unless we become Holy has He is Holy, we are damned. He does not tolerate sin. This is the desperation that Isaiah speaks of here, and the desperation that I felt when first saw The Light (John 3.18-21).


Here is what I said
As for your citations of Isaiah 6:5 see Isaiah said he was doomed becasue he got a glimpse of G-d and as per Exodus 33:20 no one can see G-d's Face and live...as the context earlier suggests. A note on the "Impure lips" This language when compared to verse 7 suggests that he is not talking about his Lips but about his soul and the iniquity attached to it.

This not only does not prove your point but rather it refutes your first and second point.. First off, Isaiah was already with Iniquity when G-d appeared to him, this is saying you do not have to be as Holy as He(G-d) is to be near G-d. Second of all, it says G-d forgave him for his by the angel symbolically touching his lips with a peice of coal...This not only says you dont need Jesus to atone but it also says you dont need a sacrifice to be forgiven for your sins as in no point was a sacrifice even offered....By this Your point is made pointless yet again....


Same argument here. It is my contention that you can't be forgiven without the the shedding of blood.

again your point is made pointless see above...




EDIT: I may be misreading the Jews4Judaism website, I'm really sleepy :clueless:


and you are right see above...

[theseed]

actually this quote means nothing to me as it is not scriptural

It means that you don't know what you are talking about when and that you presume to speak for me.




This verse(leviticus 17:11) does not stand alone. The meaning changes as you drag it out of context just as christians do... You say it refers to the only way to atone for your sins is to shed blood...I showed other instance s in the Torah where flour could be offered and money could be offered and you brushed them away.....Also witht he context of the other verses we see that it is in fact a prohibition of eating blood and this verse tells you why it is prohibited from eating it, That the blood(of animals) is used for sin offerings so you shouldnt eat it... See how much context and other instances in the Torah kills the christian claim of this verse.


Again, the conext proves my point.



Mechi-Tzadek no matter how you try to place him as a Semite was not under the covenant of the Jews, therefore he was still a gentile and not a Jew.

Didn't Abraham give him tithes? Why would he do that to a Gentile?



This not only does not prove your point but rather it refutes your first and second point.. First off, Isaiah was already with Iniquity when G-d appeared to him, this is saying you do not have to be as Holy as He(G-d) is to be near G-d. Second of all, it says G-d forgave him for his by the angel symbolically touching his lips with a peice of coal...This not only says you dont need Jesus to atone but it also says you dont need a sacrifice to be forgiven for your sins as in no point was a sacrifice even offered....By this Your point is made pointless yet again....

Actually it does not. You are making fake arguments, and then refuting them. You are putting words in my mouth. I have only been trying to show you that you have a sin problem. Your assuming because I'm Christian I'm trying to prove Christianity. This is not the case, I am trying to disprove Judiasm as you know it.

[Menachem]

It means that you don't know what you are talking about when and that you presume to speak for me.

Actually it means that the Tanakh and the GNT are contradictiory and you have no Idea how to read the Tanakh.




Again, the conext proves my point.

LoL...The context just showed you it is a prohibition against eating blood and you still say it works for you....so here is a an obviously false statement.



Didn't Abraham give him tithes? Why would he do that to a Gentile?

In payment for his services in a war. Read:

Genesis 14:17. And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Kedorlaomer, and of the kings who were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s valley.
18. And Melchizedek king of Shalem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God.
19. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth;
20. And blessed be God the Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he gave him a tenth of all.
21. And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.
22. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand to the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
23. That I will not take from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take any thing that is yours, lest you should say, I have made Abram rich;
24. Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre; let them take their share.

The king of Sodom came to Avraham after the slaughter of Kedorlaomer to which Melchi-Tzadek was already there and Avraham thanked them repectively by giving Melchi-Tzadek who was a stronger ally a tenth of everything for his services. This stance is further enumertated in in verses 21-24 as now Avraham is paying the King of Sodom for his services as well...



Actually it does not. You are making fake arguments, and then refuting them. You are putting words in my mouth. I have only been trying to show you that you have a sin problem. Your assuming because I'm Christian I'm trying to prove Christianity. This is not the case, I am trying to disprove Judiasm as you know it.


Then show me where in that verse the word "sacrifice" appears and I will believe your claim...otherwise you have shown that a sacrifice is not needed to atone for sins...Also our previous argument says sacrifice is needed but on this one you said:


unless we are reconciled to God then we will not be saved. When someone reconciles thier checkbook with their bank account they account for the difference. This is true with God. Post 187.

compared to before where you said:
atonement is ultimately based on blood sacrifice. Post 187.

Which one is it? Blood sacrifice or reconciliation?

Isaiah 6:5 shows you dont need sacrifice to atone for sins as sacrifice is not even implied nor mentioned in this verse. which complys with my view all along...


"I am making fake arguments"...LOL.. neither have you shown that nor have you represented your case adequately to prove this assessment. Now you are not only desperate to get someone on your side You have no argument against this assessment

Lets take this for a second and see how logic pans out: "Your assuming because I'm Christian I'm trying to prove Christianity. This is not the case, I am trying to disprove Judiasm as you know it."

You are trying to disprove Judaism as I know it. You are arguing sin from a christian Point of view. You are trying to prove jesus from a christian point of view. Example:

1 Corinthians 2....Christian scripture, Christian argument, Interpretation of Genesis 3:15 as messianic and referring to jesus, Chistian spin, Christian argument, Hebrews 5 and Hebrews 7, christian scripture, christian argument. Seems to me this is another false statement and you are actually trying to prove christianity over Judaism and you have failed every time doing so.

[theseed]

Actually it means that the Tanakh and the GNT are contradictiory and you have no Idea how to read the Tanakh.
Or maybe you have no idea how to read the New Testament? Who told you they were contradictory? Your Jewish family? Jewish Friends? Jewish Teachers? Some Torah obersvant and understanding Jews have come to see Yeshua ben Miriam has HaMoshiak?


The king of Sodom came to Avraham after the slaughter of Kedorlaomer to which Melchi-Tzadek was already there and Avraham thanked them repectively by giving Melchi-Tzadek who was a stronger ally a tenth of everything for his services. This stance is further enumertated in in verses 21-24 as now Avraham is paying the King of Sodom for his services as well...
Uh-hum, look at verse 18, he is a priest of THE MOST HIGH GOD. Case closed.


Which one is it? Blood sacrifice or reconciliation?
Blood sacrifice is used for reconcilation.


Isaiah 6:5 shows you dont need sacrifice to atone for sins as sacrifice is not even implied nor mentioned in this verse. which complys with my view all along...

Lev. 17.11 does. Why should we not eat animal blood? Because it is used for sacrifice, it is the blood that makes atonment for your souls.

If the Lev. 16 sacrific is not The Day of Atonement then why does it only happen once a year? Show me a source Jewish or not that The Day of Atonement has nothing to do with blood sacrifice or Lev. 16.

[Pitiricus]

Or maybe you have no idea how to read the New Testament? Who told you they were contradictory? Your Jewish family? Jewish Friends? Jewish Teachers? Some Torah obersvant and understanding Jews have come to see Yeshua ben Miriam has HaMoshiak?

Uh-hum, look at verse 18, he is a priest of THE MOST HIGH GOD. Case closed.

Blood sacrifice is used for reconcilation.

Lev. 17.11 does. Why should we not eat animal blood? Because it is used for sacrifice, it is the blood that makes atonment for your souls.

If the Lev. 16 sacrific is not The Day of Atonement then why does it only happen once a year? Show me a source Jewish or not that The Day of Atonement has nothing to do with blood sacrifice or Lev. 16.
If a Jew believes Jesus was the messiah, he ceases to be a Jew, as simple as that...

Jesus, a mamzer (tribeless) couldn't be the high Priest at all.

And human sacrifices are forbidden by the Torah.

You cannot eat blood because it is believed to be the essence of life... Again very simple!

The day of atonement has nothing to do with blood... Also very simple... It has to do with personal atonement, not some blood sacrifice.

[learning]

Well, the first Christians were Jewish, and there are many I know that claim that believing in Jesus has made them a more fulfilled Jewish person.

However, if that is what you believe, that is what you believe. But I and others tend to believe that G-d kept the children of Abraham as special tribes to prepare a special race of people for HIMSELF to be able to come down and be one of them, to show us the way He wanted us to live.

If it is God HIMSELF giving the sacrifice, then HE would approve it.

as for the 'day of atonement' I thought that there were sacrifices at that time in the Old Testament. I know they are not allowed today, with no temple, but I thought that was part of the 'day of atonement.'

[Pitiricus]

Well, the first Christians were Jewish, and there are many I know that claim that believing in Jesus has made them a more fulfilled Jewish person.

However, if that is what you believe, that is what you believe. But I and others tend to believe that G-d kept the children of Abraham as special tribes to prepare a special race of people for HIMSELF to be able to come down and be one of them, to show us the way He wanted us to live.

If it is God HIMSELF giving the sacrifice, then HE would approve it.

as for the 'day of atonement' I thought that there were sacrifices at that time in the Old Testament. I know they are not allowed today, with no temple, but I thought that was part of the 'day of atonement.'
The Jesus cult within Judaism disappeared very rapidly... But when ideas like a triune God and a sem-God were introduced, Christianity became for Judaism avaoda zara, idolatry.

You can believe whatever you want, it won't change the fact that Christianity is in the eyes of Jews a return to Pagan beliefs.

This was for instance the Rambam's view!

[theseed]

The day of atonement has nothing to do with blood... Also very simple... It has to do with personal atonement, not some blood sacrifice.
Really, you would have me believe that The Day of Atonement has nothing to do with a scape goat?



If a Jew believes Jesus was the messiah, he ceases to be a Jew, as simple as that...

How so?

And human sacrifices are forbidden by the Torah.

But God is above The Law. The Law is for humans, specifically Jews. We can not kill, but God can strike anyone dead and be guiltless because whatever he does is rightous.

You cannot eat blood because it is believed to be the essence of life... Again very simple
Amen :amen:

[Menachem]

Or maybe you have no idea how to read the New Testament? Who told you they were contradictory? Your Jewish family? Jewish Friends? Jewish Teachers? Some Torah obersvant and understanding Jews have come to see Yeshua ben Miriam has HaMoshiak?

