The prophesied Messiah

[wizanda]

Titles as 'Lord' do not translate as to being an incarnate God.

Not unless they are clearly prophesied in the Tanakh:

Moses changed Hosea son of Nun to Yehoshua son of Nun, as he shall lead our people into the promised land.

Yehoshua son of Yehozadek led them back from the Babylonian Exile & the name is thus a Branch from the Line of David.

Exodus 23:20-23 states the the Lord of Creation (Yahavah) will put his title on an angel, who has the power to forgive sin (Yehoshua = Lord Saves).

Next we have the prophecies specific to the Salvation of God appearing in the form of a son of man (Isaiah 52:10-15), where Moses, David, Isaiah relate the Lord shall become Yeshua & the Chief Corner stone (Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2).

It is a unresolvable conflict that OT theology that a 'Man cannot be God' as cited.

It isn't unresolvable; people are just bad at exegesis (Zand), and follow each other, rather than actually question what the texts state.

As Isaiah 46:9 says EL is not like Elohim; God is not like Divine Beings/ArchAngels...

It points back, and paraphrases Deuteronomy 32:7-9 where El Elyon separates the nations among the Divine Council, and gave the nation of Israel to Yahavah Elohim, who later became Yehoshua Elohim.

Just in case don't repeat the Canaanite belief you have, as it doesn't actually match the Hebraic texts; if you ask i will show by the Tanakh what was theologically understood within it, not ideas that have been created after.

the Alpha and Omega simply describes Jesus Christ has always existed.

A And Z

19 God is not a man

EL (God) is not a man; yet Yahavah Elohim the 'Lord of Creation Archangel' existed in human form many times: walked with Adam and Eve, Moses saw his back, Abraham sat and had dinner with him, and Jacob wrestled him.

In my opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not unless they are clearly prophesied in the Tanakh:

Moses changed Hosea son of Nun to Yehoshua son of Nun, as he shall lead our people into the promised land.

Yehoshua son of Yehozadek led them back from the Babylonian Exile & the name is thus a Branch from the Line of David.

Exodus 23:20-23 states the the Lord of Creation (Yahavah) will put his title on an angel, who has the power to forgive sin (Yehoshua = Lord Saves).

Next we have the prophecies specific to the Salvation of God appearing in the form of a son of man (Isaiah 52:10-15), where Moses, David, Isaiah relate the Lord shall become Yeshua & the Chief Corner stone (Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2).

It isn't unresolvable; people are just bad at exegesis (Zand), and follow each other, rather than actually question what the texts state.

As Isaiah 46:9 says EL is not like Elohim, God is not like Divine Beings/ArchAngels...

It points back, and paraphrases Deuteronomy 32:7-9 where El Elyon separates the nations among the Divine Council, and gave the nation of Israel to Yahavah Elohim, who later became Yehoshua Elohim.

You are only confirming the extension of Canaanite/Ugarite polytheism.

Just in case don't repeat the Canaanite belief you have, as it doesn't actually match the Hebraic texts; if you ask i will show by the Tanakh what was theologically understood within it, not ideas that have been created after.

Match? The evidence is clear the Hebrews were a Canaanite tribe, and the Hebrew language is an evolved Canaanite language. Much of the texts of the Pentateuch evolved from Canaanite, Ugarite, Babylonian, and Sumerian sources that evolved over time. The names for Gods are originally Canaanite terms.

A And Z

EL (God) is not a man; yet Yahavah Elohim the 'Lord of Creation Archangel' existed in human form many times: walked with Adam and Eve, Moses saw his back, Abraham sat and had dinner with him, and Jacob wrestled him.

In my opinion.

As described they spiritual beings (angels) walking with humans, and NOT human earthly Gods.

You are faced with the evidence that the Pentateuch is a rather edited, redacted, written in it's present form and compiled from different sources and oral traditions after ~800-700 BCE

 

[wizanda]

This is a tough stretch of interpretation of OT references inherited from Canaanite/Ugarite polytheism.

What we have in Revelation is 24 Elders (Elohim) who surround the Throne of God Almighty (EL Shaddai)...

The Lamb is the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, who is the spokesperson for EL, and is the spirit of prophecy, and shouldn't be worshiped either (Revelation 19:10).

This understanding was followed in First Temple Judaism, and scholars like Dr Margaret Barker, Dr Michael Heiser, Thom Stark, etc, who've independently studied the Hebraic texts are coming to similar conclusions.

The Canaanites made each of the Divine Council into demigods; whereas the Bible follows the same theology as Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, etc...

One God Most High (EL Elyon) who is the Source of reality like a CPU, and then Divine Representatives (Elohim) who interact with mankind.

the Hebrew language is an evolved Canaanite language.

Ancient Hebrew evolved from spoken Hebrew mixing with Egyptian, then a spelling system was created between Hieroglyphics and Phoenician... The Canaanites existed much later in history.

The names for Gods are originally Canaanite terms.

