Do the Jews Have a God?

[wizanda]

it is certain that the Tanakh does not say that any of these things happened in the life of Jesus.

That is the point, prophecies like Zechariah 11 are around 500 years in the future, it explains that the 2nd temple would be destroyed, when Zechariah was the one building it...

It is a prophetic book, therefore we should assign time values based on specified criteria within the historical timeline...

None of Zechariah 11 happened at his time, as it says about the covenant being nullified (10), and our people eating each others flesh (9); we know historically this all happened at the 2nd temple destruction, where people literally eat each other due to starvation.

The point is that I don't know that any of these things happened

None of us do; all we can do is build a case with what evidence is available to us.

Do sometimes question if the New Testament was fabricated by highly intelligent beings, as some of it fits too well with what was predicted.

If you mean to say that the Gospels say that Jesus fulfilled, then say that.

Sorry, based on what is put forward about Yeshua's own speech, and actions within the Synoptic Gospels versus John, Paul and Simon, fulfill what is specified.

File this under the "if" you started with. Since it fails, the rest fails.

IF is a good clause in coding, ELSE is also used in conjunction to make cases for questions.

Simply deciding that because the word for "salvation of" is used this is a reference to someone whose name you believe derives from the word for "salvation" is an error on your part.

It wasn't simply deciding, it was realizing his name was Yeshua/Yehoshua...

Then simply questioned what did he read when he saw the text in his own language, and realized how his name is in there...Like you'd expect someone Hebraic to do.

There are many cryptic/metaphoric descriptor verses that use versions of his name, yet we have to be careful checking all contexts.

The verse 52:14

Sorry my fault just then, missed saying within the Dead Sea Scrolls, as we discussed previously.

No, that is neither the only, nor even A correct way. It makes plenty of sense.

Swiss cheese exegesis might be useful to those cursed mice; yet really not helpful when trying to truly understand what is contained contextually across the prophets.

The IF you posit doesn't approach any level of probability, let alone 99%.

Then clearly we have a lot more work ahead of us, comprehending why that probability can exist.

The difference between a prophet and some anonymous random on the internet suffering from delusions of grandeur

Lets take Isaiah with his 'delusions of grandeur', what happened to him?

Was he believed at the time?

People just often debunk what they don't understand, and get angry if challenged; the internet is a much safer place to be.

I've had this conversation with him. He didn't get it then either...

As have I

Like children who can't tie shoelaces, comparing which ones laces are knotted better.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

 

[rosends]

IF is a good clause in coding, ELSE is also used in conjunction to make cases for questions.

IF THEN ELSE , sure. I see this as clearly "else."

It wasn't simply deciding, it was realizing his name was Yeshua/Yehoshua...

Then simply questioned what did he read when he saw the text in his own language, and realized how his name is in there...Like you'd expect someone Hebraic to do.

Then do you feel that Yehoshua Bin Nun, or Yeyshua the priest is the same person? They must have read their own names in there also! And before Jesus. I see my name in the text also. That must mean something. You must love when Muslims see Muhammed's name in the Song of Songs.

Sorry my fault just then, missed saying within the Dead Sea Scrolls, as we discussed previously.

OK, you can take the DSS if you want. And you can conclude that God has blemishes if you'd like.

Swiss cheese exegesis might be useful to those cursed mice; yet really not helpful when trying to truly understand what is contained contextually across the prophets.

Gymnastics is great in the Olympics, but not in biblical understanding. Don't forget to stretch though!

Like children who can't tie shoelaces, comparing which ones laces are knotted better.

More like the adults who speak the language talking over the head of the child who is making things up.

 

[Tumah]

Lets take Isaiah with his 'delusions of grandeur', what happened to him?

Was he believed at the time?

People just often debunk what they don't understand, and get angry if challenged; the internet is a much safer place to be.

Isaiah didn't have delusions of grandeur. That's why we Jews kept his Book for posterity and consequently how it ended up in your hands.
Significantly, no Jews have your book.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

For the most part, most of your reply to me is nothing more than typical baseless chr-stian rhetoric, but I will respond to your delusions anyway.

Let’s start with the last part first. B’réshiyt 3:8 says absolutely nothing about God walking anywhere. What it actually says is:

וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת־קוֹל יְיָ אֱלֹהִים מִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּגָּן לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם וַיִּתְחַבֵּא הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוּ מִפְּנֵי יְיָ אֱלֹהִים בְּתוֹךְ עֵץ הַגָּן׃
Vayyish’m’u ʾet-qol HaShem ʾĔlohiym mit’halléḵ’ baggan l’ruaḥ hayyom vayyit’ḥabéʾ haʾadam v’ish’to mip’néy HaShem ʾĔlohiym b’toḵ’ ʿétz haggan:​

“And they heard the voice of Hashem Elohim while moving away to the west in the garden. The man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of HaShem Elohim in the midst of the trees of the garden.”