Theseed i have read the GNT many times and the whole story is of contradictory nature tot he Tanakh....You claim Human sacrifice, Torah forbids it(deuteronomy 12:31), You claim jesus as messiah yet he has no viable Geneology per Numbers 1:18 to have a line to King David. some ocntradictions in itself jesus said " Think not I have come to destroy the law or prophets but to fulfill", then the writer of Hebrews says "The Old Law decayeth and waxeth away"....

So yes I see the contradicitons very well...No one told me they were contradictiory that part is blatently obvious...

"Or maybe you have no idea how to read the New Testament?" Thats funny coming form someone telling ym i dont know how to read Tanakh either....

"Some torah observant and understanding Jews have come to see"...LOL...This claim has very little weight as the Jews for jesus use this tactic, Missionaries use this tactic to solicit unobservant Jews into christainity...LOL



Uh-hum, look at verse 18, he is a priest of THE MOST HIGH GOD. Case closed.

Uh---case reopened...see Noah ,who as a gentile like melchi-Tzadek, was of G-d see chapter 8 and 9... The why dont you check chapter 17 and the covenant which melchi-Tzadek was not part of.....Melchi-Tzadek...Gentile covenant.....Avraham....Jewish covenant of which an Eternal priesthood was established....

Exodus 40:15. And you shall anoint them, as you did anoint their father, that they may minister to me in the priest’s office; for their anointing shall surely be an eternal priesthood throughout their generations.

So the question: Does the "order of Mechi-Tzadek" replace the Levitical priesthood? The answer is NO because the Levitical priesthood is eternal....




Blood sacrifice is used for reconcilation.

Not according to Isaiah 6:5



Lev. 17.11 does. Why should we not eat animal blood? Because it is used for sacrifice, it is the blood that makes atonment for your souls.

Why should we not eat blood...because it is what gives life to us all.....


If the Lev. 16 sacrific is not The Day of Atonement then why does it only happen once a year? Show me a source Jewish or not that The Day of Atonement has nothing to do with blood sacrifice or Lev. 16.

Berachot 31a

I might say that a man should pray the whole day? It has already been expressly stated by the hand of Daniel, And three times. etc. But perhaps [this practice] began only when he went into captivity? It is already said, As he did aforetime. I might say that a man may pray turning in any direction he wishes? Therefore the text states, Toward Jerusalem. I might say that he may combine all three Tefillahs in one? It has already been clearly stated by David, as is written, Evening and morning and at noonday. I might say that he should let his voice be heard in praying? It has already been clearly stated by Hannah, as is said, But her voice could not be heard. I might say that a man should first ask for his own requirements and then say the Tefillah? It has been clearly stated by Solomon, as is said, To hearken unto the cry and to the prayer: ‘cry’ here means Tefillah. ‘prayer’ means [private] request. A [private] request is not made after ‘True and firm’, but after the Tefillah, even the order of confession of the Day of Atonement may be said. It has also been stated: R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: Although it was laid down that a man asks for his requirements in ‘that hearkenest unto prayer’, if he wants to say something after his prayer, even something like the order of confession on the Day of Atonement, he may do so.

[theseed]

Theseed i have read the GNT many times
So you can read Greek?


You claim jesus as messiah yet he has no viable Geneology per Numbers 1:18 to have a line to King David
Numbers 1
18 and they assembled all the congregation together on the (1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Num.+1.18&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=10&y=8#crossref_533091100_1)) first of the second month. Then they registered by (2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Num.+1.18&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=10&y=8#crossref_533091100_2)) ancestry in their families, by their fathers' households, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, head by head,


How does Number's 1.18 show that he has no viable geneology? Are you saying that because Jesus is the Mary's son only? Doesn't Judaism now trace thier lineage through the mother? If so then no Jew has a viable geneology. That would mean that no Jew can really be proven to be a Jew. Unless they can tace thier lineage back to Israel. Can you tace your ancestry and name every generation all the way back to Adam? If not, then you can't trace your ancestry to Israel (Jacob).


Or maybe you have no idea how to read the New Testament?" Thats funny coming form someone telling ym i dont know how to read Tanakh either
Yes, it is absurd that's why it would have been better that you not used that argument against me in the first place.


Some torah observant and understanding Jews have come to see"...LOL...This claim has very little weight as the Jews for jesus use this tactic, Missionaries use this tactic to solicit unobservant Jews into christainity...LOL
First let me say that God scoffs hat the scoffers, but gives grace to the humble (Prov. 3.34).

Also, I said nothing about J4J. Do you really beleive that they are the only Jewish Christians?


Uh---case reopened...see Noah ,who as a gentile like melchi-Tzadek, was of G-d see chapter 8 and 9... The why dont you check chapter 17 and the covenant which melchi-Tzadek was not part of.....Melchi-Tzadek...Gentile covenant.....Avraham....Jewish covenant of which an Eternal priesthood was established....
So Mekelchidek was a Gentile priest of the Most High God? And you believe that Aaron's preisthood is forever?

How can that be so since thier is no priesthood or Temple right now?
According to Exodus 40:15, the priest is a priest forever because he is annointed .

Exodus 40 (NASB)
15 and you shall anoint them even as you have anointed their father, that they may minister as priests to Me; and their anointing will qualify them for a (1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Exodus+40.15&NASB_version=yes&language=english#crossref_917246588_1)) perpetual priesthood throughout their generations."

The same is true in Exodus 29.9, Aaron and his sons have the priesthood by perpetual statue. That means that they are preist has long as they live. No other Israelite tribe could take it from them.

The same is true in Numbers 25.13, Phineas is made a priest, and no one can take that away from him.


Not according to Isaiah 6:5
The coal and the alter make this picture symbolic of The Temple, which as a blood sacrifices. Note that it is God that takes the intiative in cleansing sin.


Why should we not eat blood...because it is what gives life to us all.....

I don't think you realize what you are saying. To be cleansed from sin brings eternal life. Adam and Eve died because of thier sin, and we all die because of thier sin.

Likewise, the Israelites were taken away because of thier sin, but if they repented God saved them from thier sin--they were delivered--and they continued to live. Granted the paralles are not exactly the same as with Christian salvation, but there are some similarities nevertheless.


Berachot 31a
Could you elaborate on this? Who wrote it? What is it from? What year was it written?

It does not seem to deny that there is supposed to be a blood atonement on The Day of Atonement.

[theseed]

Think not I have come to destroy the law or prophets but to fulfill", then the writer of Hebrews says "The Old Law decayeth and waxeth away".... Actually, it says that the Old Coveant waxes old, and will soon vanish away (See Hebrews 8). Why? Because of Jeremiah 31.31-34 and Ezek. 36.25-28. This is a reference to the New Covenant with Israel--which will not take effect until the second advent (comming) of The Messiah.

[Menachem]

So you can read Greek?

I never said that..... I was calling the christian bible the GNT Because it was written in Greek



Numbers 1
18 and they assembled all the congregation together on the (1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Num.+1.18&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=10&y=8#crossref_533091100_1)) first of the second month. Then they registered by (2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Num.+1.18&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=10&y=8#crossref_533091100_2)) ancestry in their families, by their fathers' households, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, head by head,


How does Number's 1.18 show that he has no viable geneology? Are you saying that because Jesus is the Mary's son only? Doesn't Judaism now trace thier lineage through the mother? If so then no Jew has a viable geneology. That would mean that no Jew can really be proven to be a Jew. Unless they can tace thier lineage back to Israel. Can you tace your ancestry and name every generation all the way back to Adam? If not, then you can't trace your ancestry to Israel (Jacob).

Numbers 1:18 says lineage is Patrilineal(according to the house of their Father's) not Matrilineal...If you have no biological Father at all then you have no lineage to declare....That is why Jesus has no line he has no biological father to declare it to....adoption doesn't work as the child would still have the line of his biological father as his line....Lineage doesn't transfer over either....

As for Jews tracing their lineage through the mother today...The answer is No...Jewishness is traced by one's biological mother but the tribal lineage and pedigrees are all by ones Biological father...

There are many Jews today who can trace their line to the tribe of Judah, levi, Dan and some others....and quite a few Jews in Israel who can trace their line to King David...My Lineage was traced to the second century CE so far. They came to a halt over some confusing reports on some of my ancestors.... But the matter of fact is that, so far, almost all are members of the tribe of Judah a few were converts and stuff like that...

A Jew doesnt have to trace his line back to Adam to be a member of Israel...Israel is not just a physical being it is also a spiritual one that exists in the heart of every Jew. Plus since everyone is related to Adam and Eve we dont have to trace it to them since that one is given..




Yes, it is absurd that's why it would have been better that you not used that argument against me in the first place.

apparently it was true anyway...



First let me say that God scoffs hat the scoffers, but gives grace to the humble (Prov. 3.34).

Also, I said nothing about J4J. Do you really beleive that they are the only Jewish Christians?


first let me say that I know that you didnt mention J4J.....I didnt to show you that that is the very same tactic used by every Missionary and even regular christians to try and win a Jewish convert to christianity..... It Helps if you actually pay attention...

Proverbs 3:34 אם-ללצים הוא-יליץ ולענוים יתן-חן

Proverbs 3:34 If [one is drawn] to the scoffers, he will scoff; but [if one is drawn] to the humble, he will find favor.

This talking about a person with a specific crowd the person scoffs when he is with people who scoff...


So Mekelchidek was a Gentile priest of the Most High God? And you believe that Aaron's preisthood is forever?

There is such thing called a Noachide...That comes form Noah who was a servant of G-d....Gentiles can be priests to G-d under the Noachide covenant just as Gentiles can be prophets under the Noachide covenant for example Ballam(Numbers chapter 22) but they cannot do these things under the jewish covenant. not the Jewish covenant...


How can that be so since thier is no priesthood or Temple right now?
According to Exodus 40:15, the priest is a priest forever because he is annointed .

apparently you have no knowledge of how Judaism works. Aharaon was not a priest becasue he was anointed the anointment was to show the favor of G-d and to show to the peopel he was a priest and the priestly class was to come from his line...Aharon was a priest designated by G-d...

Secondly thePreists cannot perform theri function without the Temple. That doesnt mean they dont exist....Ask anyone with the last name Kohen, or Cohen, or Kahn...etc.


Exodus 40 (NASB)
15 and you shall anoint them even as you have anointed their father, that they may minister as priests to Me; and their anointing will qualify them for a (1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Exodus+40.15&NASB_version=yes&language=english#crossref_917246588_1)) perpetual priesthood throughout their generations."