These are Semitic definitions, not names; the idea of even doing that, is the same as the polytheists do, they think divine attributes of the One Source are individual deities - Which simply shows a lack of study.

As described they spiritual beings (angels) walking with humans, and NOT human earthly Gods.

Elohim has been translated as a God by Judaism, when it means spiritual beings... Thus the error is easily shown where the confusion comes from.

In my opinion.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Titles as 'Lord' do not translate as to being an incarnate God. The tittle(?) the Alpha and Omega simply describes Jesus Christ has always existed.

Isaiah 44:6
“This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
Revelation 1:17-18
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

It is a unresolvable conflict that OT theology that a 'Man cannot be God' as cited.

Doesn't mean God can't be man. Lol!...
Imo that would be setting limitations on God's power

 

[shunyadragon]

Isaiah 44:6
“This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
Revelation 1:17-18

This is the One and only true God, and not the Trinity.

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Doesn't mean God can't be man. Lol!...
Imo that would be setting limitations on God's power

There is no limits to the One True God, which is not Jesus Christ.

No God is not a man.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

This is the One and only true God, and not the Trinity.

Isaiah 44:6
“This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Oh I agree....No trinity......Just God.....
But notice how God says he is Lord, Lord Almighty, Israel's King, Redeemer, and the first & the last

There is no limits to the One True God, which is not Jesus Christ.

No God is not a man.

Revelation 1:12-18
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
13 and among the lampstands, was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Did you even read the rest of my last post? 'cause it seems as though you didn't read the verse from Revelation I posted.
Why can't Jesus be God? Why can't God be a man or whatever he wants to be for that matter?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Words have additional meaning based on sentence structure, inside paragraph structure, inside integral structuring...

Yet generally people only look at the surface levels they want to believe in...

Which is why they didn't understand Yeshua Elohim in Isaiah 52:10 or Psalms 98:3... Plus Salvation's evolution in the Tanakh (H3444).


If they did, they'd already have the wisdom to see who the Messiah is.

Israel & Zion can mean multiple things depending on their context.

In my opinion.

Isaiah 52:10
The LORD hath made bare His holy arm In the eyes of all the nations; And all the ends of the earth shall see The salvation of our God.
Holy arm -- figurative, God does not have a body
The eyes of all the nations -- it will be recognized world wide
The salvation of our God -- God saves Israel.

For example, God has restored the Jews to the Nation Sate of Israel, and all the world recognizes it (with only a few exceptions) would meet the criteria of this verse.

Psalms 98:3
He has remembered his love and his faithfulness to Israel; all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.

The first clause of the verse, "love and faithfulness to Israel," gives context to whom God's salvation is given -- God saves Israel. This obviously does not refer to the salvation to all who believe in Jesus that Christianity discusses.


You will find that in the Tanakh, "salvation" denotes:
1. The salvation of Israel, not the nations
2. A salvation from enemies, not saving us from our sins or from perdition.

 

[Desert Snake]

You will find that in the Tanakh, "salvation" denotes:
1. The salvation of Israel, not the nations
2. A salvation from enemies, not saving us from our sins or from perdition.

Your definition changed, there. In other words, 'nations' you have ascribed to Christianity, yet you are now defining Israel, as the 'jews', although your argument necessitates just a place. So it's sort of contradictory. If you go very literal, then you are ironically back to a spiritual definition, israelites, not a place.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ancient Hebrew evolved from spoken Hebrew mixing with Egyptian, then a spelling system was created between Hieroglyphics and Phoenician... The Canaanites existed much later in history.

Posts get long, but I thought I would respond to this problem. First the Hebrew written language did not begin to exist until about 11th or 10 century BCE as a primitive Canaanite/ Hebrew.

Second, the influence of Egyptian is minimal at best with some names and vocabulary. The following describes Hebrew as evolving from Canaanite. This fits archaeology, because small statues the Canaanite femal God are found in early Hebrew villages.

From: Ancient Hebrew writings - Wikipedia

The Hebrew language developed out of the Canaanite language, and some Semitist scholars consider both Hebrew and Phoenician to have been essentially dialects of Cannaanite.[2]

The language variety in which the Masoretic biblical text is written is known as Biblical Hebrew or Classical Hebrew(c. 10th century BCE – 1st century CE). Varieties of Hebrew were spoken not only by the ancient Israelites but also in adjacent kingdoms east and south of the Jordan River, where distinct non-Israelite dialects existed, now extinct: Ammonite, Moabite and Edomite. After the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel had been deported from their homeland following the Assyrian conquest in approximately 721 BC, an equivalent linguistic shift occurred. In the Second Temple period since the Babylonian exile, beginning in the 5th century BCE, the two known remnants of the twelve Israelite tribes came to be referred to as Jews and Samaritans (see Samaritan Hebrew).

