How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

[Harel13]

Isaiah 53 is about Adam.

Other than the fact that you're talking about Isaiah 53, what does this have to do with my post?

 

[Yahcubs777]

Other than the fact that you're talking about Isaiah 53, what does this have to do with my post?

Isaiah 53 is in your post. I addressed that.

 

[Harel13]

Isaiah 53 is in your post. I addressed that.

There are multiple posts here about Isaiah 53. Why'd you reply to my post when you weren't actually referring to the main content of my post?

 

[Harel13]

The easiest answer is an analogy to my world -- academia and audio production.
Make a photocopy of a text, get a copy. Make a copy of the copy, get a slightly degraded copy. Each generation of copies is lesser than the one before. The same holds true for audio cassettes and copying from a copy. The further away from the original, the less "perfect" the version is.

In a more religious sense, the concept is yeridat hadorot. This concept makes sense logically -- people who spent their entire lives memorizing, arguing and studying are better equipped to have an opinion than someone who spends time understanding, years later, what those first people were trying to say.

Thank you. @Tzephanyahu, for your attention.

 

[Yahcubs777]

There are multiple posts here about Isaiah 53. Why'd you reply to my post when you weren't actually referring to the main content of my post?

Your post is the one I saw. What is the problem anyway. This is a thread where people can comment.

 

[Harel13]

Your post is the one I saw. What is the problem anyway. This is a thread where people can comment.

Sure, I don't disagree with that. People can comment. I simply didn't understand what your comment had to do with my post. My post came to explain why a certain article was making dishonest claims about the Jewish view of learning Isaiah 53. I didn't state anywhere there what the Jewish view of the chapter is. I simply explained why it was false to claim that Jews have deceptively been skipping over Isaiah 53 in synagogue since the time of Jesus. Having explained my confusion and having read your last reply, I will now set this minor issue aside.

 

[metis]

I have no idea what this is supposed to be mean, but it's actually just simple - the Trinity is One God in 3 Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All 3 are truly and fully God, coeternal and consubstantial with each other. That is what the Trinity says. But I don't know what you're trying to say.

Again, the key is understanding how "essence" plays into this, and I can't explain it any more than I have.

This is covered quite well in James Hitchcock's "History of the Catholic Church", whereas he spells out the various influences that ultimately led to the Nicene Creed, for example. Today, we often tend to look at this creed as if was a slam-dunk, but the history of its formation is actually quite contentious.

 

[Tzephanyahu]

Frankly, we're looking here at a bit of a logical dilemma: The author of 4 Ezra claims that Ezra wrote 94 books that no one had any copies or memories of, approached the Jews and said: "Hey guys, here are a bunch of books that y'all forgot about, that I have just reproduced." If no one had any memory of them, why would they believe him that the books are valid?
Now, setting aside this logical dilemma, another issue is that there don't appear to be any other sources that validate the author of 4 Ezra's claim that all of the texts were lost. He's the only person who happened to be aware of this cataclysm!

Okay I hear what you're saying. It does require a leap of faith in some regard. But it's not implausible. After all, isn't the story of Ruth only recorded in one book, right? What other sources (besides genealogies) testifies of this story?

If El Elyon dictated the Torah to Mosheh and His Words to the prophets, there is no logical reason to suggest that such a feat with Ezra and his scribes would have been impossible or improbable. And, if such a thing happened, it would also answer some authorship queries such as the recording of death of Mosheh in Devarim, the sparse "commentary" found throughout Torah, the updated names of places in Torah (that changed after Mosheh) and plausible authorship for other books such as Judges, Samuel and Kings etc.

Yes, it's not full-proof and it's not incontestable. But certainly worth consideration and study when no significant evidence can be provided to the contrary.

Many many sources. Too large a topic to tackle it right now. Maybe someone else could sum it up. @rosends, could you perhaps sum up why we believe that the sages of the past were greater than us?

I understand the point rosends makes, and it is both logical and reasonable. But memorizing, studying and arguing over Scriptures doesn't necessarily mean mastery of them.

There are plenty of Christian scholars today and as far back as the first century (even studying under Gamaliel), who you wouldn't agree with about prophecy or the Messiah.

So what is it to consume Scripture and memorise it? What promise of safety can it bring? Jews, Christians and Catholics alike can memorise it and still be none the wiser, as actually understanding the Scriptures is a gift from the Father - not something than can be attained by admirable effort or in seminary.

It's hard to imagine David having regular and easy access to all the Torah in the same way that we do today. Yet he was a man after Elohim's own heart and was blessed with enlightenment - humble and unschooled as he was. Now, anyone can get the whole Tanakh and multiple study aids on their mobile phone, within minutes, yet what real progress/revival is made? In short - Knowledge does not equate to Wisdom. I'm not suggesting I'm wise or have got it all sorted by the way!

Let me ask you the same question in another way - Do you think your sages could ever be wrong on a crucial matter? (I'm not talking about Messiah) And, if all the wisest of sages have already come and gone and you have no hope nearing their level, what's your opinion on why Elohim may have done this?

What authority does this "messiah" have to change ancient traditions?
And are you saying you don't believe in the existence of the Oral Law?

What authority do the Rabbis have to add traditions? Should Dev 17:11 be risen above Dev 4:2?

I believe in the existence of the Oral Law. Do I believe it was from Sinai? How can I without any evidence in the Scripture?

I will concede to the possibility of oral traditions and sentences passed down through Mosheh. But as they existed in the first century? No, I think that is an implausible conclusion.

This is where we will always disagree though. Yahushua made it clear that the traditions of the day were added by men and, in some cases, invalidated correct Torah observance. But obviously we aren't going to debate the matter as I understand you don't recognise Yahushua's authority.

I hope you'll remain consistent with this position and not be one of those Christians who denounce the Talmud until they can use it to "prove" Christianity.

Haha, I know what you mean. No, I think the Talmud is very interesting from an historic viewpoint and for insight into that mindset - but not for doctrine.