The same is true in Exodus 29.9, Aaron and his sons have the priesthood by perpetual statue. That means that they are preist has long as they live. No other Israelite tribe could take it from them.

The same is true in Numbers 25.13, Phineas is made a priest, and no one can take that away from him.


the onyl problem with your assesment of the priesthood here si that you forget that it is inherited...

Numbers 25:13. And he shall have it, and his offspring after him, the covenant of an eternal priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the people of Israel.

This is only one such place this is said here is another:

Exodus 40:15. And you shall anoint them, as you did anoint their father, that they may minister to me in the priest’s office; for their anointing shall surely be an eternal priesthood throughout their generations.




The coal and the alter make this picture symbolic of The Temple, which as a blood sacrifices. Note that it is God that takes the intiative in cleansing sin.

LoL...Watch his squirm to try and get around it....No matter.
The word "Sacrifice" is never mentioned...Not once....and you still try and place it there which is quite impossible....Symbolic this, Symbolic that.... The fact of the matter is you messed up quoting this one because it shows quite clearly that one does not need to sacrifice an animal to be cleansed by G-d.



I don't think you realize what you are saying. To be cleansed from sin brings eternal life. Adam and Eve died because of thier sin, and we all die because of thier sin.

Likewise, the Israelites were taken away because of thier sin, but if they repented God saved them from thier sin--they were delivered--and they continued to live. Granted the paralles are not exactly the same as with Christian salvation, but there are some similarities nevertheless.

LoL you are trying to argue christain definitions with a Jew...LoL.....To be cleansed of sin does not mean that we are going to live forever...It means that we, as mortals, will die and we go up to our G-d and be welcomed into heaven, without a 24 hour waiting period before we enter to be purified(this is not to be taken literally).



Could you elaborate on this? Who wrote it? What is it from? What year was it written?

this can be found in the Talmud...and its origins are from Mt. Sinai....


It does not seem to deny that there is supposed to be a blood atonement on The Day of Atonement.

It never said there wasnt a sacrifice on this day what it is saying however that prayer is the best alternative to sacrifices see Hoshea 14:3:

Hoshea 14:3[2] Take with you words, and turn to the Lord; say to him: Forgive all iniquity, and receive us graciously; so will we offer the words of our lips instead of calves.

[Menachem]

Actually, it says that the Old Coveant waxes old, and will soon vanish away (See Hebrews 8). Why? Because of Jeremiah 31.31-34 and Ezek. 36.25-28. This is a reference to the New Covenant with Israel--which will not take effect until the second advent (comming) of The Messiah.


lol...neither Jeremiah 31:31-34 nor Ezekiel 36:25-28 say anything about being part of the "messiah's return " they could part of the messiah's only coming be but that is by speculation only....secondly Jeremiah never says the Sinai covenant is done away with. In fact the Word "Torati" תורתי is used saying "My Torah" in Hebrew..

What is this saying the Torah is the new covenant, the only thing different is that it will be in our Hearts and not our mouths(Exodus 13:9)....and that we will not have to teach our fellow man about G-d it will be universal....Which none of this has been done yet at all...

[theseed]

What is this saying the Torah is the new covenant, the only thing different is that it will be in our Hearts and not our mouths(Exodus 13:9)....and that we will not have to teach our fellow man about G-d it will be universal....Which none of this has been done yet at all...
Correct, it will be done when Jesus comes back. The Law will be written on the hearts of mmen.


I never said that..... I was calling the christian bible the GNT Because it was written in Greek
Then you should not say you read the GNT if you did not read the NT in Greek. There is an aramaic NT.


As for Jews tracing their lineage through the mother today...The answer is No...Jewishness is traced by one's biological mother but the tribal lineage and pedigrees are all by ones Biological father...
Where is this in the Law of Moses?


A Jew doesnt have to trace his line back to Adam to be a member of Israel...Israel is not just a physical being it is also a spiritual one that exists in the heart of every Jew. Plus since everyone is related to Adam and Eve we dont have to trace it to them since that one is given..
Israel was a person. If you can trace your line to King David, then you can trace your line to Israel and Adam.



This talking about a person with a specific crowd the person scoffs when he is with people who scoff...The Jewish Publication Society disagrees with you.

לג מְאֵרַת יְהוָה, בְּבֵית רָשָׁע; וּנְוֵה צַדִּיקִים יְבָרֵךְ. 33 The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked; but He blesseth the habitation of the righteous.
לד אִם-לַלֵּצִים הוּא-יָלִיץ; ולעניים (וְלַעֲנָוִים), יִתֶּן-חֵן. 34 If it concerneth the scorners, He scorneth them, but unto the humble He giveth grace.



http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2803.htm

LoL...Watch his squirm to try and get around it....No matter.
The word "Sacrifice" is never mentioned...Not once....and you still try and place it there which is quite impossible....Symbolic this, Symbolic that.... The fact of the matter is you messed up quoting this one because it shows quite clearly that one does not need to sacrifice an animal to be cleansed by G-d.

Actually, I don't need to squirm out of this. I am interpreting against the Law of Moses. You must interpret the prophets in light of The Law. Are you trying to do away with The Law of Moses? The Law supercedes the prophets.



LoL you are trying to argue christain definitions with a Jew...LoL.....To be cleansed of sin does not mean that we are going to live forever...It means that we, as mortals, will die and we go up to our G-d and be welcomed into heaven, without a 24 hour waiting period before we enter to be purified(this is not to be taken literally).

What do you mean it will not be taken literally? Just as someone dies physically, so they die spiritually, unless God circumsizes their heart and renews a right spirit within them.

This is how God saves people from thier sin. It is true that we die physically, but unless we are cleansed from our sin, then we go to hell. That was the curse of man, they must died because of Adam and Eve's sin.

In regards to Hosea 14.2, I say the same thing I said before. Our lips are not good enough and The Law in Leviticus 16 is forever. And that means we are going in circles.

God gives grace to the humble (Prov. 3.33-34).

[Biblical]

Numbers 1:18 says lineage is Patrilineal(according to the house of their Father's) not Matrilineal...If you have no biological Father at all then you have no lineage to declare....That is why Jesus has no line he has no biological father to declare it to....adoption doesn't work as the child would still have the line of his biological father as his line....Lineage doesn't transfer over either....

As for Jews tracing their lineage through the mother today...The answer is No...Jewishness is traced by one's biological mother but the tribal lineage and pedigrees are all by ones Biological father...

There are many Jews today who can trace their line to the tribe of Judah, levi, Dan and some others....and quite a few Jews in Israel who can trace their line to King David...My Lineage was traced to the second century CE so far. They came to a halt over some confusing reports on some of my ancestors.... But the matter of fact is that, so far, almost all are members of the tribe of Judah a few were converts and stuff like that...

A Jew doesnt have to trace his line back to Adam to be a member of Israel...Israel is not just a physical being it is also a spiritual one that exists in the heart of every Jew. Plus since everyone is related to Adam and Eve we dont have to trace it to them since that one is given..
++++ Actually - Numbers 36 shows us something interseting Eli - inheritance can come through the woman if no brothers are able/willing to go into their brother's wife, however they have to marry into their tribe. - this is the reason in the gospels we are given two accounts of Yeshua's geneology - one to show Yeshua by passed the curse of zerubbabel (i think thats how to spell it) therefore being eligible to be king and the other to show that Mary and Joseph were of the same tribe - thereby being able to marry and pass the inheritance onto Yeshua via Mary's inheritance - all in accordance with Torah.

So you have misunderstood the reason for the two accounts in the gospels. This is why (although you probably disagree) that Yeshua was born of a virgin birth b/c Joseph's line had the curse of Zerubbabel in it. The point was not to show adoption. You have not approached it with the right mind, because if you did, G-d would have opened up your eyes to the elements of Torah in it. you have only gone by what rabbis before have said.

EXTRA (in case you are thinking it) - G-d never says the mashiach was to be coming through solomon, this is why we see Yeshua being a son of David via nathan (solomons brother).





Secondly thePreists cannot perform theri function without the Temple. That doesnt mean they dont exist....Ask anyone with the last name Kohen, or Cohen, or Kahn...etc.well not true - please try to read the Torah properly and not go by what man has said. Priests were performing much at the Tabernacle werent they? No Temple in sight!

see there is a Tabernacle in heaven - we know this b/c Moshe made the Tabernacle after the pattern which he saw in heaven. Therefore, wouldnt it be safe to assume Yeshua is in the heavenly Tabernacle? After all, the new testament says this - KJV

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Heb 8:1....the lsit goes on. Funnily, you cant say this is not possible, b/c as i have shown you there is a Tabernacle in heaven.

You should look up what the Talmud says about Yeshua - might be surprised.

speaking of the Talmud....



this can be found in the Talmud...and its origins are from Mt. Sinai....
While i do not doubt that many rabbis knew G-d intimately, i do not believe this statement.

First, Torah says - KJV

Ex 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Second - this is a good one - scripture says... KJV

2 Kings 23:21And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant. 22 Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; 23 But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, wherein this passover was holden to the LORD in Jerusalem.

....now think about it...if there was such a thing as Talmud/Oral law from Moshe...Chinese whispers must have been going on b/c they didnt even keep Passover before Josiah found the Torah!!! i mean you think they would have knwown that Moshe told them to keep Passover! think about it...you really want to put your trust in Talmud! great study tool, but not G-d's word my friend. Besides...what does the L-rd say to trust in?

I do have sympathy for your position though, i understand your points, Many aspects of Christianity are not G-d ordained, they have been anit-semetic and not loved the apple of G-d's eye, Israel.

i leave you with one final quesiton and thought as i have shul in the morning.

Proverbs 30:4 - JPS

4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in his garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou knowest? 5 Every word of G-d is tried; He is a shield unto them that take refuge in Him. 6 Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

do you know?

Baruch HaShem! SHEMA!!!!!!!!!!

[Menachem]

Correct, it will be done when Jesus comes back. The Law will be written on the hearts of mmen.

actually there is no second coming of The messiah anywhere in the Tanakh so you will be hard pressed to prove that one...



Then you should not say you read the GNT if you did not read the NT in Greek. There is an aramaic NT.

Then I guess you should not have quoted the Tanakh in Hebrew since you dont read Hebrew. The GNT is what I Call it, not becasue I read Greek...



Where is this in the Law of Moses?


