Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[Unveiled Artist]

Were you ever really a Christian? Or was it merely a convenient label?

I was actively reading what you were saying and thought maybe you honestly disagreed or didn't understand me. Then I came to this. Are you understanding me from an objective point of view or from a "non-christian" view? I do not (directly or indirectly) like to be put in a box because I decided not to follow Christ anymore. I don't consider myself a Christian because I respect the sacrament of Christ and I choose not to take the sacraments anymore.

Right now, I am a teacher. I call myself that not just out of convenience but because that is what I do among other things for a living. If I decided to change jobs, I am no longer a teacher. Yes, I learned a lot of things from my students. I take a lot from what they have taught me and they the same. Why would I say I do not like being a teacher or why would I expect someone to put me in a box with people who dislike teachers all because I changed jobs? That doesn't make sense. If I change jobs, I am not a teacher anymore. That doesn't mean "were you a teacher to begin with?" It means, "what do you do now? How do you see things now? How do you do on your job so I understand where you come from? type of thing."

No religious title are conveniences. I was proud to call myself Catholic. I always will. I don't understand why you'd say this.

 

[Desert Snake]

I was actively reading what you were saying and thought maybe you honestly disagreed or didn't understand me. Then I came to this. Are you understanding me from an objective point of view or from a "non-christian" view? I do not (directly or indirectly) like to be put in a box because I decided not to follow Christ anymore. I don't consider myself a Christian because I respect the sacrament of Christ and I choose not to take the sacraments anymore.

Right now, I am a teacher. I call myself that not just out of convenience but because that is what I do among other things for a living. If I decided to change jobs, I am no longer a teacher. Yes, I learned a lot of things from my students. I take a lot from what they have taught me and they the same. Why would I say I do not like being a teacher or why would I expect someone to put me in a box with people who dislike teachers all because I changed jobs? That doesn't make sense. If I change jobs, I am not a teacher anymore. That doesn't mean "were you a teacher to begin with?" It means, "what do you do now? How do you see things now? How do you do on your job so I understand where you come from? type of thing."

No religious title are conveniences. I was proud to call myself Catholic. I always will. I don't understand why you'd say this.

The question actually does make sense. The arguments you are presenting, do not seem like the arguments one would present , if they knew, contextually, the Xian perspective. It's a ''real''. question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here we go. You're tone completely changed (or was it like this and I didn't realize it). I thought you were actually having a legit conversation with me.

I didn't say that you said that.

Thank you for clarifying.

Various reasons for shared texts.

My point is, why would I expect Jews and Christians to see the Torah the same and (to that one Jew) have the same Torah, when you both have completely different religions?

Why not?

Since I am not a practicing Jew, I rather go off of what Jews tell me about their faith, not my interpretation and not a Christian. That's like going to a Pagan to ask about Catholicism or the other way around.

Christians aren't practicing Judaism. The 'Torah,' is not the same thing, as 'Judaism.' Judaism, /and Xianity, use the Torah as text.
What is the problem?

Why is there a problem? I'm just expressing what I know. You may disagree; and that doesn't mean I am wrong. It just means we see things differently regardless of our faiths and where we come from in regards to Christianity.

Since Christians aren't practicing Judaism (of course), why would I expect them to know the Torah in the way a Jew would when it is not even their faith? Why would I even use the Torah in reference to Christianity unless I was using it to talk about Christianity and not about Judaism. In this case, I said that Jews see the Torah different (and some expressed their Torah is different or interpreted differently) than the books in the Christian Bible.

Whether a Christian believes it or not, that is their belief. However, like I said above, I wouldn't ask a Pagan what a Catholic beliefs just because Catholicism has pagan elements in it. Likewise the other way around. They may share practices; however, that doesn't mean I would use one practice to explain another.

What?

In my opinion, if Jesus was a mere many they'd probably have more respect for him. They still wouldn't consider him a prophet in line with the other ones in the OT; however, they at least probably would not be offended of calling a human god.​

In my opinion, if Jesus was a man, I feel Jews would have more respect for him.

They may not consider him a prophet in line with those in the Torah given their views.

However, at least maybe they would not be offended because many Christians call Jesus god.

Understand?

Were you ever really a Christian? Or was it merely a convenient label?