Can I ask - what percentage of your time do you spend studying the Talmud and Mishnah compared to the Nevi'im and Ketuvim?

Likely none of what I've written so far has convinced you that the Jews are correct in our view of the apocryphal works, so we'll just add Rav's tradition as recorded in Bava Batra to the pile.

I hope you don't think I'm closed minded though. It's just hard to consider what certain men say about the apocryphal books when I have felt as though Elohim has taught me much in them - and they neither deviate from Torah or the Besorah. I do understand their concerns and let me be honest with you - most of Christianity are highly cautious of these books as well. I wouldn't say I represent a typical Christian standpoint on the apocryphal works!

Final note for this post: Why do you spell Yehoshua and Yehudah with an "a" after the "Y"? That's not how they're pronounced in Hebrew. Believe me, the theophoric bit remains theophoric however it's pronounced in Hebrew or spelled in English.

Oye Let's not go down that route! It's sure to only be another can of worms

Yes, I'm aware that the common way is Yehoshua and Yehudah. However, after my personal research into the matter, I'm comfortable in understanding the first three letters of the Tetragrammaton as "YAH-oo" and not "YEH-oo/YEH-OH". But look, I realise the topic of the Name is a big bone of contention - not only in your community but to the Christians as well.

I don't mean to be offensive with this spelling. It's just as I understand the rendering of it to be. Consider it to be another odd quirk from this odd ball!

Thanks for considering my odd questions also.

 

[Harel13]

Okay I hear what you're saying. It does require a leap of faith in some regard. But it's not implausible. After all, isn't the story of Ruth only recorded in one book, right? What other sources (besides genealogies) testifies of this story?

True, but the non-existence of the story of Ruth has significantly less ramifications than this story. The main point of Ruth, with regards to the rest of Tanach, is the end, which gives over the genealogy of King David. To not mention that David was a descendant of Ruth isn't a real biggy because we have his male-side lineage in Chronicles, too. And even if we didn't have his full lineage, that also wouldn't be such a problem, because we also don't know King Shaul's full lineage. Nor do we know the full lineage of the kings of the Kingdom of Israel (AKA the Northern Kingdom). 4 Ezra, on the other hand, asserts a punishment we received from God that absolutely no one is aware of! For this, there's absolutely no room for atonement (if you don't know what you did wrong, then how can you atone?) (I can now see why this book is so appealing to Christians). Thus, supposedly, the entire Nation of Israel is left to carry a sin they cannot atone for (again, I see the Christian appeal).

there is no logical reason to suggest that such a feat with Ezra and his scribes would have been impossible or improbable

Logistically speaking, anything's possible with God. But logically speaking, it doesn't make sense.

Yes, it's not full-proof and it's not incontestable. But certainly worth consideration and study when no significant evidence can be provided to the contrary.

I presented to you the various difficulties. I myself see no reason to consider it further. You may enjoy yourself in still pondering the issue.

even studying under Gamaliel

The claim that Paul was a student of Rabban Gamliel is utter nonsense, I'm afraid. But never mind that.

I understand the point rosends makes, and it is both logical and reasonable. But memorizing, studying and arguing over Scriptures doesn't necessarily mean mastery of them.

There are plenty of Christian scholars today and as far back as the first century (even studying under Gamaliel), who you wouldn't agree with about prophecy or the Messiah.

I beg to differ. I think the fact that that the authors of the NT base their interpretations of messiah on misquotes says a lot about their knowledge of scripture. I also pointed out some flaws in Justin Martyr's and Irenaeus's claims about Jews editing out verses from the Tanach, in my reaction post.

So what is it to consume Scripture and memorise it? What promise of safety can it bring? Jews, Christians and Catholics alike can memorise it and still be none the wiser, as actually understanding the Scriptures is a gift from the Father - not something than can be attained by admirable effort or in seminary.

You should drop by a yeshiva - or at least rifle through the Talmud - and you'll see what memorizing and live debates bring.

It's hard to imagine David having regular and easy access to all the Torah in the same way that we do today.

Obviously he didn't have the whole Tanach, as that didn't exist yet. But why is it easy for you to imagine that the entire Nation of Israel lost and forgot all prophetic works, but in David's case it's hard to imagine that he had at least one Torah scroll?

Let me ask you the same question in another way - Do you think your sages could ever be wrong on a crucial matter? (I'm not talking about Messiah)

Then what sort of crucial matter?
There's a Talmudic tractate called Horayot which is dedicated to what must be done if the sages err. And like I said, sages are not infallible. But what sort of crucial mistake are you referring to? You won't find the sages disagreeing ever on the absolute unity of God, for example. And the fact that God saw no reason to explicitly say: "Hey, guys, I'm actually three persons in one. And you shall have no other god besides me." says a lot, I think.

may have done this?

I've never given it too much thought. There are many aspects of how God runs the world that I don't understand. One possibility is that it gives us room to grow. I don't know if you bothered to check out the Wiki link @rosends brought, but within Judaism there are clear ramifications to the idea of yeridat hadorot. But these ramifications can be fixed, with a lot of work. Every generation has its own challenges.

What authority do the Rabbis have to add traditions? Should Dev 17:11 be risen above Dev 4:2?

I recommend you read this:
Category: Did Rabbis Change Judaism?

I believe in the existence of the Oral Law. Do I believe it was from Sinai? How can I without any evidence in the Scripture?

That means you don't actually believe in the Oral Law. There's no doubt Jews have an Oral Law, the issue is always: where'd we get it from? The answer is that there are just too many "missing" details in the Torah to know what exactly must be done. This doesn't bother Christians because Jesus "fulfilled" the commandments, and as such, there's no need to know how to apply the commandments to daily life, but as Christology is not Jewish stuff, we remain faithful to our tradition of the Oral Law having been given to Moses at Sinai.

But as they existed in the first century? No, I think that is an implausible conclusion.

Give an example.