Its roots are in the books of Ezra when he makes the non Jewish mothers and their children leave so that the men can marry Jewish wives and have Jewish children and it is all explained in the Oral Torah



Israel was a person. If you can trace your line to King David, then you can trace your line to Israel and Adam.

not exactly Rocket science is it...



The Jewish Publication Society disagrees with you.

לג מְאֵרַת יְהוָה, בְּבֵית רָשָׁע; וּנְוֵה צַדִּיקִים יְבָרֵךְ. 33 The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked; but He blesseth the habitation of the righteous.
לד אִם-לַלֵּצִים הוּא-יָלִיץ; ולעניים (וְלַעֲנָוִים), יִתֶּן-חֵן. 34 If it concerneth the scorners, He scorneth them, but unto the humble He giveth grace.


http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2803.htm

The Jewish publication society is not always accurate in their Hebrew rendering either.... Do you even know what the Hebrew words are that are written here....PLus why did you use the JPS 1917 translation the 1999 version is much better but still has inaccuracies...





Actually, I don't need to squirm out of this. I am interpreting against the Law of Moses. You must interpret the prophets in light of The Law. Are you trying to do away with The Law of Moses? The Law supercedes the prophets.

LoL...still squirming....The prophets interpreted the Torah in case you havent noticed and gave Fresh messages from G-d so that we may better understand the Torah...

The Temple is destroyed and sacrifices cannot be offered because No standing Temple = No sacrifices offeres. The Prophet Hoshea comes with a message from G-d saying "To offer the fruits of our lips rather than bulls or claves." this really isnt rocket science..... Prayer is the alternative to sacrifices when there is no Temple....the same thing I have been saying all along....




What do you mean it will not be taken literally? Just as someone dies physically, so they die spiritually, unless God circumsizes their heart and renews a right spirit within them.

Ecclesiastes disagrees with that assertion: Ecclesiastes 12:7


This is how God saves people from thier sin. It is true that we die physically, but unless we are cleansed from our sin, then we go to hell. That was the curse of man, they must died because of Adam and Eve's sin.

Judaism does not have the concept of original sin...That is a christian concept according to Judaism what Adam and eve did was not a bad thing it was rather good for humanity. Think about it if we all lived in paradise and dressed the same, thought the same, and played the same how boring this life would be....


In regards to Hosea 14.2, I say the same thing I said before. Our lips are not good enough and The Law in Leviticus 16 is forever. And that means we are going in circles.

God gives grace to the humble (Prov. 3.33-34).

Who is arguing in circles...you say Hoshea 14:2 isnt enough yet you cant find a single verse in the tanakh that supports that claim..... not only does that not make sense it is not supported in the Tanakh


AS for my version which actually makes more sense that what your saying is:

"Sacrifices are offered only in the Temple. When the temple is destroyed sacrifices can't be offered, because the temple is the only place they can be offered. The prophet Hoshea says to 'offer the fruits of our lips in substitute for bulls.' How do we apply this to yom kippur which sacrifice was required and the Temple is not standing? Easy, we offer the fruits of our lips instead of sacrifice just as Hoshea says......

[Menachem]

++++ Actually - Numbers 36 shows us something interseting Eli - inheritance can come through the woman if no brothers are able/willing to go into their brother's wife, however they have to marry into their tribe. - this is the reason in the gospels we are given two accounts of Yeshua's geneology - one to show Yeshua by passed the curse of zerubbabel (i think thats how to spell it) therefore being eligible to be king and the other to show that Mary and Joseph were of the same tribe - thereby being able to marry and pass the inheritance onto Yeshua via Mary's inheritance - all in accordance with Torah.

The only problem with this assertion is that the women were required to marry a member of their father's household in order to keep the property from passing out of the family(Numbers 36:3-4; Numbers 36:6)...this whole chapter is about the passing of property rights. Which is also patrilineal according to this chapter...read it more carefully.

Jesus had no line to king David yet again, your faulty assertion was shot down on Numbers 36. So jesus no matter how you twist and spin didnt have a line to king David...If Joseph was his biological Father then he is subject to the curse of King Jeconiah which to his children were unable to rule or reign on the throne of David... another faulty assertion shot down again...


So you have misunderstood the reason for the two accounts in the gospels. This is why (although you probably disagree) that Yeshua was born of a virgin birth b/c Joseph's line had the curse of Zerubbabel in it. The point was not to show adoption. You have not approached it with the right mind, because if you did, G-d would have opened up your eyes to the elements of Torah in it. you have only gone by what rabbis before have said.


LoL...no, I understand very well why there are two gospel account....one tries to make up for the shortcomings of the other....Virgin birth my rear end...there is no virgin birth story in the tanakh the Hebrew is very explicit on that count. the septuagint defeats itself also...so you can go there if you like but I wouldnt advise it...

The Torah shows that ol Yeshu is not the messiah....we can talk about that too if you like first lets begin by you trying to rectify the Human sacrifice of ol yeshu versus the Torah prohibition on human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31). Sayng he is G-d will only add on to it by you having to prove that as well in the Tanakh...



EXTRA (in case you are thinking it) - G-d never says the mashiach was to be coming through solomon, this is why we see Yeshua being a son of David via nathan (solomons brother).

actually he has to if is to be King :

1 Chronicles 17:11. And it shall come to pass, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall be among your sons; and I shal make his kingdom firm.
12. He shall build me a house ,and I will establish his throne forever.
13. I shall be a father unto him, and he shall be my son; and I will not take My loving kindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you;
14. And I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established for evermore.

1 Chronicles 28:5. And of all my sons, for the Lord has given me many sons, he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.
6. And he said to me, Solomon, your son shall build my house and my courts; for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
7. And I will establish his kingdom forever, if he is constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

So Yes according to the Tanakh he must come from Solomon no ifs, ands, or buts about it...




well not true - please try to read the Torah properly and not go by what man has said. Priests were performing much at the Tabernacle werent they? No Temple in sight!

see there is a Tabernacle in heaven - we know this b/c Moshe made the Tabernacle after the pattern which he saw in heaven. Therefore, wouldnt it be safe to assume Yeshua is in the heavenly Tabernacle? After all, the new testament says this - KJV

errrrr....Wrong.....The Tabernacle was dismantled after the building of the Temple...The Temple replaced the tabernacle as the permanant house of G-d. The tabernacle in the wildeness was temporary...I think you need to look at Torah more correctly, not I....The Torah gets you every time...

as for Yeshu being in the "heavenly tabernacle"...only a christian would try to replace sense with nonsense...the design we have for the Tabernacle is in the Oral Torah....


Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Heb 8:1....the lsit goes on. Funnily, you cant say this is not possible, b/c as i have shown you there is a Tabernacle in heaven.


actually you haven't shown much at all beyond your ability to quote the GNT...try actually finding a verse in the Tanakh or Talmud that states that and I might accept your premise....quick hint there isn't one....


You should look up what the Talmud says about Yeshua - might be surprised.

I did and your about 243 years behind jesus birth date...if you actually read about Yeshu Ha'Notzeri in the Talmud you can see that he is quite a different person...


speaking of the Talmud....

While i do not doubt that many rabbis knew G-d intimately, i do not believe this statement.

First, Torah says - KJV

Ex 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Second - this is a good one - scripture says... KJV

2 Kings 23:21And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant. 22 Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; 23 But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, wherein this passover was holden to the LORD in Jerusalem.

a proper translation is in order since these are horrible but anyway moving on...


....now think about it...if there was such a thing as Talmud/Oral law from Moshe...Chinese whispers must have been going on b/c they didnt even keep Passover before Josiah found the Torah!!! i mean you think they would have knwown that Moshe told them to keep Passover! think about it...you really want to put your trust in Talmud! great study tool, but not G-d's word my friend. Besides...what does the L-rd say to trust in?

LoL...You just misread the entire statement in 2 kings and left out the events and context.. First off this passage along with the chapter is talking about the Tribes of Israel not Judah. In the verses 19-23 the Tribes of Israel(Northern tribes) were the ones who had not celebrated passover as the chapter suggests because of Idol worship. So on the 18th year of King Josiah the passover was celebrated by all unto Hashem in Yerushalim... you really need to read more carefully...

Josiah and the kingdom of Judah did know about Passover but the Northern Tribes were in Idol worship just as the chapter suggests...

I would put my trust in the Talmud and Torah over the GNT any day.


I do have sympathy for your position though, i understand your points, Many aspects of Christianity are not G-d ordained, they have been anit-semetic and not loved the apple of G-d's eye, Israel.

Ok



i leave you with one final quesiton and thought as i have shul in the morning.

a messianic church is not a real shul


Proverbs 30:4 - JPS

4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in his garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou knowest? 5 Every word of G-d is tried; He is a shield unto them that take refuge in Him. 6 Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

and then... If you are going to use this as a proof for Jesus I got a rebuttal for it as well.


do you know?

Baruch HaShem! SHEMA!!!!!!!!!!

according to Proverbs 30:2-3 Human wisdom is so very limited...as this portion Proverbs 30:2-4 suggests. If your going to quote at least do so accurately and within context....

[Biblical]

[QUOTE=eliyosef]The only problem with this assertion is that the women were required to marry a member of their father's household in order to keep the property from passing out of the family(Numbers 36:3-4; Numbers 36:6)...this whole chapter is about the passing of property rights. Which is also patrilineal according to this chapter...read it more carefully.

Jesus had no line to king David yet again, your faulty assertion was shot down on Numbers 36. So jesus no matter how you twist and spin didnt have a line to king David...If Joseph was his biological Father then he is subject to the curse of King Jeconiah which to his children were unable to rule or reign on the throne of David... another faulty assertion shot down again...
dont have much time... num 36 shows that you had to marry wihtin tribes to pass inheritance. didnt you read it? it was so that inheritance would not pass out of the tribe. ummmmm doesnt it say that the daughters would be able to pass rights on? i mean if the duaghters have the rights passed to their son, that means Yeshua had it.

as mentioned Joseph was not the biological father.




LoL...no, I understand very well why there are two gospel account....one tries to make up for the shortcomings of the other....Virgin birth my rear end...there is no virgin birth story in the tanakh the Hebrew is very explicit on that count. the septuagint defeats itself also...so you can go there if you like but I wouldnt advise it...