Answered above. Please no sarcasm.

Do you mean the entire Bible?

Yes, the entire Christian Bible Torah to Revelations. Why? (No sarcasm)

Great...but, ,,therefore? Xianity is not going to make sense in the perspective of other religions..why would it? It's a different religion. This statement also is a bit silly, even, because, it isn't like every Jew is extremely critical of Jesus , or something, either. Or Christians. It's arbitrary, in other words

It doesn't devalue what trinitarians say, it just means that they may personify Jesus too much because of how close he is to the father. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. A Jew may differ, though. Muslims seem to have more respect for Jesus as per experience of talking to them off-line. I haven't read the full Quran. Torah, but I can't judge how they see Jesus based on Mahammad's bias on him. Id have to know it in context first. That, and I have to read it in Arabic.​

I didn't say every Jew was. Judaism does not recognize Jesus as god and the way Judaism sees Jesus is more harsh (in my opinion) than Islam sees him.

In my opinion (if you can please at least find some value in my opinion), I feel trinitarians personify Jesus too much (or a lot) because of how he related himself so close to his father.

There is nothing wrong with that. It does not devalue the trinitarian view. I (and many other denominations) do not have a Jesus-is-god mindset. We don't see it in scripture. This is something we will have to disagree on. Not because either of is wrong, but because if you are questioning me on "whether I was a real christian" that's like questioning did I really love my ex. My ex is my ex for a reason; and that doesn't mean I stopped loving her anymore than I stopped loving Catholicism.

Understand?

Muslims seem to have more respect for Jesus than I have encountered from many Jews. For example, I spoke with one Jew when I went to a Synagogue (can't remember why I went), and the very mention of Christianity flared him.

It is what it is.

Eh? I don't care if your a ''non-Christian'', and my arguments aren't based on that

I do care that you are a Christian and my comments are based on what you believe. Why? Because what you believe shapes how you view things from positive bias to how you react to anyone countering or questioning your faith. It's natural. It's normal. I always ask the same in return. I only got that from the JW I talked with and my therapist. I try to get out of my bias. It's hard but it takes me out the picture so I understand what the other person is saying.

That is one of many reasons I write long posts. I actually read everything everyone is saying. If I chopped it up in pieces, my brain doesn't function that way medically. I will forget and get things off. So be patient and please do not talk in sarcasm even if you do not realize it or it is not intentional, it is there.

Great. I'm not asking you to take the Bible personally, it's clear that you don't.

Yes, you are right, I don't take it personal; and it is an easy book to read and digest. Please, no sarcasm.

If you disagree and want to find rejection in everything I say, then how is this a productive discussion. I was with you for a good while until this.

 

[Aštra’el]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same God, no matter the names and titles used.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The question actually does make sense. The arguments you are presenting, do not seem like the arguments one would present , if they knew, contextually, the Xian perspective. It's a ''real''. question.

I don't hear many non-protestant Christians ask it. All the Catholics I met, which were a lot, have never asked me whether I was a real Catholic before I took the sacrament, during my practice, and after I took my last sacrament. The question is foreign and, in my view, an insult; even though you, and many other people may not consider it as such. Instead, maybe ask (to others in the future) "When you were a Christian, how did you see Christ?" or "I (you) see Christ this way. How you say doesn't sound like it matches Christian doctrine, this is why...."

You are questioning my validity as a ex christian but not in a way that devalues who I was as Christian. Unfortunately, I don't live in a world that many people (myself included) have assertive conversations. It also depends on where we live and were we are from.

 

[metis]

Were you [Carlita] ever really a Christian? Or was it merely a convenient label?...

Great. I'm not asking you to take the Bible personally, it's clear that you don't.

How can you actually call yourself a disciple of Jesus when you post like this? How insulting and judgmental of you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are ignoring all that has been written about Proverbs 30. That's your prerogative. You can invent all the conspiracies you want and avoid all the words you don't really understand. You can decide that someone who rides a donkey is fulfilling a prophecy, or decide that certain things which aren't prophecies are. You can make up whatever you want. And even if you can't, you will.

Rabbi,

You make it sound like there are great refutations available for one or two prophecies. There are over 300 direct prophecies Y'shua fulfilled already, and many more in type and shadow, and still more in gematria.