This is where we will always disagree though. Yahushua made it clear that the traditions of the day were added by men and, in some cases, invalidated correct Torah observance. But obviously we aren't going to debate the matter as I understand you don't recognise Yahushua's authority.

Yet Jesus also said one must listen to the rabbis, right? Weird, if they make up stuff.

Can I ask - what percentage of your time do you spend studying the Talmud and Mishnah compared to the Nevi'im and Ketuvim?

I personally less, especially in the last year or so, because I've been delving into a lot of Tanach research and am now nearing the end of a big Tanach project (now entering it's 8th month of development). I've always found Talmud harder to study than Tanach. I personally know people who much prefer Talmud to Tanach. Within Judaism there's room for every person to decide what they prefer learning. I don't know to tell you in terms of percentage, but right now I'm learning the daily Talmud page after morning and evening prayer, but most of my study during the day is put into my various projects (not all Tanach-related, though, some more midrashic/talmudic).

I hope you don't think I'm closed minded though.

In academic terms, I'm the one considered close-minded and you're open-minded. I don't hold too much by what academia believes, because then I'd likely not be a religious Jew.

Yes, I'm aware that the common way is Yehoshua and Yehudah. However, after my personal research into the matter, I'm comfortable in understanding the first three letters of the Tetragrammaton as "YAH-oo" and not "YEH-oo/YEH-OH". But look, I realise the topic of the Name is a big bone of contention - not only in your community but to the Christians as well.

This is less about the Tetragram and more about how the personal names have always been pronounced. I added in the bit about the Tetragram to point out that correctly spelling the personal names doesn't diminsh their theophoric aspect.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Again, the key is understanding how "essence" plays into this, and I can't explain it any more than I have.

This is covered quite well in James Hitchcock's "History of the Catholic Church", whereas he spells out the various influences that ultimately led to the Nicene Creed, for example. Today, we often tend to look at this creed as if was a slam-dunk, but the history of its formation is actually quite contentious.

I don't need to read all those books. The doctrine of the Trinity is clear - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally the one true God. There is no "but" to it. I already linked to articles going over the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Skywalker]

Not a king, never anointed. Will be is wishful thinking.

The second coming of Jesus is mentioned in Daniel 2:44-45

And in the days of those kings bthe God of heaven will set up ca kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. dIt shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and cit shall stand forever, eyou saw that fa stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that dit broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A ggreat God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure

Daniel 7:9-14

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Daniel 12:1-3

At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever

Zechariah 12:10

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Zechariah 14:15

Watch, for the day of the LORD is coming when your possessions will be plundered right in front of you! I will gather all the nations to fight against Jerusalem. The city will be taken, the houses looted, and the women raped. Half the population will be taken into captivity, and the rest will be left among the ruins of the city. Then the LORD will go out to fight against those nations, as he has fought in times past. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem. And the Mount of Olives will split apart, making a wide valley running from east to west. Half the mountain will move toward the north and half toward the south. You will flee through this valley, for it will reach across to Azal. Yes, you will flee as you did from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all his holy ones with him. On that day the sources of light will no longer shine, yet there will be continuous day! Only the LORD knows how this could happen. There will be no normal day and night, for at evening time it will still be light. On that day life-giving waters will flow out from Jerusalem, half toward the Dead Sea and half toward the Mediterranean, flowing continuously in both summer and winter. And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day there will be one LORD—his name alone will be worshiped. All the land from Geba, north of Judah, to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become one vast plain. But Jerusalem will be raised up in its original place and will be inhabited all the way from the Benjamin Gate over to the site of the old gate, then to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s winepresses. And Jerusalem will be filled, safe at last, never again to be cursed and destroyed. And the LORD will send a plague on all the nations that fought against Jerusalem. Their people will become like walking corpses, their flesh rotting away. Their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. On that day they will be terrified, stricken by the LORD with great panic. They will fight their neighbors hand to hand. Judah, too, will be fighting at Jerusalem. The wealth of all the neighboring nations will be captured—great quantities of gold and silver and fine clothing. This same plague will strike the horses, mules, camels, donkeys, and all the other animals in the enemy camps.

 

[dybmh]

The second coming of Jesus is mentioned in Daniel 2:44-45

And in the days of those kings bthe God of heaven will set up ca kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. dIt shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and cit shall stand forever, eyou saw that fa stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that dit broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A ggreat God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure

Daniel 7:9-14

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Daniel 12:1-3

At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever

Zechariah 12:10

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Zechariah 14:15

Watch, for the day of the LORD is coming when your possessions will be plundered right in front of you! I will gather all the nations to fight against Jerusalem. The city will be taken, the houses looted, and the women raped. Half the population will be taken into captivity, and the rest will be left among the ruins of the city. Then the LORD will go out to fight against those nations, as he has fought in times past. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem. And the Mount of Olives will split apart, making a wide valley running from east to west. Half the mountain will move toward the north and half toward the south. You will flee through this valley, for it will reach across to Azal. Yes, you will flee as you did from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all his holy ones with him. On that day the sources of light will no longer shine, yet there will be continuous day! Only the LORD knows how this could happen. There will be no normal day and night, for at evening time it will still be light. On that day life-giving waters will flow out from Jerusalem, half toward the Dead Sea and half toward the Mediterranean, flowing continuously in both summer and winter. And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day there will be one LORD—his name alone will be worshiped. All the land from Geba, north of Judah, to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become one vast plain. But Jerusalem will be raised up in its original place and will be inhabited all the way from the Benjamin Gate over to the site of the old gate, then to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s winepresses. And Jerusalem will be filled, safe at last, never again to be cursed and destroyed. And the LORD will send a plague on all the nations that fought against Jerusalem. Their people will become like walking corpses, their flesh rotting away. Their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. On that day they will be terrified, stricken by the LORD with great panic. They will fight their neighbors hand to hand. Judah, too, will be fighting at Jerusalem. The wealth of all the neighboring nations will be captured—great quantities of gold and silver and fine clothing. This same plague will strike the horses, mules, camels, donkeys, and all the other animals in the enemy camps.