The Torah shows that ol Yeshu is not the messiah....we can talk about that too if you like first lets begin by you trying to rectify the Human sacrifice of ol yeshu versus the Torah prohibition on human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31). Sayng he is G-d will only add on to it by you having to prove that as well in the Tanakh...
listen buddy, dont tell me about hebrew, what kidn of sign is there when a young lady has a child? how is a young lady having a child a sign? show me in scripture where this hebrew is used to describe someone not a virgin.

furthermore, "emmanuel", G-d with us, is more hints that G-d Himself will come down and atone for us.



actually he has to if is to be King :

1 Chronicles 17:11. And it shall come to pass, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall be among your sons; and I shal make his kingdom firm.
12. He shall build me a house ,and I will establish his throne forever.
13. I shall be a father unto him, and he shall be my son; and I will not take My loving kindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you;
14. And I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established for evermore.

1 Chronicles 28:5. And of all my sons, for the Lord has given me many sons, he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.
6. And he said to me, Solomon, your son shall build my house and my courts; for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
7. And I will establish his kingdom forever, if he is constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

So Yes according to the Tanakh he must come from Solomon no ifs, ands, or buts about it...
do yourself a favor, read it, who is talking in 1st account, who is talking in second account?

G-d is talking abotu Mashiach ben david, not Solomon. G-d says of your sons. Read up on what earlier rabbis said about this passage.

David says "IF you obey" - solomon was not faithful to the T. furthermore, Temple is not here therefore it was not talking about Solomon. Yeshua's has set up his home in us (beleivers only), living in us as the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) - it will be forever. our bodies are the living temple. and no i dont believe in the trinity.

not saying that David lied, G-d probably did tell him Solomon was going to build him a temmple.





errrrr....Wrong.....The Tabernacle was dismantled after the building of the Temple...The Temple replaced the tabernacle as the permanant house of G-d. The tabernacle in the wildeness was temporary...I think you need to look at Torah more correctly, not I....The Torah gets you every time...
open your eyes, please i beg you, believe G-d, i truly dont want to fight and argue pointlessly, i want you to see mashiach for who He is, not what you want Him to be.

The House was not talking 100% about the physical Temple, it is talking about the hearts of men until mashiach comes back to set up His reign where there will be peace.

Yes, G-d wanted a physical Temple to be built which is to be respected and where His Glory dwelt, but this is to be a picture of the bigger picutre. G-d is Spirit, He does not need a physical Temple to live in, His Glory is manifested in the physical Temple to show How holy He is, and how sincere a man's heart must be before G-d can dwell in it. Surely the earth is G-d's footstool, not His home.


as for Yeshu being in the "heavenly tabernacle"...only a christian would try to replace sense with nonsense...the design we have for the Tabernacle is in the Oral Torah....i have no idea what you are talkign about here. why dont you take oral torah for waht it is, mans' replacemtn of Torah! man has chagned Torah to suit their needs and made up lies and called it the oral torah, i mean you actually believe that this is handed down from moses' mouth?

one example - rosh hashannah is not the head of the year, in the Torah its Yom Teruah. why call it rosh hashanna? why say not to mix milk and meat when G-d was quite capable to say it in Torah, but did not?

JPS EX 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of HaShem, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

no such thing as oral torah from Moses, he wrote down everything G-d told him......now if you dare try to say anything different, you are blaspheming G-d's Torah! and Moshe!

at any point do you truly ask G-d to show you who He is? do you think your davening is what G-d wants? your sacrifices on Yom Kippur? He wants your heart first.

just say this prayer with a sincere heart -
HaShem, i know you are One Elohim, if am following lies, take it out, i want to knwo you" - by the way i just said the same prayer so dont think i am not walking the talk and just shoving out Christian prayers - any given prophet would have prayed this prayer.




actually you haven't shown much at all beyond your ability to quote the GNT...try actually finding a verse in the Tanakh or Talmud that states that and I might accept your premise....quick hint there isn't one....
fair enough, understand your position that its pointless to show you (Renewed Covenant) scriptures because you see no light.




I did and your about 243 years behind jesus birth date...if you actually read about Yeshu Ha'Notzeri in the Talmud you can see that he is quite a different person...
Ofcourse he would be portrayed as different, the Talmud is anti-Yeshua for the most part. could you clarify 243 years behind?




a proper translation is in order since these are horrible but anyway moving on...
JPS used above...enjoy. again, dont tell me about the hebrew translation.


[QUOTE]
LoL...You just misread the entire statement in 2 kings and left out the events and context.. First off this passage along with the chapter is talking about the Tribes of Israel not Judah. In the verses 19-23 the Tribes of Israel(Northern tribes) were the ones who had not celebrated passover as the chapter suggests because of Idol worship. So on the 18th year of King Josiah the passover was celebrated by all unto Hashem in Yerushalim... you really need to read more carefully...

Josiah and the kingdom of Judah did know about Passover but the Northern Tribes were in Idol worship just as the chapter suggests...
2 Chron 34:3For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father: and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images.

5 And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars, and cleansed Judah and Jerusalem.

21 Go, enquire of the LORD for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do after all that is written in this book.

2 chron 35:18 And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, F178 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=2ch+35&version=kjv&showtools=0#F178) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 19 In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover kept.


there is nothign i need to add, Tanak speaks for itself.

my friend if you dont see that Talmud is a figment of mans imagination then please ask G-d to open your eyes.

Evem Josiah says it, our fathers didnt do Torah.

What makes it a jewish shul? if jewish people are there? if we read and chant Torah? if we face the east? if we pray for all Israel and jews? what?! sachrit? tefilin? which of these dont we do? and what do you do different! my friend, there are orthadox of orthadox who believe in Yeshua, because they know their shepards voice.





according to Proverbs 30:2-3 Human wisdom is so very limited...as this portion Proverbs 30:2-4 suggests. If your going to quote at least do so accurately and within context
didnt i quote in context? JPS proverbs 30

The words of Agur the son of Jakeh; the burden. The man saith unto Ithiel, unto Ithiel and Ucal: Surely I am brutish, unlike a man, and have not the understanding of a man; And I have not learned wisdom, that I should have the knowledge of the Holy One. Who hath ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in his garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou knowest? Every word of G-d is tried; He is a shield unto them that take refuge in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Two things have I asked of Thee; deny me them not before I die: Remove far from me falsehood and lies; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with mine allotted bread;

wasnt this just what i asked you to pray for?

please, ask G-d to show you who mashiach is.

what are you? orthadox etc...? rabbi, gabbi, just a shul member?

[theseed]

fair enough, understand your position that its pointless to show you (Renewed Covenant) scriptures because you see no light.That is what I told Eliyosef earlier on. "Light shines in darkness and darkness understands it not" (John 1.5). But Yeshua HaMoshiak is the light that enligtens men (1 John 1.9)

Anyways, biblical is doing a much better job than I have been, so I retire from this debate indefinitely.

[theseed]

The Jewish publication society is not always accurate in their Hebrew rendering either.... Do you even know what the Hebrew words are that are written here....PLus why did you use the JPS 1917 translation the 1999 version is much better but still has inaccuracies...
So you believe that the Hebrew word for LORD (Adonai?) is not in Proverbs 3.33? You deny that God gives grace to the humble and resist the proud? This show me that Jews will go to extreme lengths to disprove the New Testament--even at the expense of intellectual dishonest. They do mental contortions and gymnastics if necessary to disprove Christanity. That is what Judaism is now, whatever Chrstianity is not.

[Menachem]

dont have much time... num 36 shows that you had to marry wihtin tribes to pass inheritance. didnt you read it? it was so that inheritance would not pass out of the tribe. ummmmm doesnt it say that the daughters would be able to pass rights on? i mean if the duaghters have the rights passed to their son, that means Yeshua had it.

This isnt about tribal lineage passing its about land and property passing Check Numbers 26:53-56


as mentioned Joseph was not the biological father.

thank you...this is where he gets disqualified...



listen buddy, dont tell me about hebrew, what kidn of sign is there when a young lady has a child? how is a young lady having a child a sign? show me in scripture where this hebrew is used to describe someone not a virgin.

Ok then you must agree there is no virgin birth story in the tanakh...so where is that coming from...definately not Judaism....so that Idea is alien lets see what elses is as well....


furthermore, "emmanuel", G-d with us, is more hints that G-d Himself will come down and atone for us.

the only problem with that is this child Emmanuel shows up alive and well in chapter 8:5...

Just because a name means that doesnt mean that it literally is going to be...Sheesh my name Yosef means "G-d shall add" tell me is this literal??? If so what is he adding??? plus how many times was jesus ever called Immanuel anyway??? In fact during his entire life according to the GNT he was never called that he was called either jesus or yeshu....the only time hey mention Immanuel is when they say he supposedly fulfilled a "virgin" birth prophecy...



do yourself a favor, read it, who is talking in 1st account, who is talking in second account?

G-d is talking abotu Mashiach ben david, not Solomon. G-d says of your sons. Read up on what earlier rabbis said about this passage.

David says "IF you obey" - solomon was not faithful to the T. furthermore, Temple is not here therefore it was not talking about Solomon. Yeshua's has set up his home in us (beleivers only), living in us as the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) - it will be forever. our bodies are the living temple. and no i dont believe in the trinity.

not saying that David lied, G-d probably did tell him Solomon was going to build him a temmple.

Actually it was talking about Solomon.....here is the quote:

1 chronicles 17:11 " that I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall be among your sons; and I shall make his kingdom firm."

here is how it is done

1 chronicles 28:5 "he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel."

1chronicles 17:12 "He shall build me a house ,and I will establish his throne forever."

1 chronicles 28:6 ", Solomon, your son shall build my house and my courts;"

Interresting how these are lining up so smoothly..maybe it is because this is what is meant by these verses...not to be taken out of context and moved somewhere in the future....anyhow continuing

1 Chronicles 17:13 "I shall be a father unto him, and he shall be my son; and I will not take My loving kindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you;"

1 chronicles 28:6 " I have chosen him(Solomon) to be my son, and I will be his father."


Need I go on....This not only does not say anything about yeshu being Mashiakh it is saying the person who is to be Mashiakh has to come from King David via Solomon after Solomon anything goes....




open your eyes, please i beg you, believe G-d, i truly dont want to fight and argue pointlessly, i want you to see mashiach for who He is, not what you want Him to be.

My eyes are very open and guess what they see right through the christian deception ....


The House was not talking 100% about the physical Temple, it is talking about the hearts of men until mashiach comes back to set up His reign where there will be peace.