They heard God’s voice while they were running away from it. They were moving away from God’s voice. God was not moving anywhere.

Now on to B’réshiyt 18. For crying all night, how difficult is this to understand? God made His presence known to Av’raham at the entrance of his tent. After God had already made His presence known, Av’raham saw three men approaching off in the distance and ran off to greet them. Do you understand? He ran away from God’s presence to approach the three men in the distance. He offered the three men food, not God. After the three men left, God was still there speaking with Av’raham. Have you ever tried reading the entire chapter from beginning to end? In this case it doesn’t even matter which translation you use, because they all say basically the same thing. God is there before the three men show up, and is still there after they leave. God is not one of the three men. God ate nothing.

Sh’mot 33:20 says nothing about “a back” at all, and – פָּנָי – panay, even though it can be translated as “my face,” more literally means “my presence.” Does Sh’mot 20:3 say “you shall not put the gods of others in my face?” Very interesting how chr-stian translators selectively pick and choose the ways that they translate words to support their own bias. In Sh’mot 33:22-23 God tells Mosheh that His Radiance will pass by him, then he can see what is left behind. Simply more theologically biased chr-stian mistranslations.

Care to try anything else that might possibly not be completely obliterated at face value?

 

[leibowde84]

If Yeshua according to the Tanakh is physically David with the spirit of the Lord (YHVH) upon him, and the Jews don't accept the fulfillment of these prophecies, they virtually no longer accept the Messiah, David, Salvation (Yeshua), and YHVH.

Now we could say the Jews are still determined that they should only worship the God Most High (El Elyon); which is a good statement to make.... The only issue with this is the Most High has no image, and YHVH Elohim appears multiple times in human form.

Thus when YHVH is an Elohim, which from its descriptions within the Tanakh is an Arch-Angel/Avatar/Elder, who came as Yeshua; then what or who do they now worship?

By "Yeshua" are you referring to Jesus? If so, they merely think that Jesus was a false messiah; that he was not the one they were waiting for and the real messiah has still yet to come.

They worship the God of Abraham, just like Christians and Muslims.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that Wizanda thinks they are a prophet of the Abrahamic god?

 

[wizanda]

You must love when Muslims see Muhammed's name in the Song of Songs.

Repeating the same jokes in different fashions, doesn't make it any funnier.

Then do you feel that Yehoshua Bin Nun, or Yeyshua the priest is the same person?

There are possibilities saints have reincarnated throughout history for the sake of God's will, so they could be...Not done enough research on each to be specific.

I see my name in the text also. That must mean something.

Everything means something, nothing is by chance in a world God manifests.

OK, you can take the DSS if you want. And you can conclude that God has blemishes if you'd like.

The smiles help you communicate, makes you seem more witty...

Wait why are you saying 'Yeshua is God'? If God Most High comes here, it breaks down our reality.

My version ends with up being, 'Isaiah 52:14 Just as many were astonished by him. For my Messiah appears as a man, and his form as the son of man.'

So there isn't a blemish, that is just a silly typo in Isaiah 52:14.

Previously which ever way we questioned it, why would the servant be blemished if they're a servant from the Lord.

More like the adults who speak the language talking over the head of the child who is making things up.

Great metaphor; as 'unless you're like a child you shall not enter the Kingdom of God'...

Which is whilst the adults often try to pedantically explain every bit of grammar to a child; they completely miss the simple picture messages, that are interlinking across the book.

 

[rosends]

Repeating the same jokes in different fashions, doesn't make it any funnier.

Avoiding logical points repeatedly doesn't make your position any more sound.

There are possibilities saints have reincarnated throughout history for the sake of God's will, so they could be...Not done enough research on each to be specific.

Well, since neither was a saint, I don't know what you are getting it.

Wait why are you saying 'Yeshua is God'? If God Most High comes here, it breaks down our reality.

Oh yeah...Jesus isn't God...he's David. So all those other guys must be David also. And anyone else whose name is Joshua is therefore David. What about people named David? Are they Joshua?

My version ends with up being, 'Isaiah 52:14 Just as many were astonished by him. For my Messiah appears as a man, and his form as the son of man.'