These don't describe a 2nd advent. Zecharia in these passages is not speaking about the Jewish Messiah.

 

[Tzephanyahu]

but the non-existence of the story of Ruth has significantly less ramifications than this story.

True, but a story's ramifications has no logical bearing on its historic validity.

4 Ezra, on the other hand, asserts a punishment we received from God that absolutely no one is aware of!

Define "no one".

The audience of this book would have been aware, as would the audience of other books suspiciously removed.

For example, you are surely aware of Holocaust-deniers. Now, despite what people think of these "scholars" and "historians" today, tomorrow their words will be accepted as fact - once all survivors and immediate relations to them die out. Future generations will have a different view of the Holocaust as we have today.

So books that were once accepted, after they were heavily used and referenced by Christians in the first century to help prove Messiah, could have easily been swept under the rug and discredited by Jewish authorities. Again, this is not a matter of fact, but a possible scenario.

I don't know what your views are on Isaiah 53, but it seems that some even consider this chapter should be removed from Isaiah - which is a more recent example of this "scripture refinement" process.

I think the fact that that the authors of the NT base their interpretations of messiah on misquotes says a lot about their knowledge of scripture.

Fair enough. I likewise could say the same with how Jews play with the interpretation of the "suffering Servant" in Isaiah as Israel.

Obviously he didn't have the whole Tanach, as that didn't exist yet. But why is it easy for you to imagine that the entire Nation of Israel lost and forgot all prophetic works, but in David's case it's hard to imagine that he had at least one Torah scroll?

I realis that, which is why I wrote Torah instead of Tanakh.

I haven't made the claim that Israel forgot all the prophetic works. But I find the 4 Ezra scenario very plausible - losing physical copies of most, if not all scrolls of the Tanakh and after 70 years in Babylon a reup would surely be needed. A refreshing and recommitment to Yahudah who, in essence, was like her leader: "zeru-babel".

As for David carrying around a scroll of Torah. I find the idea unlikely because of the great work involved in each scrolls creation and therefore its limited availability. As far as I'm aware, David didn't come from the kind of family that would be able to afford (or even be given) a scroll - if such practices even happened back then. Samuel surely had access. But the idea he would actually give a scroll to the young shepherd boy to carry or a regular soldier on the frontline of war seems unlikely (to me) and isn't found in Scripture. It's far more likely he heard it from Samuel or under Saul who would have been copying Devarim during his reign.

There's a Talmudic tractate called Horayot which is dedicated to what must be done if the sages err.

So if the sages have made an error, you turn to the Talmud for advice? Let me ask you this then (as I genuinely don't know). Do you see the Talmud as inspired in the same way as the Nevi'im is?

And the fact that God saw no reason to explicitly say: "Hey, guys, I'm actually three persons in one. And you shall have no other god besides me." says a lot, I think.

This is a common Christian misunderstanding. I don't believe the Tanakh or Besorah teaches that El Elyon is "3-in-1", so I agree with you on this.

One possibility is that it gives us room to grow.

This seems to contradict your stance that the sages of the past are always greater and smarter than the generations of today. That is to say, you cannot "outgrow" them or move beyond their boundaries, right?

I recommend you read this:
Category: Did Rabbis Change Judaism?

Thanks for the link. Besides the poor understanding of the Messiah in Matthew, it seems to ultimately conclude in, as I suspected, Dev 17:11. Using the Shemot 18:21-23 as justification seems to be a stretch of the text as well, in my opinion anyway. But who am I.

This doesn't bother Christians because Jesus "fulfilled" the commandments, and as such, there's no need to know how to apply the commandments to daily life,

This again is a widespread misunderstanding in Christianity. The Torah is eternal and is valid, even post Yahushua HaMashiach. The Chrisitians who think that "Christ fulfilled the Law" have greatly misunderstood the matter because of either poor education in the Word and particularly Paul's writings, or a misplaced heart which doesn't seek to honour Elohim, but simply gain salvation. For the latter, they may be in for a rude awakening.

As for me, I know the Torah is still valid, as confirmed by Yahushua's words, and follow it the best I can. But I still have much to learn.

Give an example.

Of a first century tradition? I can only only think of ones I know from the Besorah, which you could contest. But perhaps let's keep it simple and say the Tefillin.

Now, I know why you guys do/have that (from Devarim) but how far back do you believe that practice actually started and what sources can you provide as evidence?

Yet Jesus also said one must listen to the rabbis, right? Weird, if they make up stuff.

You missed the context of that whole passage. Oh well. A text out of context is a pretext.

am now nearing the end of a big Tanach project (now entering it's 8th month of development).

Wow, that sounds interesting. What's that in aid of?

This is less about the Tetragram and more about how the personal names have always been pronounced. I added in the bit about the Tetragram to point out that correctly spelling the personal names doesn't diminsh their theophoric aspect.

Interesting thought. I think it is important (personally) that the first three letters in the Messiah's clearly honour the Tetragrammaton and point to Him. As I do with EliYahu, HalleluYah and even the name I chose on this forum. But yeah, I'm not really bothered if you write Yehoshua or whatever - pretty much everyone writes that. So hopefully my way isn't offensive to you.

Peace.

 

[Skywalker]

These don't describe a 2nd advent. Zecharia in these passages is not speaking about the Jewish Messiah.

The Bible is there to make us wise onto salvation. It's not there to give us all the details on every topic mentioned in the scriptures. It can't, its a limited book. The Old Testament doesn't explicltly say that the suffering servant and the Messiah are the same person, but it gives a messianic profile. What is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "What is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?"

