Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[BilliardsBall]

G-d can do anything He wants. The Christian concept of the holy spirit teaching them bible is naturally, a big load of hogwash. But again, Jews have no problem with you Christians eating pig. Just don't offer it to us...

What you eat, you excrete. But remember, kashrut has to do with distinctions between clean and unclean. A Gentile with the Ruach Ha Kodesh is clean.

Let's not try to play with words, yes? Scholars disagree as to the date, including the year of his death. You are picking a little bit from everyone, in order to get the date you want.

The most commonly accepted date of birth for centuries (until recent revisionists and liberals chimed in) has been 4 BCE. That makes Jesus, born on Tabernacles, 33½ at His death in 29 AD on Pesach. Maybe we could look at things differently if Jesus didn’t have billions of followers, hadn’t risen from the dead, etc.

Alternatively, they could have just been looking for a good time and Jesus had a fast ride, so they hopped on in.
Jesus was not the first or last false messiah. Nor was he the first or last false messiah that convinced Jews to follow him. So the fact that Jews followed him lends absolutely 0% validity to his claim. Its even kind of weird that Christians keep bringing it up. Almost as if they don't realize that its happened to other false messiahs as well...

Of course some Jews followed false messiahs, too, brother. Some Jews followed Korah in rebellion after seeing the events of the Exodus! Some Jews followed Absalom and et al against David! My point is a Jewish brother or sister living in Israel at that time could easily say, “Tomb empty, no miracles, no miraculous meals, no earthquake on Pesach, no, the Temple veil was not torn asunder,” etc. You need to parse the difference between a false political or military messiah and Jesus, whose followers were claiming nothing short of miracles, and those Jews who said, “Yes!” because they had solid eyewitness testimonies to trust—and more importantly—fulfilled prophecies of Tanakh!

 

[BilliardsBall]

The tanach means what it means, but knowing what it means is no simple feat. Does the US constitution "mean what it means"? The answer is it does and more. But it takes people versed in the text to understand it on more than the simplest (and incomplete) level. So talmud says "God said this and this means a variety of things." The non-Jew who doesn't know the talmud can't then really understand the tanach. The Russian who doesn't understand the subtleties of English can't really know the constitution.

The claim that the tanach points to Jesus is just another example of how not really understanding the text leads to false conclusions. You made my case.

1. Of course Tanakh and Talmud both point to Jesus.

2. You are assuming I lack (some!) Talmud knowledge in moving from the general case to mine in specific.

3. Non-Talmud students have done many righteous deeds from their Tanakh studies.

The non-Jew who doesn't know the talmud can't then really understand the tanach. The Russian who doesn't understand the subtleties of English can't really know the constitution.

Over 100 nations have adopted principles of America's constitution and/or a red, white and blue flag. The teeming immigrants who fled here, including your family and mine, likely were encouraged by the freedoms the Constitution offers.

As important, the same for the Gentiles and Jews who take refuge in the Word of God. The Tanakh says thousands of times it is the Word of God. The Talmud... zero.

 

[rosends]

1. Of course Tanakh and Talmud both point to Jesus.

Of course neither does.

2. You are assuming I lack (some!) Talmud knowledge in moving from the general case to mine in specific.

Yes, yes I am.

3. Non-Talmud students have done many righteous deeds from their Tanakh studies.

And non-tanach students have also done righteous deeds. So? One does not have to read the law to drive under 55. You might just do it anyway. One does not have to read the decalogue in order not to kill someone or respect one's parents.

Over 100 nations have adopted principles of America's constitution and/or a red, white and blue flag. The teeming immigrants who fled here, including your family and mine, likely were encouraged by the freedoms the Constitution offers.

Feel free to ask them about prior restraints as exceptions to the first amendment. My guess is that they won't know what you are talking about. It is easy to be superficially familiar with large scale concepts, but not understand the issues which allow a constitutional lawyer to have a job.

As important, the same for the Gentiles and Jews who take refuge in the Word of God. The Tanakh says thousands of times it is the Word of God. The Talmud... zero.

This is not quite a grammatical sentence so I don't know what you are talking about. You can feel free not to like the oral law. No one expects you to. It clearly isn't for you. I don't know why you keep complaining. But without it, you can't claim to understand the text given to the Jews.

 

[anonymous9887]

Jacob is in neither of the verses I referenced.

Genesis 25:21 you said right?

 

[Tumah]

What you eat, you excrete. But remember, kashrut has to do with distinctions between clean and unclean. A Gentile with the Ruach Ha Kodesh is clean.