Chief among the prophecies are some of the more pointed ones--such as those indicating Messiah would come to the Second Temple, which is no longer there for the "new" Messiah to come to; that He would come 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, which would place Messiah's death at (by a good reckoning between Gentile and Jewish calendars and the records of history) at April 4, 29 AD (Y'shua was born in 4 BC and so was 33 1/2 at death, per yet another prophecy), and that He would be not merely of Judah, but a direct descendant of King David, something the "new" Messiah would have trouble proving from current genealogical records extant, yes? Do you disagree? You or I may know we are a kohein, write left-handed, or have a great family history--please name all the Jewish men in this world who can show descent from David, ready, set, go!

Overall, I just wish you were more open to Y'shua powerful claims of Messiahship. You wrote, "I don't need to pray about it, I have Tanakh" as if there is something a good rabbi should not pray about, or as if all the many other Messianic pretenders have holy books written about them and millions of Gentile followers--another powerful prophecy:

He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth."

The above being just one of a number of Tanakh prophecies that the Jewish Messiah would be worshipped worldwide--by Gentiles!

Y'shua fulfills so many extraordinary claims of Tanakh, that despite many misgivings as a Jew, I felt I had to trust Him for salvation.

 

[rosends]

Rabbi,

You make it sound like there are great refutations available for one or two prophecies. There are over 300 direct prophecies Y'shua fulfilled already, and many more in type and shadow, and still more in gematria.

Actually, there are 300 statements that non-Jews have decided are prophecies. Some might be, some aren't. Some are expectations which are fulfilled by many people. Some require that one accept the words of an agendized gospel, written after the fact with the intent of showing that things were fulfilled. What matters is that the ones that Jews always knew as prophecies weren't fulfilled.

Chief among the prophecies are some of the more pointed ones--such as those indicating Messiah would come to the Second Temple,

Not a prophecy. The prophecies indicated he would come after the destruction of 2 temples. He showed up and the temple still stood. Next?

that He would come 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem

Nope, never prophesied. There are all sorts of guesses as to how many years and after what, and you have latched on to one you like.

(Y'shua was born in 4 BC and so was 33 1/2 at death, per yet another prophecy)

Not a prophecy.

and that He would be not merely of Judah, but a direct descendant of King David,

So were and are a whole bunch of people. Simply being in a family is nothing all that exciting. Of course, if you believe God was his father, then he has no tribal or familial connection...

something the "new" Messiah would have trouble proving from current genealogical records extant, yes? Do you disagree?

Yes. I can prove my family all the way back. Unfortunately, my connection to the Davidic dynasty is through my grandmother's father so I'm not the messiah. Yes, my family has a family tree that goes all the way back. Yours doesn't? That's sad.

Overall, I just wish you were more open to Y'shua powerful claims of Messiahship. You wrote, "I don't need to pray about it, I have Tanakh" as if there is something a good rabbi should not pray about, or as if all the many other Messianic pretenders have holy books written about them and millions of Gentile followers--another powerful prophecy:

I wish you could understand that the claims have been deflated so often in the last 2000 years that they aren't even amusing anymore. They are sad because they seem willfully ignorant now.

The above being just one of a number of Tanakh prophecies that the Jewish Messiah would be worshipped worldwide--by Gentiles!

Nothing in your quote (Isaiah 49:6) indicates that the one who brings people back will be the object of worship. Nor does the concept of "Jewish messiah" appear in that verse, or even chapter. The chapter makes it clear whom God is talking to about these roles yet you haven't mentioned that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, there are 300 statements that non-Jews have decided are prophecies.

I'm not a non-Jew, fortunately for us both! And when Ha Shem says, "X WILL happen, it's a prophecy." Further, the JEWS who wrote the NT decided certain statements are prophetic. Stop worrying about goyischa Bible commentary and start considering the Jewish people, including a prominent rabbi, who wrote of the prophecies!

Yes. I can prove my family all the way back. Unfortunately, my connection to the Davidic dynasty is through my grandmother's father so I'm not the messiah.

I didn't ask "your connection to the Davidic dynasty". I asked if any Jewish person today knows they are true royalty, straightest line to David, direct, and yes, male line.