Answer: The second coming of Jesus Christ is the hope of believers that God is in control of all things, and is faithful to the promises and prophecies in His Word. In His first coming, Jesus Christ came to earth as a baby in a manger in Bethlehem, just as prophesied. Jesus fulfilled many of the prophecies of the Messiah during His birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection. However, there are some prophecies regarding the Messiah that Jesus has not yet fulfilled. The second coming of Christ will be the return of Christ to fulfill these remaining prophecies. In His first coming, Jesus was the suffering Servant. In His second coming, Jesus will be the conquering King. In His first coming, Jesus arrived in the most humble of circumstances. In His second coming, Jesus will arrive with the armies of heaven at His side.

 

[Harel13]

True, but a story's ramifications has no logical bearing on its historic validity.

I was explaining why Ruth and 4 Ezra are incomparable.

Define "no one".

The audience of this book would have been aware

We don't know who this audience is.

as would the audience of other books suspiciously removed.

What books that aren't in Tanach are you bothered by that you think were "suspiciously removed"? Ben Sira - whole discussion in the Talmud about its inclusion/exclusion. Two more books that nobody has called Ben Laanah and Ben Tigla were related to Ben Sira in terms of exclusion reasoning. Tobit - Origen paraphrases the Jewish reasoning for its exclusion and there's also a fascinating midrash that brings the gist of Tobit's story in it, but the characters are nameless. I have a hypothesis to why that is so. Judith - wildly historically inaccurate for a vast number of reasons, some of which I'm sure you're aware of. I explained why 4 Ezra is ridiculous. Is 4 Ezra mentioned anywhere in the NT? Is it mentioned by Jewish historians such as Philo and Josephus? Is the big scriptural cataclysm mentioned by Ben Sira? Who heard about this? It seems no one of any importance knew about this. Hence, drivel. Yes, drivel intended to make Ezra look good, but drivel nonetheless.

So books that were once accepted, after they were heavily used and referenced by Christians in the first century to help prove Messiah, could have easily been swept under the rug and discredited by Jewish authorities. Again, this is not a matter of fact, but a possible scenario.

What evidence have you that they were "swept under the rug"? Look, I love Harry Potter. But I don't consider it scripture, i.e., it's not holy. Does that mean I'm sweeping it under the rug? Do you understand what the canonization process was? It was great men sitting down and figuring out was holy and inspired and what wasn't, even if it was very interesting and could provide interesting historical knowledge. And in fact, if you took the time to study the sections in Jewish literature that discuss the canonization process (written thousands of years ago!), you'll see that even after books were deemed holy and inspired, there were still arguments about whether to include them or not, for other reasons. It was a very lengthy and thought-out process that extended over many years.

I don't know what your views are on Isaiah 53, but it seems that some even consider this chapter should be removed from Isaiah - which is a more recent example of this "scripture refinement" process.

Utter missionizing nonsense. I recommend you don't buy into that stuff, it's a weak, baseless argument, intended to try to convince uneducated Jews that "the rabbis" have been hiding "the truth" from them. Who are these "some" that you refer to?

Fair enough. I likewise could say the same with how Jews play with the interpretation of the "suffering Servant" in Isaiah as Israel.

You'd be ignoring the entire context of Isaiah, then. But enjoy.

I haven't made the claim that Israel forgot all the prophetic works. But I find the 4 Ezra scenario very plausible - losing physical copies of most, if not all scrolls of the Tanakh and after 70 years in Babylon a reup would surely be needed.

I don't. Why is the Babylonian Exile mentioned by multiple prophets but this particular point is mentioned by none except the mysterious author of 4 Ezra? Also, you must be aware that Jews have given their lives to protect their scriptures. There are Torah scrolls today that have been through some terrible events in Jewish history. Are you aware of how the Aleppo Codex - what remains of, anyway - was smuggled out of Aleppo? Jews took and take great pains to protect their literature. How is it possible that not a single scroll survived? This was about 800 years after the giving of the Torah. They had plenty of time to copy the books over and over. And not one survived? Seriously? And when they were in exile, no one thought of trying to re-write the scrolls? Are you certain there was not a single Jew with a photographic memory capable of writing a Torah scroll on his own?

Here's an interesting thought, though, since you hold so much by 4 Ezra. In 4 Ezra it says that 24 books were given to the Jews - these would be the 24 books of Tanach. Yet at the same time you think that the Jews swept books under the rug. Now, I think you should decide: Will you hold by the number of books given in 4 Ezra or will you hold that the number is wrong and Jews deceptively hid away books? The only person attested in that book to have hidden away books is Ezra. Is he also deceptive?

As for David carrying around a scroll of Torah. I find the idea unlikely because of the great work involved in each scrolls creation and therefore its limited availability. As far as I'm aware, David didn't come from the kind of family that would be able to afford (or even be given) a scroll - if such practices even happened back then. Samuel surely had access. But the idea he would actually give a scroll to the young shepherd boy to carry or a regular soldier on the frontline of war seems unlikely (to me) and isn't found in Scripture. It's far more likely he heard it from Samuel or under Saul who would have been copying Devarim during his reign.

I don't know on what you base your assumptions about David's family. As attested to by Ruth and Chronicles, he was a descendant of Boaz, who is described as well-to-do in Ruth. David's ancestor Nachshon was the prince of Yehudah in the desert. When King Shaul asks David from what family he is, David says he's the son of Yishai of Beit Lechem, and that seems to be enough for Shaul to know who Daivd is, as he doesn't inquire further - yet there were millions of Israelites at the time. It may be argued that the family of Yishai was well-known. Well-known, well-to-do - why shouldn't they have a scroll? But even if they didn't, why couldn't David have ever read one from a local library or study hall?

So if the sages have made an error, you turn to the Talmud for advice?

We turn to our halacha, our laws.

Do you see the Talmud as inspired in the same way as the Nevi'im is?

No. I already told you that one reason for including books in Tanach was divine inspiration at the level of prophecy. Talmud isn't there, so it must not have been written the same way. And it's not, and no one thinks it was.

so I agree with you on this.

So in your view, Jesus is only the messiah, nothing more?