You mean pure or impure...
Who said that Ruach Ha Kodesh has to do with being pure or impure...

The most commonly accepted date of birth for centuries (until recent revisionists and liberals chimed in) has been 4 BCE. That makes Jesus, born on Tabernacles, 33½ at His death in 29 AD on Pesach. Maybe we could look at things differently if Jesus didn’t have billions of followers, hadn’t risen from the dead, etc.

So because it was accepted for centuries, it must be true?
And you keep saying that Tabernacle thing. But I've already told you that the evidence for this is based on the wrong word.
Jesus death is estimated between 30 and 33 CE.

Of course some Jews followed false messiahs, too, brother. Some Jews followed Korah in rebellion after seeing the events of the Exodus! Some Jews followed Absalom and et al against David! My point is a Jewish brother or sister living in Israel at that time could easily say, “Tomb empty, no miracles, no miraculous meals, no earthquake on Pesach, no, the Temple veil was not torn asunder,” etc. You need to parse the difference between a false political or military messiah and Jesus, whose followers were claiming nothing short of miracles, and those Jews who said, “Yes!” because they had solid eyewitness testimonies to trust—and more importantly—fulfilled prophecies of Tanakh!

Alternatively, since the book describing those "miracles" was written and re-written and re-re-written after the fact, they didn't actually happen or not in the manner that was described.
Even if they had happened, there is no reason to associate performing miracles with being true.

 

[rosends]

Genesis 25:21 you said right?

Yes -- here is the text that your post linked to:

And Isaac entreated Jehovah for his wife, because she was barren. And Jehovah was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

No Jacob there.

 

[anonymous9887]

Yes -- here is the text that your post linked to:

And Isaac entreated Jehovah for his wife, because she was barren. And Jehovah was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

No Jacob there.

Oh I'm sorry. Ok so what hebrew word or phrase were you pointing out?

 

[rosends]

Oh I'm sorry. Ok so what hebrew word or phrase were you pointing out?

The fact that if you view "YHVH" or somesuch as a proper name, then you have a contradiction. In one verse, God says that he didn't reveal that "name" to the forefathers, but in the Genesis verses, the forefathers and those around them (as in 26:28) use the "name."

 

[anonymous9887]

The fact that if you view "YHVH" or somesuch as a proper name, then you have a contradiction. In one verse, God says that he didn't reveal that "name" to the forefathers, but in the Genesis verses, the forefathers and those around them (as in 26:28) use the "name."

It's obvious they knew gods name, but they had never actually see god doing what his name actually means.

 

[rosends]

It's obvious they knew gods name, but they had never actually see god doing what his name actually means.

IOW, they had not seen him live up to that particular title. I have a name. There is no expectation that I do what that name means. Your name is Paul. I don't expect you to "Paul". Names don't work like that. Adjectives which describe things do. Thus, the 4 letters are a title which describes an attribute, not a personal name. Just like other titles.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course neither does.

Yes, yes I am.

And non-tanach students have also done righteous deeds. So? One does not have to read the law to drive under 55. You might just do it anyway. One does not have to read the decalogue in order not to kill someone or respect one's parents.


Feel free to ask them about prior restraints as exceptions to the first amendment. My guess is that they won't know what you are talking about. It is easy to be superficially familiar with large scale concepts, but not understand the issues which allow a constitutional lawyer to have a job.

This is not quite a grammatical sentence so I don't know what you are talking about. You can feel free not to like the oral law. No one expects you to. It clearly isn't for you. I don't know why you keep complaining. But without it, you can't claim to understand the text given to the Jews.

I'll suffice it to say that your last point is wrong. Tanakh is plenty clear enough for the purposes of salvation and righteous living.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mean pure or impure...
Who said that Ruach Ha Kodesh has to do with being pure or impure...


So because it was accepted for centuries, it must be true?
And you keep saying that Tabernacle thing. But I've already told you that the evidence for this is based on the wrong word.
Jesus death is estimated between 30 and 33 CE.


Alternatively, since the book describing those "miracles" was written and re-written and re-re-written after the fact, they didn't actually happen or not in the manner that was described.
Even if they had happened, there is no reason to associate performing miracles with being true.

1. The keeping of the Law can make a Jewish person clean or unclean, except that a Gentile can be cleaned in another manner, and we Jews don't have a Temple where we may offer sacrifices.

2. If you insist Jesus's death is between 30 and 33 CE, I'd remind you that the same scholars move the decree of Daniel 9 currently to about a four-year span, so the prophecy "works"--of course, now we are taking our dates away from common sense and Occam's razor. Surely neither of us let liberal scholars do all the heavy lifting for us?