Yes, G-d wanted a physical Temple to be built which is to be respected and where His Glory dwelt, but this is to be a picture of the bigger picutre. G-d is Spirit, He does not need a physical Temple to live in, His Glory is manifested in the physical Temple to show How holy He is, and how sincere a man's heart must be before G-d can dwell in it. Surely the earth is G-d's footstool, not His home.

actually he does want a physical temple read more carefully


i have no idea what you are talkign about here. why dont you take oral torah for waht it is, mans' replacemtn of Torah! man has chagned Torah to suit their needs and made up lies and called it the oral torah, i mean you actually believe that this is handed down from moses' mouth?

The oral torah is inspired and comes from the Time of Moshe rabbenu The oral Torah explains the written Torah...



one example - rosh hashannah is not the head of the year, in the Torah its Yom Teruah. why call it rosh hashanna? why say not to mix milk and meat when G-d was quite capable to say it in Torah, but did not?

another example of not knowing hebrew on your part...The term Rosh Hashanah literally means first or head of the year..and it just so happens that this day is also named Yom Teruah (day of the shofar sounding) and Yom Zikkarron(day of rememberance) why call it Rosh hashanah becasue it is at the head of the year just as the word means....

Avraham didnt so why should we he first gave milk then he gave meat...

Genesis 18:8. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had prepared, and set these before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they ate.



JPS EX 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of HaShem, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

no such thing as oral torah from Moses, he wrote down everything G-d told him......now if you dare try to say anything different, you are blaspheming G-d's Torah! and Moshe!

No the Oral Torah is not Blaspheming G-d thats is nonsense coming from a christian who doesnt know very much about the Oral Torah or Judaism for that matter..... anyhow, you say there isnt an oral torah, there aren't two Torah's one Oral and one Written....How about this...

Genesis 26:5. Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Torahs(Hebrew:Toroti).

The word "Toroti" in the plural meaning more than one Torah no way....Avraham seemed to know about the Oral and written Torah....

Exodus 16:28. And the Lord said to Moses, How long refuse you to keep My commandments and My Torahs(Hebrew: Toroti)?

Moshe seemed to know about both of them as well

So did Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 44:24. And in a controversy they act as judges; and they shall judge it according to My judgments; and they shall keep My Torahs(Hebrew:Toroti) and My statutes in all my appointed times; and they shall sanctify my sabbaths.

There are many open ended references in the Tanakh.

Exodus 36:1. Then, Bezalel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whom the Lord put wisdom and understanding to know how to work all kinds of work for the service of the sanctuary, did according to all that the Lord had commanded.


How did they do this? The Written Torah doesn't say...But the Oral Torah does...

Ezra 10:3. And now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all such women, and those born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the Torah.

Where does the written Torah say to put away the women described in this chapter......it doesn't the Oral Torah comes in and says so...yes there is an Oral Torah and no it does not blashpheme G-d.

Yeah Moshe wrote down al that G-d told him to write down...exactly....But what about the stuff G-d didn't tell Moshe to write down....



at any point do you truly ask G-d to show you who He is? do you think your davening is what G-d wants? your sacrifices on Yom Kippur? He wants your heart first.

I dont have to ask G-d to reveal himself to me...he talks to me at least twice a day and that is enough for me....as for Davening the Prophet Hoshea put it well:

Hoshea 14:3[2] Take with you words, and turn to the Lord; say to him: Forgive all iniquity, and receive us graciously; so will we offer the words of our lips instead of calves.

The sacrifices cant be offered when there is no temple to offer them in...So how did the Jews in captivity in Babylon come back by prayer and repentance....



just say this prayer with a sincere heart -
HaShem, i know you are One Elohim, if am following lies, take it out, i want to knwo you" - by the way i just said the same prayer so dont think i am not walking the talk and just shoving out Christian prayers - any given prophet would have prayed this prayer.

There I just said it and G-d said "stay the path you are on..."



fair enough, understand your position that its pointless to show you (Renewed Covenant) scriptures because you see no light.

Actually I see right through the deception of the GNT and into the Torah for the better guidence by G-d...



Of course he would be portrayed as different, the Talmud is anti-Yeshua for the most part. could you clarify 243 years behind?

the person Yeshu HaNotzeri in the Talmud is not jesus in the christian bible... You really should reread the portions in the Talmud(Sanhedrin 43a) about this person...I would love to clarify but time is short and I dont have all day to do it...


JPS used above...enjoy. again, dont tell me about the hebrew translation.

I just looked at the traslation done by the JPS 1999 Hebrew english edition and it is quite different than what you put up...Why dont you want to hear about the Hebrew translation cant stand to hear that it is horrible....


2 Chron 34:3For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father: and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images.

5 And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars, and cleansed Judah and Jerusalem.

21 Go, enquire of the LORD for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do after all that is written in this book.

2 chron 35:18 And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, F178 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=2ch+35&version=kjv&showtools=0#F178) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 19 In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover kept.


there is nothign i need to add, Tanak speaks for itself.

I have something to add on to this....Here we have the cleansing of Judah and Jerusalem...but what are they cleansing....their midst... you O so conveniently left out the fact they are ridding their midst of Idol and baal worship by King Josiah..Now read the whole thing

2 Chronicles 34:1. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty one years.
2. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the ways of David his father, and declined neither to the right hand, nor to the left.
3. And in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father; and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the Asherim, and the carved images, and the molten images.
4. And they broke down the altars of the Baalim in his presence; and he cut down the images that were on top of them; and the Asherim, and the carved images, and the molten images, he broke in pieces, and he made dust of them, and strewed it over the graves of those who had sacrificed to them.
5. And he burned the bones of the priests upon their altars, and cleansed Judah and Jerusalem. 6. And so did he in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, as far as Naphtali, with their ruins around it.
7. And when he had broken down the altars and the Asherim, and had crushed the engraved images into dust, and cut down all the idols throughout all the land of Israel, he returned to Jerusalem.

Still no Human sacrifice here just killing off the Idol worshippers and baal preists and returning to the Torah......Nice one but its gets defeated


my friend if you dont see that Talmud is a figment of mans imagination then please ask G-d to open your eyes.

I asked G-d to open my eyes? and He said "Why are you asking Me to open what is already wide open?"


Evem Josiah says it, our fathers didnt do Torah.

What makes it a jewish shul? if jewish people are there? if we read and chant Torah? if we face the east? if we pray for all Israel and jews? what?! sachrit? tefilin? which of these dont we do? and what do you do different! my friend, there are orthadox of orthadox who believe in Yeshua, because they know their shepards voice.


What makes a shul is just that being Jewish...a messianic church is not Jewish.... as for your reference to the Orthodox of the Orthodox....This is the same thing missionaries say to try and entice uneducated Jews to Christianity...the idea of messianic jduaism is the same as the Idea of Kosher Pork...




didnt i quote in context? JPS proverbs 30

nope...try not putting a christian spin on it and read the whole thing as opposed to quoting only sections and spinning your way...


The words of Agur the son of Jakeh; the burden. The man saith unto Ithiel, unto Ithiel and Ucal: Surely I am brutish, unlike a man, and have not the understanding of a man; And I have not learned wisdom, that I should have the knowledge of the Holy One. Who hath ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in his garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou knowest? Every word of G-d is tried; He is a shield unto them that take refuge in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Two things have I asked of Thee; deny me them not before I die: Remove far from me falsehood and lies; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with mine allotted bread;

wow you quoted it all some points could be touched up on the Hebrew but, I am amazed... And I see you highlighted many spin-on points which have nothing to do with the meaning behind the chapter....nice one, but not so nice..


wasnt this just what i asked you to pray for?

please, ask G-d to show you who mashiach is.

what are you? orthadox etc...? rabbi, gabbi, just a shul member?


Why should I pray for this again??? I dont need to pray to G-d to show me how limited Human wisdom is, it is obvious....

Why should I ask G-d who Mashiakh is??? G-d will send Mashiakh when the time is right....Mashikah will be easily identifiable because the messianic prophecies will be fulfilled during his time here...

as for my affiliation I am an Orthodox Jew, Who is studying to be a Rabbi at Yeshivah University... anything else??

[Menachem]

So you believe that the Hebrew word for LORD (Adonai?) is not in Proverbs 3.33? You deny that God gives grace to the humble and resist the proud? This show me that Jews will go to extreme lengths to disprove the New Testament--even at the expense of intellectual dishonest. They do mental contortions and gymnastics if necessary to disprove Christanity. That is what Judaism is now, whatever Chrstianity is not.

The Name is in Proverbs 3:33........but not in 3:34... plus the language is very general in 3:34


Honestly the GNT is intellectually dishonest quoting Tanakh out of context, using improper translations...etc...

I dont try and disprove christianity...any christian friend of mine will vouch for that.... Christians want to try and prove christianity superscedes Judaism and they fall flat on their face trying...Just as you have...since you are bowing out...G-d bless...

[Sacrificial Ram]

[QUOTE]
dont have much time... num 36 shows that you had to marry wihtin tribes to pass inheritance. didnt you read it? it was so that inheritance would not pass out of the tribe. ummmmm doesnt it say that the daughters would be able to pass rights on? i mean if the duaghters have the rights passed to their son, that means Yeshua had it.

as mentioned Joseph was not the biological father.


Well, that shows that Jesus, according to hebrew tradition was not qualifired for the Messiah, if Joseph was not the biological father.

The messiah had to be of the SEED OF DAVID, through Solomon. That means
direct unbroken line male decendent. Second of all, the New Testmaent
claims that Mary's cousin was mother of John the Baptist That would make
Mary a levite, and not of the house of David.




listen buddy, dont tell me about hebrew, what kidn of sign is there when a young lady has a child? how is a young lady having a child a sign? show me in scripture where this hebrew is used to describe someone not a virgin.


I have an idea!!! Why don't you read the passage in Context!! The sign was
not the birth of the child, but rather, before that child could cry MOther, father, the king of Assyria would lose Damascus and Samaria. In addition, the
person who was the young woman is identified (The prophetess, in other words, Isaiahs own wife).



8:3
And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
8:4
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 taken away before the king of Assyria.



furthermore, "emmanuel", G-d with us, is more hints that G-d Himself will come down and atone for us.



And Emanual is a very common Jewish name.. it is the declaration that 'God is with us'. It doesn't mean that person is god. And,for that matter, where do you see Jesus being addressed by someone calling him 'Emanual' to his face?

My own grandfather was Emmanual. To here my grandmother, he walked on water. Does that make him the messiah?