This seems to contradict your stance that the sages of the past are always greater and smarter than the generations of today. That is to say, you cannot "outgrow" them or move beyond their boundaries, right?

Put it this way: I may not be able to reach level 10, but I can reach level 9. I'll know where to aim for if I know what the target is. And as I said, the concept of yeridat hadorot is based on reasons for changes throughout the generations. Fix those issues, and I think we can expect a rise in spirituality.

and particularly Paul's writings

Oh no, I'm pretty certain Paul was really against the Torah. If Christians had gone the way of the early Jewish Christians and continued to learn Torah, they would have gone down one of three paths: 1. Disappeared like the early Jewish Christians. 2. Become Noachides or converted to Judaism and followed the ways of the sages. 3. Completely left Torah, perhaps even all of Christianity. Neither result was in Paul's messed-up interest, hence his view that non-Jews are not to hold by the Torah.

and follow it the best I can.

So, some classic questions: How do you know how to slaughter an animal for it to be kosher? How do you know what part of the body must be circumcised?

Now, I know why you guys do/have that (from Devarim) but how far back do you believe that practice actually started and what sources can you provide as evidence?

How far back? Desert era. Provide evidence to the contrary. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.

You missed the context of that whole passage. Oh well. A text out of context is a pretext.

Ironic, considering what I told you about Isaiah 53.

Wow, that sounds interesting. What's that in aid of?

It wouldn't be useful to you, though, because a large portion of it is based on Jewish commentaries, Talmud and Midrash.
As for what it is, I don't want to tell yet. I hope to make public at some point, but v1 is only in Hebrew. It'll take time to make v2, which is translated into English.

So hopefully my way isn't offensive to you.

It's not offensive. I simply find it strange.

 

[Tzephanyahu]

What books that aren't in Tanach are you bothered by that you think were "suspiciously removed"?

I think 1 Enoch and the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs (all found in the DSS) are among some that seem to be suspiciously ignored. There is nothing in them which contradicts Torah but it's likely their depictions of Messiah are unacceptable to the Jews.

Perhaps what makes the matter more provocative is that these books were preserved in Qumran to reach this end time generation. An act of Elohim, in my opinion, as interestingly the last generation is the intended audience, according to what is written within them.

But alas, these books have fallen on deaf ears, once again. Discredited as psuedepigraphal or early Christian works, conveniently alleviating the burden of their words from the Jews. Case closed, once again.

It makes you wonder - if Elohim preserved these texts for thousands of years until the very moment Israel was a nation again, yet His message was still ignored, then what could get these message through to them? Unless it's already in the Talmud or Mishnah then it doesn't count, right? Besides the Tanakh, these are the only extra writings given such high honour whilst the books of the DSS remain as scraps. In my opinion this is tragic, but again, who am I.

Is 4 Ezra mentioned anywhere in the NT?

Yes, it is quoted nearly verbatim by Messiah in one passage. 4 Ezra 1:30-33 and Matthew 23:37-39

Hence, drivel. Yes, drivel intended to make Ezra look good, but drivel nonetheless.

I'm getting the impression you're not keen on 4 Ezra...

You better hope you're right my friend, to speak with such confidence. It would have been wiser to say "I highly doubt it". But to call it "drivel"? Such boldness! Better hope you're right.

Look, I love Harry Potter. But I don't consider it scripture, i.e., it's not holy. Does that mean I'm sweeping it under the rug?

Your example is flawed. Hopefully I don't need to explain why.

Do you understand what the canonization process was? It was great men sitting down and figuring out was holy and inspired and what wasn't, even if it was very interesting and could provide interesting historical knowledge. And in fact, if you took the time to study the sections in Jewish literature that discuss the canonization process (written thousands of years ago!), you'll see that even after books were deemed holy and inspired, there were still arguments about whether to include them or not, for other reasons. It was a very lengthy and thought-out process that extended over many years.

Yes, I'm aware of the Canonisation process not only of the Jews but of the Christians, the Catholics and the final revision/reduction, as recent as the 1800s.

The difference between you and I on the subject is you say "great men" whereas I say "mere men". And I'm aware the Word of Elohim has always been under attack and instances of supplanting it have even be recorded in the Scriptures. Indeed, I believe strongly that the Bible we have today is smaller than it was back in the first century.

But am I saying that every book that claims to be inspired should be accepted as Scripture? No. Is every "hidden" or "lost" book from Elohim? No. Am I saying Harry Potter should follow Malachi? No.

It seems as though that you limit your views within the boundaries that other men have set for you, whereas I test those boundaries aggressively with my own critical analysis and investigate these books directly. Now, if I happen to agree with these "great men", good. If I don't, then I consider the potential reasons why but I'm not daunted into compliance by those who have gone before me. Not when history is filled with much darkness and ill-intent towards the Word of Elohim.

What then, does that make me a great man, smarter than all who have gone before me? No, not at all. I'm a fool in most matters and actually rather simple minded and a bit slow unfortunately. But I am an independent and inquisitive student and putting my confidence in "because they said so" just doesn't work for me. Perhaps it's a bad attitude to have, but I mean no disrespect by it. I only want the truth.

Utter missionizing nonsense. I recommend you don't buy into that stuff, it's a weak, baseless argument, intended to try to convince uneducated Jews that "the rabbis" have been hiding "the truth" from them. Who are these "some" that you refer to?

I may be wrong. I'm just sharing what I've heard from numerous sources. One such source is here

You'd be ignoring the entire context of Isaiah, then. But enjoy.

My friend, I could say the same to yourself. But it's doubtful we'll agree on this subject, even if we took the time to go chapter by chapter. So let's agree to disagree.

There are Torah scrolls today that have been through some terrible events in Jewish history. Are you aware of how the Aleppo Codex - what remains of, anyway - was smuggled out of Aleppo? Jews took and take great pains to protect their literature. How is it possible that not a single scroll survived? This was about 800 years after the giving of the Torah. They had plenty of time to copy the books over and over. And not one survived? Seriously? And when they were in exile, no one thought of trying to re-write the scrolls? Are you certain there was not a single Jew with a photographic memory capable of writing a Torah scroll on his own?