Nope, never prophesied. There are all sorts of guesses as to how many years and after what, and you have latched on to one you like.

There aren't "all sorts" of guesses. There are four alternative lines. And there WAS a prophesy in Daniel, which some cultists forbid Jews to read until they're 40 years in Talmud. Why? Because they go "crazy", eg, become Messianics!

Rabbi, you throw out canards while skipping over important details. The prophecy fulfillment I reference of 69 "sevens" or "shabuas" culminates on PASSOVER, 29 AD, when Y'shua was PRECISELY 33 1/2 years old. Even Talmud recognizes Y'shua was 33 1/2 at death, by quoting the Psalms, "Bloody and deceitful men will live half their days" and says he was between 33 and 34 years old! You'd have something there except:

1. There most certainly is a 483-year prophecy

2. Secular sources and Talmud affirm Y'shua's death and age

3. Y'shua died on Pesach 483 years after the decree. Even secular archaeology places the decree closely to the biblical date.

Rabbi, you believe, as do all men, what you wish to believe.

The prophecies indicated he would come after the destruction of 2 temples. He showed up and the temple still stood.

The Second Temple was destroyed in close proximity to... the crucifixion and resurrection of Y'shua, as you certainly know. But a correct parsing of prophecies has to do with a Messianic triumphal entry to a... THIRD Temple. And we both know that Temple is coming... soon. So is Y'shua.

Again, sorry for all the detail. God will observe and judge your mind, and your heart. Open your heart to Y'shua.

And if you have an interest, consider the prophet who said the "desire of all nations will come..." to the Second Temple and make it more glorious than the First Temple. The Messiah has to have ALREADY been here.

 

[rosends]

I'm not a non-Jew, fortunately for us both! And when Ha Shem says, "X WILL happen, it's a prophecy."

If you are using that as the definition of prophecy then have a blast. It isn't how Jews use the term. Jews, you know, like Jesus.

Further, the JEWS who wrote the NT decided certain statements are prophetic. Stop worrying about goyischa Bible commentary and start considering the Jewish people, including a prominent rabbi, who wrote of the prophecies!

And other Jews decided that Shabbtai Tzvi was the messiah. Why not follow them? Steven Spielberg is a Jew and he decided that an alien had contact with a boy named Eliot. That makes it real?

I didn't ask "your connection to the Davidic dynasty". I asked if any Jewish person today knows they are true royalty, straightest line to David, direct, and yes, male line.

Sure people do. The point was that I have a family tree. So do other people. For example, all the people who descended from my great-grandfather's sons (he had two).

There aren't "all sorts" of guesses. There are four alternative lines.

Sure there are. Just because you are ignorant of the breadth of interpretations doesn't mean that there aren't many interpretations.

And there WAS a prophesy in Daniel, which some cultists forbid Jews to read until they're 40 years in Talmud. Why? Because they go "crazy", eg, become Messianics!

Really? Can you show me where this is codified? I first read it when I was 13. We teach it to high schoolers where I work. And as to whether there was prophecy in it, this simply reflects your lack of understanding about what prophecy is.

Rabbi, you throw out canards while skipping over important details.

that's fancy talk for "I can't answer your claims so I'll focus on something else" I guess.

The prophecy fulfillment I reference of 69 "sevens" or "shabuas" culminates on PASSOVER, 29 AD, when Y'shua was PRECISELY 33 1/2 years old. Even Talmud recognizes Y'shua was 33 1/2 at death, by quoting the Psalms, "Bloody and deceitful men will live half their days" and says he was between 33 and 34 years old!

Wow. nice inventions. First, the word is "shavu'ot", not "shabuas". Your lack of Hebrew should be a hint to your inability to understand the text. The "prophecy" you are citing did not culminate then, nor was it supposed to. And Jesus is not in the talmud. You just keep piling mistake upon mistake.

Rabbi, you believe, as do all men, what you wish to believe.

But what I believe is based on actually studying the source material which you clearly haven't done. You have accepted a set of beliefs that others have invented and you refuse to see that they are built on ignorance. Your choice.

The Second Temple was destroyed in close proximity to... the crucifixion and resurrection of Y'shua, as you certainly know.

So 41 years is "close proximity"? A span of time longer than Jesus lived is close proximity? Of course.