3. It's a canard that the NT was "rewritten" many times. It is the most thoroughly researched collection of ancient documents besides Tanakh, and like Tanakh, has been proved accurate beyond any reasonable doubt.

4. I'm not sure I understand your "miracles and truth" statement. Please explain.

 

[BilliardsBall]

IOW, they had not seen him live up to that particular title. I have a name. There is no expectation that I do what that name means. Your name is Paul. I don't expect you to "Paul". Names don't work like that. Adjectives which describe things do. Thus, the 4 letters are a title which describes an attribute, not a personal name. Just like other titles.

I find that remark a little trite, since so many figures in Tanakh absolutely lived up to their birth names, and since we know gematria and other study methods reveal much in the names. For example, have you heard of the link between 1 Chron 1:1 and the Christian gospel?

 

[rosends]

I find that remark a little trite, since so many figures in Tanakh absolutely lived up to their birth names, and since we know gematria and other study methods reveal much in the names. For example, have you heard of the link between 1 Chron 1:1 and the Christian gospel?

Moses lived up to his name? Or was it Jacob? Maybe Samson? The fact that someone with a name lived a life related to the meaning of that name, or that someone was named by God and fulfilled that purpose native to the name given prophetically by God is not the issue here. Just because something is called a "name" doesn't mean it is an adjective, and vice versa.

 

[Tumah]

1. The keeping of the Law can make a Jewish person clean or unclean, except that a Gentile can be cleaned in another manner, and we Jews don't have a Temple where we may offer sacrifices.

You non-Jews can't become pure or impure.
We Jews can attain degrees of purity through ritual immersion.
None of this has anything to do with the holy Spirit.

2. If you insist Jesus's death is between 30 and 33 CE, I'd remind you that the same scholars move the decree of Daniel 9 currently to about a four-year span, so the prophecy "works"--of course, now we are taking our dates away from common sense and Occam's razor. Surely neither of us let liberal scholars do all the heavy lifting for us?

You can't play both sides of the fence. You want to take the scholars that line up with your dates and discard the ones that don't. We aren't talking about scholars interpretation go Daniel 9, we're talking about scholars estimation of Jesus' death.

3. It's a canard that the NT was "rewritten" many times. It is the most thoroughly researched collection of ancient documents besides Tanakh, and like Tanakh, has been proved accurate beyond any reasonable doubt.

So I guess you're not familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls...

4. I'm not sure I understand your "miracles and truth" statement. Please explain.

Performing miracles doesn't indicate voracity.

 

[paarsurrey]

Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah. Which one and why?

Whatever good name for ONENESS of G-d is in vogue in a people is fine, the rest are the attributes of that name.
Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah, YHWH, Ahura-Mazda, Brahman,Brahma,
Waheguru (the Supreme Being, or the creator of all. It means "Wonderful Teacher" in the Punjabi language) etc are all OK.

Regards

 

[BilliardsBall]

Moses lived up to his name? Or was it Jacob? Maybe Samson? The fact that someone with a name lived a life related to the meaning of that name, or that someone was named by God and fulfilled that purpose native to the name given prophetically by God is not the issue here. Just because something is called a "name" doesn't mean it is an adjective, and vice versa.

I see. Can you tell me what "Y'shua" or "Yehoshua" means, please, so I can learn?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You non-Jews can't become pure or impure.
We Jews can attain degrees of purity through ritual immersion.
None of this has anything to do with the holy Spirit.


You can't play both sides of the fence. You want to take the scholars that line up with your dates and discard the ones that don't. We aren't talking about scholars interpretation go Daniel 9, we're talking about scholars estimation of Jesus' death.


So I guess you're not familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls...


Performing miracles doesn't indicate voracity.

Sorry, milk makes a Gentile more righteous than the Spirit? Would you like some Tanakh verses presented regarding God's desire to bless the Gentiles, make them righteous, and partakers of His divine Spirit?

 

[rosends]

I see. Can you tell me what "Y'shua" or "Yehoshua" means, please, so I can learn?

"God will save you." see rashi on Bamidbar 13:16 ("יה יושיעך ")

 

[Tumah]

Sorry, milk makes a Gentile more righteous than the Spirit? Would you like some Tanakh verses presented regarding God's desire to bless the Gentiles, make them righteous, and partakers of His divine Spirit?

I don't know milk you're talking about.
Go ahead.