If you read my post, I didn't suggest all the scrolls would have likely been destroyed. Although that too is possible.

I'm not referring to the struggles and survival of the scrolls in more recent history. I'm speaking in regards to Jerusalem prior to and during it's destruction at the hands of Babylon. Yahudah weren't known for their good heart towards Elohim at that time, obviously. Whether it be the dusty scroll found stored away in Josiah's day, Jehoiakim burning the words of Jeremiah, or the mysterious "lying pen of the scribes", we can conclude Yahudah wasn't known at this time to be as diligent with keeping, maintaining and respecting the Scriptures.

But is it possible some knew the scrolls with a photographic memory? Yes. If you are happy to believe that you have a photographically-memorised version of the Scriptures today, dating back to that time, fine. But I personally believe that it's more likely that all scrolls were rewritten by a prophet under direct influence of the Ruach instead, as in 4 Ezra. But enough of that book. I realise you dislike it greatly.

In 4 Ezra it says that 24 books were given to the Jews - these would be the 24 books of Tanach. Yet at the same time you think that the Jews swept books under the rug. Now, I think you should decide: Will you hold by the number of books given in 4 Ezra or will you hold that the number is wrong and Jews deceptively hid away books? The only person attested in that book to have hidden away books is Ezra. Is he also deceptive?

The 24 books were for the lay people and the remainder were for the wise. So, in essence, the Tanakh as it stands today is exactly as it was prophesied to be - long before your "great men" decided its canonisation. I'm not hear to argue about the canonisation of the Tanakh - it is what it is. I'm not speaking to Judaism or Christianity (who also ignore these books). Rather, I'm speaking to you, as an individual. I think there is hope on an individual level. But I would never expect to see a revision of the Tanakh.

However, you have made your stance clear that you go by the 24 only, which is fine, respectable and perfectly safe. There is nothing wrong with that. It's just a shame, as when trying to discuss the Messiah in further depth from a Hebraic viewpoint they are interesting, seeing as the Besorah is greatly despised. And, if some of these books are legitimate, they shed further insight into the lives of patriarchs, the eternal nature of Torah preceding Sinai, and an extra dimension to Nevi'im. Beneficial for both academic study and personal edification.

But, as I've said, you've made your stance clear so we needn't discuss the DSS books anymore.

To be continued..

 

[Tzephanyahu]

Continued from above...

When King Shaul asks David from what family he is, David says he's the son of Yishai of Beit Lechem, and that seems to be enough for Shaul to know who Daivd is, as he doesn't inquire further - yet there were millions of Israelites at the time. It may be argued that the family of Yishai was well-known. Well-known, well-to-do - why shouldn't they have a scroll? But even if they didn't, why couldn't David have ever read one from a local library or study hall?

Hmmm. This is all conjecture.

Talmud isn't there, so it must not have been written the same way. And it's not, and no one thinks it was.

Okay, thanks for clearing up the matter. Sometimes the lines seem a little hazy to the outsider looking in.

So in your view, Jesus is only the messiah, nothing more?

I'm sorry could you flesh out the question a little more?

Put it this way: I may not be able to reach level 10, but I can reach level 9.

Wow. My friend, I think you'd be capable of all that your ancestors were and more - if your heart and walk are right before Elohim. Why do you sell yourself short?

I don't know you well, but I know you have the access to more information and tools that your ancestors could have ever dreamed of. What would have taken them hours or days to do by flickering candlelights and limited sources you can do within minutes on your computer - and far more effectively. So why set your ceiling at level 9?

Oh no, I'm pretty certain Paul was really against the Torah.

Then you haven't understood Paul my friend. Paul was all for Torah.

Don't let Christian missionaries ripping his words out of context fool you. Believe you me, Paul's words are congruent with the whole of the Tanakh and he cites it regularly and thoroughly.

Paul's messed-up interest, hence his view that non-Jews are not to hold by the Torah.

No, this is incorrect.

Paul was teaching that non-Jews are not saved by keeping Torah. Salvation is through the Messiah's atoning sacrifice and resurrection only and not by works. What was happening was that Jews from Jerusalem were infiltrating the early churches and saying "You're not saved unless you first get circumcised AND keep all of Torah first - then the blood of Messiah will help you". Paul was against this, but not against keeping Torah as a way of life. In fact, Paul often writes that obedience to Torah is the sign of someone's true repentance and that it is the right path before Elohim. Many Christians twist his words out of context as they want to avoid the Torah - showing the true state of their heart towards Elohim. Almost as though they would have Yahushua as their God, but not YHWH.

Now, just like the Passover, the blood of the lamb saved Israel and not their works or righteousness. Indeed, they were sinners. BUT after salvation, they were drawn to Sinai for the Torah. In like manner, Gentiles (and Jews) can only be saved by the blood of Messiah only. BUT after salvation, walking according to Torah is expected. If we don't... well, we all know what happens in the rest of the Exodus story. Not all make the Promised Land.

This matter is clearly portrayed in the the prophecies of the Tanakh and in the Besorah and the writings of the Apostles.

So, some classic questions: How do you know how to slaughter an animal for it to be kosher? How do you know what part of the body must be circumcised?

I personally keep a vegan diet

For circumcision, this is a big topic. But as for which "part" - do you mean as common sense would have it by a peshat reading the Scriptures? Or according to what your "great men" say?

How far back? Desert era. Provide evidence to the contrary. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.

Haha. Okay, fair enough! I won't bother arguing this with you if you believe that wholeheartedly. That takes a lot of faith! But I thought you were more logical than this.

It wouldn't be useful to you, though, because a large portion of it is based on Jewish commentaries, Talmud and Midrash.
As for what it is, I don't want to tell yet. I hope to make public at some point, but v1 is only in Hebrew. It'll take time to make v2, which is translated into English.