But a correct parsing of prophecies has to do with a Messianic triumphal entry to a... THIRD Temple. And we both know that Temple is coming... soon. So is Y'shua.

Sure, what's two thousand plus years between friends. Makes perfect sense.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you are using that as the definition of prophecy then have a blast. It isn't how Jews use the term. Jews, you know, like Jesus.

And other Jews decided that Shabbtai Tzvi was the messiah. Why not follow them? Steven Spielberg is a Jew and he decided that an alien had contact with a boy named Eliot. That makes it real?

Sure people do. The point was that I have a family tree. So do other people. For example, all the people who descended from my great-grandfather's sons (he had two).


Sure there are. Just because you are ignorant of the breadth of interpretations doesn't mean that there aren't many interpretations.

Really? Can you show me where this is codified? I first read it when I was 13. We teach it to high schoolers where I work. And as to whether there was prophecy in it, this simply reflects your lack of understanding about what prophecy is.
that's fancy talk for "I can't answer your claims so I'll focus on something else" I guess.

Wow. nice inventions. First, the word is "shavu'ot", not "shabuas". Your lack of Hebrew should be a hint to your inability to understand the text. The "prophecy" you are citing did not culminate then, nor was it supposed to. And Jesus is not in the talmud. You just keep piling mistake upon mistake.


But what I believe is based on actually studying the source material which you clearly haven't done. You have accepted a set of beliefs that others have invented and you refuse to see that they are built on ignorance. Your choice.

So 41 years is "close proximity"? A span of time longer than Jesus lived is close proximity? Of course.

Sure, what's two thousand plus years between friends. Makes perfect sense.

I was referring to the shabuas of Daniel, meaning "sevens", not the shavu'ot, meaning weeks, as in Pentecost. Either you don't know the Daniel prophecy of 69 shabuas and 1 more shabua, which means you shouldn't say I have it wrong as pointing to Jesus without doing more research, or you are being disingenuous. I say that respectfully to you, rabbi, but either you have the wrong prophecy or are telling a little fib here.

Many of your other remarks are philosophical in nature. Where you speak facts, your facts are a little strange to me. I remark that Tanakh and NT give reasons as to why a Third Temple will be here, and you seem annoyed that the Messiah hasn't come in 2,000 years since the prophesies, which is a smear on the Jewish Messiah you're still waiting for, not mine. Y'shua has already come. I'm sorry you've "waited so long" for one who has been here already, and who still reaches to you.

I've already given adequate reasons to trust Y'shua as Messiah, above Shabbtai Tzvi. Y'shua healed multitudes, resurrected, was called Immanuel, etc. and 300 other things that Tzvi didn't do, nor Mr. Spielberg.

The point was that I have a family tree.

No, the point is that you are assuming that some Jewish man somewhere today in the world can claim direct, closest lineage to David specifically, which means he is the King of Israel today. And I don't believe your assumption is correct. It should be obvious that such a one would already be heralded, even tested, for Messiahship. You wrote:

Sure there are.

...casually, as if it's no big deal that some ONE, not a group, as in "sure there IS, not sure there ARE", knows he is the King over our people, but is just hibernating along, and no one has told him he might be the Messiah!

I have excellent reasons to place my faith in Jesus. You should as well. I mean, you make it sound like Bar Kokhba or Shabbtai Tzvi has countless Gentile worshippers:

"The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising." ... The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to you. -Isaiah 60:3

"For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations," says the Lord of hosts."-Malachi 1:11

and the prophecy you are saying isn't true, even includes Y'shua's birth and Israel's rejection:

"...The Lord has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name. And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; In the shadow of His hand He has hidden Me, And made Me a polished shaft; In His quiver He has, hidden Me." ... "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant, To ,raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth. Thus says the Lord, The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One, To Him whom man despises, To Him whom the nation abhors, To the Servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise, Princes also shall worship, Because of the Lord who is faithful, The Holy One of Israel; And He has chosen You."

