Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[Tumah]

The section you cite cuts the talmudic discussion off.

Is the whole context really necessary after all? Can't we just clip out the parts we like?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Where does the nine months come from?

 

[rosends]

Where does the nine months come from?

equating the experience to that of a woman and pregnancy.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Is the whole context really necessary after all? Can't we just clip out the parts we like?

Sometimes clipping the bits that are relevant is what is described as 'rightly dividing the word of truth'.

 

[rosends]

Sometimes clipping the bits that are relevant is what is described as 'rightly dividing the word of truth'.

like clipping all those pesky "no" statements and just having "kill, steal, commit adultery". Rightly divided I guess.

 

[Tumah]

Sometimes clipping the bits that are relevant is what is described as 'rightly dividing the word of truth'.

'Rightly dividing the word of truth' is called "cherry picking" by non-Christians.

 

[Redemptionsong]

like clipping all those pesky "no" statements and just having "kill, steal, commit adultery". Rightly divided I guess.

A better example would be Isaiah 61:2 which is beautifully divided by Jesus. He is able to distinguish between the 'acceptable year of the Lord' and 'the day of vengeance'.

 

[rosends]

A better example would be Isaiah 61:2 which is beautifully divided by Jesus. He is able to distinguish between the 'acceptable year of the Lord' and 'the day of vengeance' - something you appear blind to.

But he sees "שְׁנַת רָצוֹן" as "acceptable year" so he trades "dividing" for "proper translating." Got it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

But he sees "שְׁנַת רָצוֹן" as "acceptable year" so he trades "dividing" for "proper translating." Got it.

Whether it's translated as 'pleasure' or 'good pleasure' or 'acceptable' makes no difference to the dividing of the passage. The dividing takes place based on a distinction between salvation and judgement. If you fail to see this distinction then judgement will come as 'a thief in the night'.

 

[Tumah]

Whether it's translated as 'pleasure' or 'good pleasure' or 'acceptable' makes no difference to the dividing of the passage. The dividing takes place based on a distinction between salvation and judgement. If you fail to see this distinction then judgement will come as 'a thief in the night'.

Exactly what is the divide that your book is making? The verse says that there will be good stuff for one year and bad stuff for one day. So what are you adding to that?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Exactly what is the divide that your book is making? The verse says that there will be good stuff for one year and bad stuff for one day. So what are you adding to that?

Is that how you understand 'the day of vengeance of our God'? To say that the it's 'bad stuff for one day' is more than an understatement. This is the judgement of God on mankind. If the Messiah is to set up his kingdom on this earth, there will be a judgement first. What makes you so sure that you're ready to face that judgement?
The importance of the divide in Isaiah 61:2 is that Jesus offers salvation in this present time. The opportunities for salvation disappear when the judgement of God arrives.
Without a Saviour, you take upon yourself the work of righteousness - to remain pure and unblemished before God. 99.9% isn't good enough.

We, the sinners who have recognised Jesus as Saviour, and have repented, seek to be filled with his spirit of holiness, that we might be justified by his righteousness. Our responsibility is to allow his spirit to lead us. That's not arrogance, or unrighteousness; it's the spirit of sonship.

 

[Tumah]

Is that how you understand 'the day of vengeance of our God'? To say that the it's 'bad stuff for one day' is more than an understatement. This is the judgement of God on mankind. If the Messiah is to set up his kingdom on this earth, there will be a judgement first. What makes you so sure that you're ready to face that judgement?
The importance of the divide in Isaiah 61:2 is that Jesus offers salvation in this present time. The opportunities for salvation disappear when the judgement of God arrives.
Without a Saviour, you take upon yourself the work of righteousness - to remain pure and unblemished before God. 99.9% isn't good enough.

We, the sinners who have recognised Jesus as Saviour, and have repented, seek to be filled with his spirit of holiness, that we might be justified by his righteousness. Our responsibility is to allow his spirit to lead us. That's not arrogance, or unrighteousness; it's the spirit of sonship.