Wait...so now the inclusion in the DSS of a yod at the end of the word "mishchat" makes it "my messiah"? So there is no mention of a 'blemish' because the word is no longer "mishchat"?
Just to clarify -- the Hebrew for "my Messiah" would be m'shichi (check Sam 1, 2:35 or Psalms 132:17). There is no construction in all of tanach "m-sh-ch-t-y". In the Zohar (in Aramaic) the word appears 3 times. If you want to read more about the grammar (problems) behind this construction, check out the Ibn Ezra on Eccl. 5:1.

Great metaphor; as 'unless you're like a child you shall not enter the Kingdom of God'...

Which is whilst the adults often try to pedantically explain every bit of grammar to a child; they completely miss the simple picture messages, that are interlinking across the book.

So the child quotes Matthew, a text which has no validity to try and convince the adults that the child's opinion has value?

 

[wizanda]

Significantly, no Jews have your book.

After seeing how much strife the interpretation of poetry books can cause, even thought about removing all mine from the web just encase.

Well, since neither was a saint, I don't know what you are getting it.

Wow, knew to edit that to a more Hebraic word....Mean righteous people who have been guided by God, and are worthy of the Messianic age.

Avoiding logical points repeatedly doesn't make your position any more sound.

Which is why the first time asking about Muhammad in the Song of Solomon i answered it was illogical.

Oh yeah...Jesus isn't God...he's David.

Understanding what the Tanakh said can take time... The spirit of the Lord was upon him.

So the child quotes Matthew, a text which has no validity to try and convince the adults that the child's opinion has value?

Individually nothing prophetic has value, it is only when placed together, does anything have structure, and fulfillment.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat; The calf, the young lion, and the fattened calf together; and a little child will lead them.

 

[rosends]

Wow, knew to edit that to a more Hebraic word....Mean righteous people who have been guided by God, and are worthy of the Messianic age.

So now you say that righteous people have been reincarnated repeatedly. And they all, no doubt, shared the same name throughout their incarnations.

Which is why the first time asking about Muhammad in the Song of Solomon i answered it was illogical.

Exactly as illogical as your statement. This is my point.

Understanding what the Tanakh said can take time... The spirit of the Lord was upon him.

Well, when you start approaching that understanding, I'll let you know.

Individually nothing prophetic has value, it is only when placed together, does anything have structure, and fulfillment.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat; The calf, the young lion, and the fattened calf together; and a little child will lead them.

Well, sometimes prophecies are part of a complex tapestry. In fact, in the case of Is. 11:6, this ties in with some other important prophecies if one understands it metaphorically, and others if it is understood more literally. None of those others are in Matthew, though.

 

[wizanda]

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that Wizanda thinks they are a prophet of the Abrahamic god?

Because i sometimes speak in parables, use the Word like my own drawing board, and vaguely look like a white cardboard cutout version of jesus?

chr-stian rhetoric

Firstly assessing this as Christian, will lead to many faulty conclusions... Yeshua is Hebraic; jesus is the false Hellenistic version along side.

Care to try anything else that might possibly not be completely obliterated at face value?

YHVH Elohim is seen physically, regardless of which translation....

In my own understanding this means he is a representative from the God Most High; which is like a CPU, manifesting the structure of a multiple dimension quantum Matrix.

So Yeshua being a physical manifestation from the CPU, inside an artificial reality, really isn't the issue...

If El (God) became YHVH (lord To Be), then why can't that same being become the Lord that Saves (Yehoshua)....

Personally see that is what Isaiah 12:2 is referring to.

We could've discussed how the Tanakh specified why, and how the 2nd temple would be destroyed; yet that is rhetoric.

So now you say that righteous people have been reincarnated repeatedly. And they all, no doubt, shared the same name throughout their incarnations.

Do you not believe in Gilgul?

A righteous Tzadik can know people's incarnations, and yes lots of traits are carried, especially the brow area.

The name idea is highly problematical, and would be a stupid methodology to instigate, as you'd get half of Mexico claiming to be jesus.

In fact, in the case of Is. 11:6, this ties in with some other important prophecies if one understands it metaphorically, and others if it is understood more literally.

Please elaborate, interested if we can find some way to show each others interpretation methods.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

On to the next part in reverse order. There is really not much to be said about this comment except that you are completely ignorant of the Hebrew language. I have already explained that the Feminine Common Noun – יְשׁוּעַה – y’shu’ah is not a name.

Was your pagan godman actually a pagan godwoman? Was he/she/it transgender? You keep throwing out random Scriptures as if they were supposed to support your position, yet do nothing except broadcast your complete ignorance. Perhaps you should take some time to actually learn the language before starting an argument with people that have been speaking it since birth, as well as people that have post-graduate degrees in it.