I continue to be amazed, today, that Gentiles love Tanakh so much, when my rabbi friends, rather than quoting holy writ, love to say things like "No, your Hebrew is wrong." Those who love the scriptures, not Talmud, will love Messiah:

Y'shua said, "If you believed Moishe, you would believe me, for he wrote about me."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Look closely:

Thus says the Lord, The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One, To Him whom man despises, TO HIM WHOM THE NATION ABHORS, To the Servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise, Princes also shall worship, Because of the Lord who is faithful, The Holy One of Israel; And He has chosen You."

 

[rosends]

I was referring to the shabuas of Daniel, meaning "sevens",

There is no word in Hebrew "shabuas". It simply doesn't exist.

not the shavu'ot, meaning weeks, as in Pentecost.

Clearly, you don't know Hebrew. It is the same word. The interpretation is the issue.

Either you don't know the Daniel prophecy of 69 shabuas and 1 more shabua, which means you shouldn't say I have it wrong as pointing to Jesus without doing more research, or you are being disingenuous. I say that respectfully to you, rabbi, but either you have the wrong prophecy or are telling a little fib here.

Or maybe I am very familiar with the section but don't see it as pointing to the conclusions you draw.

Many of your other remarks are philosophical in nature. Where you speak facts, your facts are a little strange to me. I remark that Tanakh and NT give reasons as to why a Third Temple will be here, and you seem annoyed that the Messiah hasn't come in 2,000 years since the prophesies, which is a smear on the Jewish Messiah you're still waiting for, not mine. Y'shua has already come. I'm sorry you've "waited so long" for one who has been here already, and who still reaches to you.

Again, you have it wrong. I am pointing out that you are waiting for a "return" soon and yet you are still waiting after 2000 years. The length of time is a sad commentary for Jews because the messiah has not come as a result of our behavior. Your claim of return and yet there has been no return (a non-textual claim) is what deserves the smear. And as for the third temple, its presence textually is really only a function of Jewish exegesis, not textually clear statements. If you want to subscribe to the Jewish understanding you should abide by it across the board.

I've already given adequate reasons to trust Y'shua as Messiah, above Shabbtai Tzvi. Y'shua healed multitudes, resurrected, was called Immanuel, etc. and 300 other things that Tzvi didn't do, nor Mr. Spielberg.

Well, actually, you have accounts in a non-authoritative text which makes those claims. Of course, I could point to biblical and talmudic accounts of healing, resurrection and such to show that doing these things is not related to being called a messiah. I could also point out that Jesus' name was not Immanuel.

No, the point is that you are assuming that some Jewish man somewhere today in the world can claim direct, closest lineage to David specifically, which means he is the King of Israel today.

No it doesn't. Were all of David's sons kings of Israel? Having lineage doesn't mean one is automatically king. I don't know why you would draw that conclusion.
I could cite the rabbinic idea that in each generation, there is someone who has the potential to be the Messiah. This doesn't mean that anyone is "tested". You have much to learn about the Jewish idea of messiah. If you understood it, you might understand why your idea of Jesus is laughable. [check the Chasam Sofer, Responsa 6:98 as per Eiruvin 43b]

I have excellent reasons to place my faith in Jesus. You should as well. I mean, you make it sound like Bar Kokhba or Shabbtai Tzvi has countless Gentile worshippers:

By your logic, they should. And plenty of Jewish ones. Maybe the rejection of a messianic figure by Jews should tell you something. We rejected Bar Cochva and Shabbtai Tzvi for the same reasons we rejected Jesus. You accept the first 2 rejections but not the third...strange.

and the prophecy you are saying isn't true, even includes Y'shua's birth and Israel's rejection:

"...The Lord has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name. And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; In the shadow of His hand He has hidden Me, And made Me a polished shaft; In His quiver He has, hidden Me." ... "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant, To ,raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth. Thus says the Lord, The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One, To Him whom man despises, To Him whom the nation abhors, To the Servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise, Princes also shall worship, Because of the Lord who is faithful, The Holy One of Israel; And He has chosen You."

Then you quote Isaiah 49 claiming that it is about Jesus. It simply isn't. You can claim it is about Thomas the Tank Engine if you want. It just isn't. It amazes me that you think it is.

I continue to be amazed, today, that Gentiles love Tanakh so much, when my rabbi friends, rather than quoting holy writ, love to say things like "No, your Hebrew is wrong." Those who love the scriptures, not Talmud, will love Messiah:

Y'shua said, "If you believed Moishe, you would believe me, for he wrote about me."