This is... not an answer to my question.
I actually wanted an answer to my question, not Christian preaching their theology. I don't know how you got confused.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This is... not an answer to my question.
I actually wanted an answer to my question, not Christian preaching their theology. I don't know how you got confused.

It is an answer. You wanted to know what the divide was. I am saying that the verse is divided between two distinct periods of time, marked by two distinct advents of the same Messiah.

Jesus showed us that it is proper to 'rightly divide the word of truth.'

If you cannot see the distinction between the Jubilee and the Jugement then you are failing to recognise the truth of the scriptures you claim to hold dear.

Try reading Luke 4:16-21.

 

[Tumah]

It is an answer. You wanted to know what the divide was. I am saying that the verse is divided between two distinct periods of time, marked by two distinct advents of the same Messiah.

Jesus showed us that it is proper to 'rightly divide the word of truth.'

If you cannot see the distinction between the Jubilee and the Jugement then you are failing to recognise the truth of the scriptures you claim to hold dear.

Try reading Luke 4:16-21.

Its obviously two distinct times because a day is not a year. We didn't need Jesus for that. But to say its talking about two totally unrelated eras? There is no indication of such a divide in the passage, nor does it fit the context. That would be cherry-picking. For self-serving reasons if you ask me. Jesus accomplished none of the prophecies during his "first" time here, so you need to give him an excuse for a second chance. Which brings us back to the original accusation.

 

[rosends]

Whether it's translated as 'pleasure' or 'good pleasure' or 'acceptable' makes no difference to the dividing of the passage. The dividing takes place based on a distinction between salvation and judgement. If you fail to see this distinction then judgement will come as 'a thief in the night'.

Sure, it makes no difference because all three miss the point. And what exactly is the divide that you speak of? I see 2 separate times, marked by 2 separate attitudes and events. Does your text move a comma or something?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So basically, you don't know what the Torah actually says, but you know Jesus, so whatever the Torah says is secondary to that.

Isn't there some verse in Mark about "you have let go of the commandment of G-d and hold to the whisperings of your mind."?

There is no such verse anywhere in the NT. So let's take your statement:

So basically, you don't know what the Torah actually says, but you know Jesus, so whatever the Torah says is secondary to that.

and make it:

So basically, you don't know what the NT actually says, but you know Tanakh, so whatever you think the Tanakh says tells you enough about Y'shua without hearing the voice of the NT.

Does the Mosaic Law teach us to judge a person before we witness what he has to say? I read the words of Y'shua first and conferred with Tanakh, too.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Even just this statement shows that you don't understand what a Messiah is. You know that king David was a messiah, right? And he didn't make an end of human sin, did he?

Arguable at best.

I know what an anointed one is. I know that both of us, as Jews, are waiting for a very special anointed one. Both Messianic and non-Messianic Jews refer to this one as THE Messiah, not "a Messiah".

The Messiah will do many things in Daniel 9, extraordinary things that neither David nor Agrippa II, and not even the great Solomon, accomplished or can accomplish. My point remains--Agrippa II, if that's who you are certain is the referent of Daniel 9, never did any of these things:

“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"

Further...

after the sixty-two sevens
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

King Agrippa II was killed but not for his own sake?

"And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."

Rome destroyed the city and sanctuary. They are the people who cut off the Prince of Life, Y'shua, but not for Y'shua's sake. Whereas Agrippa II enlarged the city of Caesarea Philippi, and called it Neronias, in honor of Nero!

And when Paul spoke with Agrippa, he responded, "You almost persuade me to become a Christian."

 

[rosends]

I know what an anointed one is. I know that both of us, as Jews, are waiting for a very special anointed one. Both Messianic and non-Messianic Jews refer to this one as THE Messiah, not "a Messiah".

Actually, Jews refer to this one as a variety of things. This includes "messiah" and "the messiah" plus at least 2 other terms.There is no Hebrew for "a messiah" but in English, Jews refer to the upcoming messiah as a messiah. Look, there, I just did it.