Oh, and by the way, the person spoken of in Z’ḵar’yah chapter 3 is the same person spoken of numerous times throughout Ezra and N’hem’yah, not your fictional godman. So you fall flat on your face again. Just a side point, this is the exact person that T’NaḴ is referring to every time the name – יֵשׁוּעַ – Yéshuaʿ is used.

Once again your ignorance embarrasses you. Just for the record Y’hoshuaʿ means “HaShem is Salvation,” which eliminates the chr-stian j-sus altogether.

 

[rosends]

Do you not believe in Gilgul?

Whether or not I believe in it, it isn't what you are describing. In fact, it is quite distinct from it.

Please elaborate, interested if we can find some way to show each others interpretation methods.

You can start by reading some of the material written about the verses from the last 2000+ years. The Rambam, the Tur HaAruch, the Sifra, just to start. Then the Shlah Hakadosh, the Da'at Tevunot and maybe the Metudat David. Let me know when you finish those.

 

[Flankerl]

Maybe that will do it.

Haha no.

 

[wizanda]

Was your pagan godman actually a pagan godwoman?

It wasn't created by Pagans; the Sanhedrin created the Gospel of John to be derogatory towards Yeshua, with Paul, and Simon the stone (petros) being Pharisee infiltrators.

The Tanakh instructed this would happen, to cause the destruction of the 2nd temple (burning of cedars Isaiah 44:13-14).

Z’ḵar’yah chapter 3 is the same person spoken of numerous times throughout Ezra and N’hem’yah

In Zechariah 3:1-2 it speaks of Jerusalem to be cut off?

In Zechariah 3:9 it speaks of him sending a deception throughout the land, that shall then cause judgement day, and after the Messianic age (Zechariah 3:10), with the symbolic reference of 'sitting under the vine and fig'.

I get the idea, that people think it is after coming back from Babylonian Exile covered in dung, yet for me the timeline, and events are off....

Plus the rest of the context in the beginning of Zechariah is about another future destruction, caused by the Jewish made 'pagan god man' (Zechariah 1:20-21 - 4 workmen continued from Isaiah 44:9-20).

Let me know when you finish those.

The conversation isn't between me and them; it is your opinion, theirs isn't the same as yours.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

Oh my God, dude, you are so delusional it makes me want to beat my head into a wall. I was going to take your previous post apart piece by piece, but it’s getting really boring, so I will end it now.

Chr-stianity was invented by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I in May of 380 CE. Everything that chr-stians believe is a fairytale and a lie. Whether you like it or not, historical evidence proves this to be true. No human being on the planet earth ever heard about anything similar prior to that point in time. ALL Archaeological and Manuscript evidence proves this to be true. There is no such thing in history as chr-stianity prior to Theodosius I.

I like Mickey Mouse; I like Popeye the Sailor, I like Superman, I like Spider-Man, etc. These are all fictional characters which I have a great deal more respect for than chr-stianity’s imaginary pagan godman.

And just in case you are planning on bringing up Josephus and Tacitus, Eleventh Century CE hearsay will not hold up in any court, or with me either. I do not believe in fairytales, and I do not believe in lies, therefore chr-stianity is nothing more than a faulty story that was rejected by Walt Disney.

I suppose you still believe in Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, vampires, werewolves and all of the other bovine feces that chr-stianity invented. It really blows my mind how people living in the Twenty-First Century CE can still believe that crap.

 

[rosends]

The conversation isn't between me and them; it is your opinion, theirs isn't the same as yours.

ah, so you aren't willing to study and just want things spoon fed to you. Got it.

 

[wizanda]

Oh my God

3rd Commandment, doesn't matter which language it is, Please.

ah, so you aren't willing to study and just want things spoon fed to you. Got it.

If the result of Rabbinic literature is the terrible manners presented, don't see the point in studying it, other than to explain where they've gone wrong.

Chr-stianity was invented

Agreed, already said John, Paul and Simon are made up, which constitutes the foundation of Christian ideology.

Yet if Yeshua was made up by a Gentile, why make it fit so precisely with the Tanakh?

Why have prophecy by Yeshua and the prophets, that catches out all the hypocrites so blatantly, and yet they can't see it.

They could have made something like a fairytale, rather than this amazing sinister tapestry across time, with many things taking place.

 

[rosends]

If the result of Rabbinic literature is the terrible manners presented, don't see the point in studying it, other than to explain where they've gone wrong.

So you see the obligation to study as bad manners? Or maybe anyone daring to disagree with you and pointing out your errors is the bad manners you object to. But if you, at least, see your mission to explain where they have gone wrong, then that's enough for me. When you study and there is any basis for discussion then you can explain how they have gone wrong. And it will be as persuasive to me as all the times I have explained how YOU have gone wrong.