I see. Well may it go well for you and your work be successful. And may Elohim be glorified by it.

It's not offensive. I simply find it strange.

Hehe okay. Yeah, most consider me strange... I really should start taking the hint.

Peace.

 

[Skywalker]

I was explaining why Ruth and 4 Ezra are incomparable.

We don't know who this audience is.

What books that aren't in Tanach are you bothered by that you think were "suspiciously removed"? Ben Sira - whole discussion in the Talmud about its inclusion/exclusion. Two more books that nobody has called Ben Laanah and Ben Tigla were related to Ben Sira in terms of exclusion reasoning. Tobit - Origen paraphrases the Jewish reasoning for its exclusion and there's also a fascinating midrash that brings the gist of Tobit's story in it, but the characters are nameless. I have a hypothesis to why that is so. Judith - wildly historically inaccurate for a vast number of reasons, some of which I'm sure you're aware of. I explained why 4 Ezra is ridiculous. Is 4 Ezra mentioned anywhere in the NT? Is it mentioned by Jewish historians such as Philo and Josephus? Is the big scriptural cataclysm mentioned by Ben Sira? Who heard about this? It seems no one of any importance knew about this. Hence, drivel. Yes, drivel intended to make Ezra look good, but drivel nonetheless.

What evidence have you that they were "swept under the rug"? Look, I love Harry Potter. But I don't consider it scripture, i.e., it's not holy. Does that mean I'm sweeping it under the rug? Do you understand what the canonization process was? It was great men sitting down and figuring out was holy and inspired and what wasn't, even if it was very interesting and could provide interesting historical knowledge. And in fact, if you took the time to study the sections in Jewish literature that discuss the canonization process (written thousands of years ago!), you'll see that even after books were deemed holy and inspired, there were still arguments about whether to include them or not, for other reasons. It was a very lengthy and thought-out process that extended over many years.

Utter missionizing nonsense. I recommend you don't buy into that stuff, it's a weak, baseless argument, intended to try to convince uneducated Jews that "the rabbis" have been hiding "the truth" from them. Who are these "some" that you refer to?

You'd be ignoring the entire context of Isaiah, then. But enjoy.

I don't. Why is the Babylonian Exile mentioned by multiple prophets but this particular point is mentioned by none except the mysterious author of 4 Ezra? Also, you must be aware that Jews have given their lives to protect their scriptures. There are Torah scrolls today that have been through some terrible events in Jewish history. Are you aware of how the Aleppo Codex - what remains of, anyway - was smuggled out of Aleppo? Jews took and take great pains to protect their literature. How is it possible that not a single scroll survived? This was about 800 years after the giving of the Torah. They had plenty of time to copy the books over and over. And not one survived? Seriously? And when they were in exile, no one thought of trying to re-write the scrolls? Are you certain there was not a single Jew with a photographic memory capable of writing a Torah scroll on his own?

Here's an interesting thought, though, since you hold so much by 4 Ezra. In 4 Ezra it says that 24 books were given to the Jews - these would be the 24 books of Tanach. Yet at the same time you think that the Jews swept books under the rug. Now, I think you should decide: Will you hold by the number of books given in 4 Ezra or will you hold that the number is wrong and Jews deceptively hid away books? The only person attested in that book to have hidden away books is Ezra. Is he also deceptive?

I don't know on what you base your assumptions about David's family. As attested to by Ruth and Chronicles, he was a descendant of Boaz, who is described as well-to-do in Ruth. David's ancestor Nachshon was the prince of Yehudah in the desert. When King Shaul asks David from what family he is, David says he's the son of Yishai of Beit Lechem, and that seems to be enough for Shaul to know who Daivd is, as he doesn't inquire further - yet there were millions of Israelites at the time. It may be argued that the family of Yishai was well-known. Well-known, well-to-do - why shouldn't they have a scroll? But even if they didn't, why couldn't David have ever read one from a local library or study hall?

We turn to our halacha, our laws.

No. I already told you that one reason for including books in Tanach was divine inspiration at the level of prophecy. Talmud isn't there, so it must not have been written the same way. And it's not, and no one thinks it was.

So in your view, Jesus is only the messiah, nothing more?

Put it this way: I may not be able to reach level 10, but I can reach level 9. I'll know where to aim for if I know what the target is. And as I said, the concept of yeridat hadorot is based on reasons for changes throughout the generations. Fix those issues, and I think we can expect a rise in spirituality.

Oh no, I'm pretty certain Paul was really against the Torah. If Christians had gone the way of the early Jewish Christians and continued to learn Torah, they would have gone down one of three paths: 1. Disappeared like the early Jewish Christians. 2. Become Noachides or converted to Judaism and followed the ways of the sages. 3. Completely left Torah, perhaps even all of Christianity. Neither result was in Paul's messed-up interest, hence his view that non-Jews are not to hold by the Torah.

So, some classic questions: How do you know how to slaughter an animal for it to be kosher? How do you know what part of the body must be circumcised?

How far back? Desert era. Provide evidence to the contrary. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.

Ironic, considering what I told you about Isaiah 53.

It wouldn't be useful to you, though, because a large portion of it is based on Jewish commentaries, Talmud and Midrash.
As for what it is, I don't want to tell yet. I hope to make public at some point, but v1 is only in Hebrew. It'll take time to make v2, which is translated into English.

It's not offensive. I simply find it strange.

My belief about halacha is that we are to read the Bible and trust what God says. The only book we need for answers is the Bible.

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. Jeremiah 17:5

In the past I used to trust what pastors said too much and I got mislead by false teachings like name it and claim it theology.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My belief about halacha is that we are to read the Bible and trust what God says. The only book we need for answers is the Bible.

And yet the Bible itself says you need more than the Bible. Deut 17:8-13

 

[Skywalker]

And yet the Bible itself says you need more than the Bible. Deut 17:8-13

That's different from relying on human beings to interpret the scriptures. The only one we can really trust is God.