The Messiah will do many things in Daniel 9, extraordinary things that neither David nor Agrippa II, and not even the great Solomon, accomplished or can accomplish. My point remains--Agrippa II, if that's who you are certain is the referent of Daniel 9, never did any of these things:

You insist on understanding Daniel in a certain way so you insist that it has to refer to a particular figure. That's your prerogative. Your lack of understanding doesn't impact the text. And neither does quoting "Paul."

 

[Redemptionsong]

Its obviously two distinct times because a day is not a year. We didn't need Jesus for that. But to say its talking about two totally unrelated eras? There is no indication of such a divide in the passage, nor does it fit the context. That would be cherry-picking. For self-serving reasons if you ask me. Jesus accomplished none of the prophecies during his "first" time here, so you need to give him an excuse for a second chance. Which brings us back to the original accusation.

They are not two unrelated eras. The return of Christ, the day of the Lord, is the time appointed for Judgement. Yet in the comma (KJV), or 'and' (JSB) of Isaiah 61:2 lies a period of (at present) two thousand years.

According to your view, it's Isaiah who has the spirit upon him in chapter 61:1,2; yet in Isaiah 11:2 Isaiah specifically states that it's upon the Messiah that the spirit of the LORD shall alight. Would Isaiah prophesy the coming of the spirit on HIMSELF! Of course not.

You talk about reading passages in context, and using logic, well this is exactly what allows us to connect these passages.

Another of the prophecies that relate to Jesus' first and second advents, in a single passage, is Zechariah 9:9,10
JSB, 'Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion;
Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem!
Lo, your king is coming to you.
He is victorious, triumphant,
yet humble, riding on an ***,
On a donkey foaled by a she-***.
[Note here the divide - 'shall' not 'is']
He shall banish chariots from Ephraim
And horses from Jerusalem;
The warrior's bow shall be banished.
He shall call on the nations to surrender,
And his rule shall extend from sea to sea
And from ocean to land's end.

How do you explain the humility of the *** rider and the 'call on the nations to surrender'? A king would be derided and scorned if he were to humbly call on nations to surrender. Which is why humility is connected with the first coming, and swift judgement with the second.
We also have a very clear fulfilment of the first verse (v.9) in Matthew 21:1-11. Yet the second part is still future.

 

[metis]

They are not two unrelated eras. The return of Christ, the day of the Lord, is the time appointed for Judgement. Yet in the comma (KJV), or 'and' (JSB) of Isaiah 61:2 lies a period of (at present) two thousand years.

According to your view, it's Isaiah who has the spirit upon him in chapter 61:1,2; yet in Isaiah 11:2 Isaiah specifically states that it's upon the Messiah that the spirit of the LORD shall alight. Would Isaiah prophesy the coming of the spirit on HIMSELF! Of course not.

You talk about reading passages in context, and using logic, well this is exactly what allows us to connect these passages.

Another of the prophecies that relate to Jesus' first and second advents, in a single passage, is Zechariah 9:9,10
JSB, 'Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion;
Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem!
Lo, your king is coming to you.
He is victorious, triumphant,
yet humble, riding on an ***,
On a donkey foaled by a she-***.
[Note here the divide - 'shall' not 'is']
He shall banish chariots from Ephraim
And horses from Jerusalem;
The warrior's bow shall be banished.
He shall call on the nations to surrender,
And his rule shall extend from sea to sea
And from ocean to land's end.

How do you explain the humility of the *** rider and the 'call on the nations to surrender'? A king would be derided and scorned if he were to humbly call on nations to surrender. Which is why humility is connected with the first coming, and swift judgement with the second.
We also have a very clear fulfilment of the first verse (v.9) in Matthew 21:1-11. Yet the second part is still future.

Are you aware that it is entirely conceivable that Jesus may have done this intentionally so as to display himself, correctly or not, as "the Messiah"?

BTW, in Isaiah, it says that the accused would stand mute when being judged, but the gospels have Jesus talking with Pilate.