[theseed]

The Name is in Proverbs 3:33........but not in 3:34... plus the language is very general in 3:34They are almost the same proverb too. Do you beleive that God helps the proudful, and not the humble? Do you believe that God does to resist the proud or give grace to the humble?


Honestly the GNT is intellectually dishonest quoting Tanakh out of context, using improper translations...etc...I don't see how you can know that since you don't read Greek.


I dont try and disprove christianity...any christian friend of mine will vouch for that.... Christians want to try and prove christianity superscedes Judaism and they fall flat on their face trying...Just as you have..Actually, I've been trying to show the inaduancy of Judaism as you know and practice it.


since you are bowing out...G-d bless... Shalom

[Menachem]

They are almost the same proverb too. Do you beleive that God helps the proudful, and not the humble? Do you believe that God does to resist the proud or give grace to the humble?

almost but not quite the same...


I don't see how you can know that since you don't read Greek.

How many times do I have to correct you on this...I call it the GNT because it was written in greek and not part of Judaism...


Actually, I've been trying to show the inaduancy of Judaism as you know and practice it.

And you have tried and not been sucessful....as all christians are...


Shalom

Todah!

[theseed]

How many times do I have to correct you on this...I call it the GNT because it was written in greek and not part of Judaism
You make talk as though you do. That would be like me claiming "it does not say that in Hebrew" which I could not do because I don't know Hebrew.


And you have tried and not been sucessful....as all christians are...

That's because Jews are just as stubborn and stiff-necked as they were 2000 years ago. No wonder Jesus had do all those miracles and even rise from the dead to covince them!

[Sacrificial Ram]

You make talk as though you do. That would be like me claiming "it does not say that in Hebrew" which I could not do because I don't know Hebrew.


That's because Jews are just as stubborn and stiff-necked as they were 2000 years ago. No wonder Jesus had do all those miracles and even rise from the dead to covince them!

Maybe, you should learn some biblical Hewbrew. Go to an orthodox Jewish temple, and ask the Rabbi to teach you. He will explain things to you.

[theseed]

I would suggest you do the same. I've discovered that you can spout of the Jewish rhetoric, but have no understanding of it. You don't know what you are talkng about in threads such as this one.

[heaven]

To Seed:
The use of blood in the levitical sacrifices was to cover over sin.

In the New Covenant of Yeshua , His blood atonement was for the eradication of sin.
by means of salvation and sanctification. No further sacrifice is needed.

Yeshua is called the Lamb of God and a high priest forever of the order of Melchizadek.

The Ot sacrifices were needed for the revelation of the law.And we know it is
impossible to keep all the law and the commandments.

Therefore the salvific sacrifice totally fulfills all the law's requirements and grants the
power to be made whole in body mind and spirit. Perfect love fulfills the law.

I have posted in this manner to point out that another testament is also discerned in the
tenakh, a testament that is for jew and gentile, that the verses you refer to are for
another type of priesthood.

[Maxell]

Second of all, the New Testmaent
claims that Mary's cousin was mother of John the Baptist That would make
Mary a levite, and not of the house of David.


Where in the new testament, that is sayed? I only read, that Mary was relative to Mother of John the Baptist.. there is no mention cousin.

[shunyadragon]

You make talk as though you do. That would be like me claiming "it does not say that in Hebrew" which I could not do because I don't know Hebrew.Learn Hebrew than stand toe to toe with them and debate the meaning of the scripture.

Not knowing Hebrew makes you blind, stubborn and stiff necked.

[theseed]

Learn Hebrew than stand toe to toe with them and debate the meaning of the scripture.

Not knowing Hebrew makes you blind, stubborn and stiff necked.

If knowing Hebrew made the difference between being a disciple of Christ and not being a disciple of Christ, then there would be no Christianity because the Apostles knew Hebrew, some of them, and so did many of the Jewish coverts. So, Hebrew can't be the deciding factor.

[theseed]

To Heaven:

I know, but I must first convince Eliyosef that Judiam as he practices it is not good enough before I can offer the alternative of Christianity.

[shunyadragon]

If knowing Hebrew made the difference between being a disciple of Christ and not being a disciple of Christ, then there would be no Christianity because the Apostles knew Hebrew, some of them, and so did many of the Jewish coverts. So, Hebrew can't be the deciding factor.It is not an issue of converting someone, but an issue of effective communication. I am neither Christian or Jew. I have found a consistently weak understanding of Hebrew and the OT among Christians.

Many of the Jewish converts? There is scant evidence of the existence of very many Jewish converts. As Christianity spread it became quickly apparent that it appealed far more to the non-Jewish citizens of the Roman Empire. By as early as 300 AD there were very few Jews who were Christians.

I believe Hebrew was an issue very early in Christian history, because of how the NT was finally compiled and the early church fathers (predominantly non-Jewish) decided the traditional theology of Christianity. Understanding Hebrew was an issue very earky in understanding prophesy. It was quite apparent that the interpretation of prophecies in the NT reflected a poor understanding of Hebrew. The use of Nazareth or Nazerine in prophecy is a good example.

[theseed]

Many of the Jewish converts? There is scant evidence of the existence of very many Jewish converts. As Christianity spread it became quickly apparent that it appealed far more to the non-Jewish citizens of the Roman Empire. By as early as 300 AD there were very few Jews who were Christians
It was not until about this time that Christianity had started seperating itself from Judaism. When Constatine became emporer, he abolished any form of Judaic Christianity, and perscuted and killed Jewish Christians in the process.


It is not an issue of converting someone, but an issue of effective communication. I am neither Christian or Jew. I have found a consistently weak understanding of Hebrew and the OT among Christians.
So you know Hebrew yourself? If not, then how do you know it is a weak understanding? Do you know that thier is an extreme Jewish cultural bias against Christianity?

[theseed]

Many Christians speak Hebrew fluently, and are missionaries in Israel. Their understanding of Hebrew is not weak, and yet they are Christians.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Many Christians speak Hebrew fluently, and are missionaries in Israel. Their understanding of Hebrew is not weak, and yet they are Christians.

That is because the Hebrew they learned had a christian bias.

(to turn the tables)

[theseed]

So who is right? The Jewish bias or the Christian bias?

[Sacrificial Ram]

So who is right? The Jewish bias or the Christian bias?

The Jewish bias is, of course. It is THEIR scripture and their language of course.

[theseed]

The Jewish bias is, of course. It is THEIR scripture and their language of course.
Yes, but we have thier Messiah. Who is the Torah become flesh.

And because thier Jews, anything they say about Hebrew must be correct right? They are correct because of thier race?

And what about those Jewish Aposltes? And Yeshua HoMoshiak, a Jew? If the Jews don't believe what the New Testament claims they should believe then why did they try to use it 2000 years ago? Why did they say, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins" and that Isaiah 53 was Messianic, if the Jews did believe it was Messianic. Why would Paul and the others use such arguments on the Jews if they were not Jewish beliefs to begin with?

You see the argument that the NT misrepresents the Hebrew is self-refuting. Did Paul use Hebrew arguments on the Gentiles? No, he used thier pagan poetry and their idol to the "unknown God". Hence, Paul used what worked with the culture, so any argument that tries to claim Paul was in error is self-defeating. And in conclusion, we can beleive that what Jews beleive today is not the same as what Jews believed 2000 years ago.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but we have thier Messiah. Who is the Torah become flesh.

And because thier Jews, anything they say about Hebrew must be correct right? They are correct because of thier race?

And what about those Jewish Aposltes? And Yeshua HoMoshiak, a Jew? If the Jews don't believe what the New Testament claims they should believe then why did they try to use it 2000 years ago? Why did they say, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins" and that Isaiah 53 was Messianic, if the Jews did believe it was Messianic. Why would Paul and the others use such arguments on the Jews if they were not Jewish beliefs to begin with?

You see the argument that the NT misrepresents the Hebrew is self-refuting. Did Paul use Hebrew arguments on the Gentiles? No, he used thier pagan poetry and their idol to the "unknown God". Hence, Paul used what worked with the culture, so any argument that tries to claim Paul was in error is self-defeating. And in conclusion, we can beleive that what Jews beleive today is not the same as what Jews believed 2000 years ago.It is not self refuting. Paul and a few Jews do not represent the beliefs of Judaism. Very few Jews ever became Christians 2000 years ago and today. There are some instances of forced conversions in Europe. I can count the well known and documented Jews in early Christianity that became Christians on my fingers and toes. There were of course probably more than that, but after Constantine took over there were none.

Actually the theological beliefs of Judaism are very consistent over the past 2000 years, based on the commentaries and writings that are available

The Christians and Jews that became Moslems does not justify the Koran.

I am a Baha'i and I would not claim that the Christians, Jews and Moslems that became Baha'is in the last century and a half justify the Baha'i beliefs, and their numbers are in the millions.

[shunyadragon]

It was not until about this time that Christianity had started seperating itself from Judaism. When Constatine became emporer, he abolished any form of Judaic Christianity, and perscuted and killed Jewish Christians in the process.

So you know Hebrew yourself? If not, then how do you know it is a weak understanding? Do you know that thier is an extreme Jewish cultural bias against Christianity?I fully recognize that there is a strong cultural bias in Judaism against Christ and Christianity as I see a strong barriers of cultural bias between Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism and others. I find almost a universal misrepresentation, misunderstanding and poor academics between the scholars of all religions.

What Constantine and the Roman church fathers did to Christianity is a part of history and cannot be denied. They essentially ethnicaly cleansed Christianity of Jewish influence and made it a Roman religion.

I take different view than most on Tweb. I recognize Jesus Christ as Jewish messiah and he indeed fulfilled some, but not all the prophesies claimed by Christians. My prophetic vision is universal involving all the religions of the world.

When I want to understand the Hebrew of the OT I consult Hebrew scholars from various sources, Jewish, Christian and secular. There is some agreement by the way of most Hebrew scholars that some of the prophecies claimed by Christians are not in line with any legitamate Hebrew understand of the OT like the reference to the city of Nazareth and the Nazarine.

[theseed]

When I want to understand the Hebrew of the OT I consult Hebrew scholars from various sources, Jewish, Christian and secular. There is some agreement by the way of most Hebrew scholars that some of the prophecies claimed by Christians are not in line with any legitamate Hebrew understand of the OT like the reference to the city of Nazareth and the Nazarine.
True, I'm not sure if Matthew claims that his citations are prophecies, but he does claim they relate to Christ. For example, in Isaiah 7.14, the birth of King Hezekiah is a shadow of the birth of Christ. Matthew is valid in doing so because of there is a Hebrew word their that means maiden, or an unmarried women, which we would accept to be a virgin in Jewish culture, unless stated otherwise.