I am shocked that you think you can study a work in agendized translation and think you understand it. If you studied what Moses (think Dev 13 and 18) taught, you would discount Jesus immediately.

 

[rosends]

Look closely:

Thus says the Lord, The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One, To Him whom man despises, TO HIM WHOM THE NATION ABHORS, To the Servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise, Princes also shall worship, Because of the Lord who is faithful, The Holy One of Israel; And He has chosen You."

Yes, now continue to the next verse, in which about the "you" it is written "So said the Lord, "In a time of favor I answered you, and on a day of salvation I helped you; and I will watch you, and I will make you as a people of a covenant, to establish a land, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages."

It is written about the people of Israel. They are the "you."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, now continue to the next verse, in which about the "you" it is written "So said the Lord, "In a time of favor I answered you, and on a day of salvation I helped you; and I will watch you, and I will make you as a people of a covenant, to establish a land, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages."

It is written about the people of Israel. They are the "you."

1. You are being disingenuous about "shabua". I wrote shabua as an English trans-alliteration and you know I did.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm

2. Are you SURE the passage is the people of Israel? THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL AS A NATION ABHOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL or The nation of Israel abhors Y'shua? You see, we don't abhor Kokhba or Tzvi. We may think they were mistaken regarding some things, affirm them in others, but I wasn't taught their abhorrence as a child!

 

[rosends]

1. You are being disingenuous about "shabua". I wrote shabua as an English trans-alliteration and you know I did.

Sure you did...a really bad one which you then tried to make distinct from the word shavu'ot. Remember, you wrote "the shabuas of Daniel, meaning "sevens", not the shavu'ot, meaning weeks" as if "shabuas" was some actual word.

If you don't know what you are talking about, you shouldn't say anything. You will get called on it and will have to tell others that they are being disingenuous. Citing an online concordance which doesn;t know the difference between 2 Hebrew letters doesn't help your cause.

2. Are you SURE the passage is the people of Israel? THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL AS A NATION ABHOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL or The nation of Israel abhors Y'shua? You see, we don't abhor Kokhba or Tzvi. We may think they were mistaken regarding some things, affirm them in others, but I wasn't taught their abhorrence as a child!

Maybe try a better translation and see that the "nation" in the text is not the children of Israel but those to whom Israel will become a light (verse 6) but who now are rulers to the Children of Israel:
7. So said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, about him who is despised of men, about him whom the nation abhors, about a slave of rulers, "Kings shall see and rise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, for the sake of the Lord Who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, and He chose you.
8. So said the Lord, "In a time of favor I answered you, and on a day of salvation I helped you; and I will watch you, and I will make you for a people of a covenant, to establish a land, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages.

The text is clear. God speaks about the children of Israel who are now despised and ruled over as slaves and says that they will be answered and watched and caused to inherit. No Jesus.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure you did...a really bad one which you then tried to make distinct from the word shavu'ot. Remember, you wrote "the shabuas of Daniel, meaning "sevens", not the shavu'ot, meaning weeks" as if "shabuas" was some actual word.

If you don't know what you are talking about, you shouldn't say anything. You will get called on it and will have to tell others that they are being disingenuous. Citing an online concordance which doesn;t know the difference between 2 Hebrew letters doesn't help your cause.




Maybe try a better translation and see that the "nation" in the text is not the children of Israel but those to whom Israel will become a light (verse 6) but who now are rulers to the Children of Israel:
7. So said the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, about him who is despised of men, about him whom the nation abhors, about a slave of rulers, "Kings shall see and rise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, for the sake of the Lord Who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, and He chose you.
8. So said the Lord, "In a time of favor I answered you, and on a day of salvation I helped you; and I will watch you, and I will make you for a people of a covenant, to establish a land, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages.

The text is clear. God speaks about the children of Israel who are now despised and ruled over as slaves and says that they will be answered and watched and caused to inherit. No Jesus.

1. We can still argue about the Hebrew, but we can take your side on it here, which means you are saying Daniel instead predicted Messiah would come 483 WEEKS after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem? Then He's still ALREADY COME. He's come even if you prefer to translate it as 483 festivals of weeks!

2. The text IS clear in your preferred English translation, ONE NATION DESPISES THIS HIM, not multiple nations. Jews have been abhorred in MANY NATIONS. We were enslaved in Egypt, captive in Assyria and Babylonia, enslaved under Rome. ONE NATION DESPISES THIS HIM as a matter of tradition, of cultural and family teaching. I was raised to understand that all Jews are to despise Jesus as a false Messiah, that is, Y'shua is the HIM WHOM THE NATION OF ISRAEL DESPISES.

 

[rosends]

1. We can still argue about the Hebrew, but we can take your side on it here, which means you are saying Daniel instead predicted Messiah would come 483 WEEKS after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem? Then He's still ALREADY COME. He's come even if you prefer to translate it as 483 festivals of weeks!

Well, there isn't much to argue about in terms of the Hebrew, and the idea that Daniel's is a messianic prophecy for us to interpret and live by isn't really an accurate statement, but OK. You might as well just read this http://drazin.com/?7._The_L-RD'S_Anointed (scroll a bit down) -- the math has all been done; the text has been aligned with other text and the objects of prophecy identified. Still, no Jesus.

2. The text IS clear in your preferred English translation, ONE NATION DESPISES THIS HIM, not multiple nations. Jews have been abhorred in MANY NATIONS. We were enslaved in Egypt, captive in Assyria and Babylonia, enslaved under Rome. ONE NATION DESPISES THIS HIM as a matter of tradition, of cultural and family teaching. I was raised to understand that all Jews are to despise Jesus as a false Messiah, that is, Y'shua is the HIM WHOM THE NATION OF ISRAEL DESPISES.

Besides your insistence of inserting "THE NATION OF ISRAEL" into the work, a phrase which is completely absent, you might want to understand that the use of the singular "goy" was dealt with 800 years ago by the Radak. You should look it up. You can also check out the Ibn Ezra (from 900 years ago) who understands the phrase differently but explains the word "goy" in the same way. It seems that those with some expertise with the Hebrew don't see it as a singular the way you do. Shocking. Of course, there is also an internal reference to "geivee", spelled the same way, but let's not push too hard on your understanding.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I looked at the website. Fascinating. I didn't realize you thought King Agrippa II was the anointed one of Daniel. Perhaps from the Hebrew you can tell me what it means, this anointed one?

OH! But before you do, you can also tell us how Agrippa II:

*Finished the transgression of Israel
*Ended human sins
*Reconciled human sin
*Ushered in everlasting righteousness
*Sealed up (hid from the Jewish people) vision and prophecy
*Anointed the Most Holy (Place)

OH! AND WAS MESSIAH THE PRINCE:

“Seventy sevens are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

25 “Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.

Agrippa II is MESSIAH THE PRINCE? Really, Rabbi, really?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Besides your insistence of inserting "THE NATION OF ISRAEL" into the work, a phrase which is completely absent, you might want to understand that the use of the singular "goy" was dealt with 800 years ago by the Radak. You should look it up. You can also check out the Ibn Ezra (from 900 years ago) who understands the phrase differently but explains the word "goy" in the same way. It seems that those with some expertise with the Hebrew don't see it as a singular the way you do. Shocking. Of course, there is also an internal reference to "geivee", spelled the same way, but let's not push too hard on your understanding.

Let's take off the g then and yield OY.

Oy, Rabbi, you COMPLETELY DODGED, and I say this respectfully, the point. A singular nation (doesn't have to be Israel!) despises HIM. MULTIPLE nations despise Israel. Him isn't Israel.

I use "goy" here in the abbreviated, Yiddish sense. Oy, oy, oy, the shikseh met a goy.

Goy, goyisch, goyischa, not GOYIM meaning "Da' nations dat' ain't Israel." Give me a break, Oy!

Rabbi, you COMPLETELY DODGED, and I say this respectfully, the point. A singular nation (doesn't have to be Israel!) despises HIM. MULTIPLE nations despise Israel. Him isn't Israel.

If you are trying to win me back to the side of right and sense, not loving Y'shua, you are not doing such a hot job. I can get any rabbi in town to say my Hebrew is poor! The ancient Greek, not so much!

God bless you, Rabbi!