I agree that 300 prophecies is questionable, but there are at least 50 that are not. And I beleive that Gen. 3.15 is is the first prophecy made, and we are valid is saying so because the Hebrew can be legitematley transated to be singular or plural.


It is not self refuting. Paul and a few Jews do not represent the beliefs of Judaism. Very few Jews ever became Christians 2000 years ago and today. There are some instances of forced conversions in Europe. I can count the well known and documented Jews in early Christianity that became Christians on my fingers and toes. There were of course probably more than that, but after Constantine took over there were none.
This is not what I said at all. This is a straw man argument. I am talking about Paul's and other NT writers attempts to covert Jews. What kinds of things they said and the tactics they use. Paul being a former Pharisee, knew what kind of arguments would persuade Jews and being a Roman citizen, he knew what kind of arguments would persuade Greek philosphers. And he use ones he thought would work. Now, if Isaiah 53 is one of those, then we may conclude that Jews in his day believed that Isaiah 53 was messianic.

Also, there was a emple 2000 years ago. It was destroyed in 70 AD.


The Christians and Jews that became Moslems does not justify the Koran.

Again, your completely missing the point. Jews resisted religous influences of all kinds. That is why they asked Jesus for a sign. Jesus Christ could never have had the influence on the Jews and thier culture that he did have unless he did miracles and rise from the dead. Thousands of Jews came to believe in Christ. And many Gentiles too. Christians were severly perscuted first by the Jews and then by the Romans. Christianity was established in Rome as a religious sect by 64 AD, because Nero blamed Christians for the city being burned.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Again, your completely missing the point. Jews resisted religous influences of all kinds. That is why they asked Jesus for a sign. Jesus Christ could never have had the influence on the Jews and thier culture that he did have unless he did miracles and rise from the dead. Thousands of Jews came to believe in Christ. And many Gentiles too. Christians were severly perscuted first by the Jews and then by the Romans. Christianity was established in Rome as a religious sect by 64 AD, because Nero blamed Christians for the city being burned.

Well, that is the Christian claim for what happened. The Jewish religion does not agree. The Jewish religion did not ask Jesus for a sign. Jesus, if he existed at all,
did not fullfill the requirements for the Jewish Messiah. ALso, the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be just a man, not a god at all. And, the quote from Tactiulus about Nero blaming christians is questionable at best.

[theseed]

Well, that is the Christian claim for what happened. The Jewish religion does not agree. The Jewish religion did not ask Jesus for a sign. Jesus, if he existed at all,According to the Talmud, he did exist. However, even that would not refute my arugment. I am arguing that Judaism has changed its beliefs in response to Christianity.

However, the existance of Christ is not the topic of this thread. And I remind you that athiest are not suposed to argue here in this subforum.


did not fullfill the requirements for the Jewish Messiah. ALso, the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be just a man, not a god at all. And, the quote from Tactiulus about Nero blaming christians is questionable at best. How are they questinable? You've made a claim, now you must back it up. According to Micah 5.2, the Messiah has not beginning and according to Daniel 7.9, and Isaiah 57.15, only God has no beginning.

What passage do you have that says explicitly that he will not be God?

[shunyadragon]

Again, your completely missing the point. Jews resisted religous influences of all kinds. That is why they asked Jesus for a sign. Jesus Christ could never have had the influence on the Jews and thier culture that he did have unless he did miracles and rise from the dead. Thousands of Jews came to believe in Christ. And many Gentiles too. Christians were severly perscuted first by the Jews and then by the Romans. Christianity was established in Rome as a religious sect by 64 AD, because Nero blamed Christians for the city being burned.
There is not any record of thousands of Jews becoming Christians outside vague claims in the Bible. All indication of the history of Christianity after the life of Christ is that conversions were for the most part among the non-Jewish population of the region and Asia Minor.

Your statements that Jewish theology has changed is false. It is basically very much the same. This has a good side and a bad side. Jews like Christians are living in the past in a unrealistic view of the good old days when . . .

[shunyadragon]

According to the Talmud, he did exist. However, even that would not refute my arugment. I am arguing that Judaism has changed its beliefs in response to Christianity.Can you document this change within the Hebrew community. Other than the NT itself do you have any other documents that expected things like an Incarnate God and the end of the observance of the Laws of the Torah.


How are they questionable? You've made a claim, now you must back it up. According to Micah 5.2, the Messiah has not beginning and according to Daniel 7.9, and Isaiah 57.15, only God has no beginning.I feel Micah 5:2 refers to the everlasting lineage of the Messiah and King of Isreal. Jesus Christ could not have been consider the ruler of King of Isreal. In fact Christianity becomes completely seperate from Isreal and if anything Isreal is set asside. How would Christ be considered a ruler of Isreal? I would like others to comment on this prophecy and it's meaning.


What passage do you have that says explicitly that he will not be God?The messiah being God incarnate would be an important thing in prophesy and no where does in indicate in prophecy that the 'Annointed One' will be a God incarnate. Your the one that made the claim, now back it up.

[Menachem]

You make talk as though you do. That would be like me claiming "it does not say that in Hebrew" which I could not do because I don't know Hebrew.

I Have learned a lttle bit of greek in my days as a student... Ok Since you dont know Hebrew then what would make you qualified to tell me what the Tanakh says and what it doesn't say...King James english is no substitute for Hebrew

many christians particularly here in the USA can't read Greek, for the NT, even and think that G-d gave them the bible in King James English....so quoting english to them would be equal to quoting Hebrew to me...



That's because Jews are just as stubborn and stiff-necked as they were 2000 years ago. No wonder Jesus had do all those miracles and even rise from the dead to covince them!

I beg your pardon but Jesus didnt do so much as a single miracle to warrrant any Jewish notification of any spontanious miracle....maybe if he spontaneously combusted he might have been written down in our writings....

Besides all of his so called "miracles" are covered in Deuteronomy 13...

[theseed]

I Have learned a lttle bit of greek in my days as a student... Ok Since you dont know Hebrew then what would make you qualified to tell me what the Tanakh says and what it doesn't say...King James english is no substitute for Hebrew
I use the 1917 JPS version, the only version I Jewish translation I have found. Also, I rely on logic-based arguments rather than semantic based arguments.


I beg your pardon but Jesus didnt do so much as a single miracle to warrrant any Jewish notification of any spontanious miracle....maybe if he spontaneously combusted he might have been written down in our writings....

Besides all of his so called "miracles" are covered in Deuteronomy 13...


The Talmud says that Yeshua was a sorcerer that decieved many.

[theseed]

Other than the NT itself do you have any other documents that expected things like an Incarnate God and the end of the observance of the Laws of the Torah.:huh: Who said that the obersvance of The Torah was ended?


I feel Micah 5:2 refers to the everlasting lineage of the Messiah and King of Isreal. Jesus Christ could not have been consider the ruler of King of Isreal. In fact Christianity becomes completely seperate from Isreal and if anything Isreal is set asside. How would Christ be considered a ruler of Isreal? I would like others to comment on this prophecy and it's meaning.
:huh: Your argument does not make sense. Who said anything Israel is set aside?


The messiah being God incarnate would be an important thing in prophesy and no where does in indicate in prophecy that the 'Annointed One' will be a God incarnate. Your the one that made the claim, now back it up.
:twitch: I asked you to show me where it says in the OT that The Messiah is not God. I am still waiting.

[theseed]

There is not any record of thousands of Jews becoming Christians outside vague claims in the Bible. All indication of the history of Christianity after the life of Christ is that conversions were for the most part among the non-Jewish population of the region and Asia Minor.
Since you reject The Bible, then you no longer need to post in this thread. Nothing you will claim holds salt.


Your statements that Jewish theology has changed is false. It is basically very much the same. This has a good side and a bad side. Jews like Christians are living in the past in a unrealistic view of the good old days when
:eek: When on God's green earth were the good old days? Right before Adam and Eve sinned.

[Sacrificial Ram]

I use the 1917 JPS version, the only version I Jewish translation I have found. Also, I rely on logic-based arguments rather than semantic based arguments.

The Talmud says that Yeshua was a sorcerer that decieved many.

1) The Talmud was written in the 2nd to the 4th Century..

2) Yeshua was a very common name, and the particular one you are talking about was about someone from 100 years before the one you are thinking of.

[theseed]

1) The Talmud was written in the 2nd to the 4th Century..

2) Yeshua was a very common name, and the particular one you are talking about was about someone from 100 years before the one you are thinking of.
Wow, what a coincidence, there were 2 Yeshua's that decieved many people using supernatural powers. I bet the odds of that are astronomical!

What proof do you have?

[Sacrificial Ram]

Wow, what a coincidence, there were 2 Yeshua's that decieved many people using supernatural powers. I bet the odds of that are astronomical!

What proof do you have?

Actually, there were about 22 yeshuas mentioned in the talmud.

Which particular one are you talking about?

ALso, remember, the Babylonian Talmud was written 200 years after the alledged events, in babalyonian, not in Jersualum. Really good accurate info there, huh?

[Menachem]

I use the 1917 JPS version, the only version I Jewish translation I have found. Also, I rely on logic-based arguments rather than semantic based arguments.

The 1917 JPS is the king james version of te hebrew bible with a few corrections to the english translation....You rely on logic based arguments you say...when were you going to start using them I havent seen one yet...


The Talmud says that Yeshua was a sorcerer that decieved many.

Actually the name of this person in the Talmud was Yeshu(ישו ) not Yeshu'a. This person in question lived about 200 years before jesus was even born...

go figure... christians will try to use the Talmud to point to jesus when they dont even hold it authoritative...interesting....

[theseed]

The 1917 JPS is the king james version of te hebrew bible with a few corrections to the english translation....You rely on logic based arguments you say...when were you going to start using them I havent seen one yet...



Actually the name of this person in the Talmud was Yeshu(ישו ) not Yeshu'a. This person in question lived about 200 years before jesus was even born...

go figure... christians will try to use the Talmud to point to jesus when they dont even hold it authoritative...interesting....

go figure... christians will try to use the Talmud to point to jesus when they dont even hold it authoritative...interesting....
No, they use it to show that Jesus existed.