Genealogical classification of Hebrew:

• Proto-Afroasiatic language
  • Proto-Semitic language
    • Central Semitic languages
      • Northwest Semitic languages
        • Canaanite
          • Classical Hebrew

Unlike Samaritan and Biblical Hebrew, the other varieties are poorly studied due to insufficient data. It may be argued that they are independent languages, as the distinction between language and dialect is ambiguous. They are known only from very small corpora, coming from seals, ostraca, transliterations of names in foreign texts and, in particular, the following inscriptions:

• Mesha Stele (9th century BCE), the longest Moabite text known;[3]
• El-Kerak Stela (9th century BCE), 3 lines of Moabite writing;
• Amman Citadel Inscription (9th century BCE), 8 lines of Ammonite writing.[4]

Hebrew and Phoenician are classified as Canaanite languages, which, along with Aramaic constitute the Northwest Semitic (Levantine) language family. Extra-biblical Canaanite inscriptions are gathered along with Aramaic inscriptions in editions of the book "Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften", from which they may be referenced as KAI n (for a number n); for example, the Mesha Stele is "KAI 181".

The Deir Alla Inscription (c. 840–760 BCE), which is written in a peculiar Northwest Semitic dialect, has provoked much debate among scholars and had a strong impact on the study of Hebrew language history.[5][6]

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your definition changed, there. In other words, 'nations' you have ascribed to Christianity, yet you are now defining Israel, as the 'jews', although your argument necessitates just a place. So it's sort of contradictory. If you go very literal, then you are ironically back to a spiritual definition, israelites, not a place.

The Hebrew word goyim, which is correctly translated nations, or commonly as Gentiles, simply refers to non-Jews. Christians are one kind of non-Jew.

Israel is one of those words that has more than one meaning. It can refer to a place, a nation, or a tribal people, or the person named Israel from whom that tribal people are descended, adoptees notwithstanding. So I'm actually not changing "my definition," so much as that I'm using the word in a different sense as the context changes. If you are unsure what I mean, please just ask.

 

[wizanda]

This is the One and only true God, and not the Trinity.

Isaiah 44:6 says Elohim at the end, which is saying YHVH is an Archangel (plural), who serves EL according to Isaiah theology; thus that is an equal concept to the Trinity.

There is no limits to the One True God, which is not Jesus Christ.

The Source of Reality (EL Elyon - God Most High) sent Yeshua Elohim down here; thus implying that it wasn't the same Source who made Yeshua isn't logical.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

Holy arm -- figurative, God does not have a body

Sorry this is eisegesis; in Isaiah 52:10-15 it says that the Vessel of the Lord (Isaiah 52:11), who is his Servant David (Isaiah 52:14) shall appear in the form of a Son of Man...

This paraphrases Psalms 89:19-21.... There is an additional yod in the Dead Sea Scrolls on the word 'blemished' which makes it 'anointed'.

[GALLERY=media, 8710][/GALLERY]
Psalms 89:19-21 Then you spoke in vision to your saints, and said, “I have given strength to the warrior. I have exalted a young man from the people. (20) I have found David, my servant. I have anointed him with my holy oil, (21) with whom my hand shall be established. My arm will also strengthen him.

Isaiah 52:13-14 Behold, my servant will deal wisely. He will be exalted and lifted up, and will be very high. Just as many were astonished by him, for I anointed him more than others appearance, and his form more than a son of man.

The salvation of our God -- God saves Israel.

Israel has been put under a Curse for rejecting the Rock of their Salvation i.e. Yeshua (Deuteronomy 32:15), and the God Most High i.e. EL (Deuteronomy 32:17-18).

Like Isaiah 46:9 says EL is not like the Elohim - The language is causing the confusion in theological comprehension.

God has restored the Jews to the Nation Sate of Israel, and all the world recognizes it

The Rothchilds restored Israel, and WW3 is soon, where the Fire will cleanse the Land; after that those who survive are the people of Israel.

This obviously does not refer to the salvation

Yeshua (H3444) means Salvation, and you're missing the point to change the name into something Hellenized.

When Israel is restored at the Messianic Age, those who remain will be grateful for Yeshua Elohim, as the Salvation from our God.

Since the Messiah's role is to remove the hypocrites, and scoffers (Isaiah 29:20), the Bible is a perfect test to remove many who insult what they don't understand.

2. A salvation from enemies, not saving us from our sins or from perdition.

This isn't taking into account Exodus 23:20-23; where the Lord shall put his name on an angel with the power to forgive sin - Yehoshua (Lord who saves).

Thus tho Yeshua Salvation H3444 is a different word; the concept suggested by the prophets, is that the Lord will come and be our intercessor (Isaiah 59:16), and thus the Lord became our Salvation.

In my opinion.

 

[Desert Snake]

Isaiah 44:6 says Elohim at the end, which is saying YHVH is an Archangel (plural), who serves EL according to Isaiah theology, thus that is an equal concept to the Trinity.

The Source of Reality (EL Elyon - God Most High) sent Yeshua Elohim down here; thus implying that it wasn't the same Source who made Yeshua isn't logical.

In my opinion.

On a very fundamental level, we encounter a 'religious difference' in interpretation, in
Genesis 1:26

Some Christians believe this means Jesus, some simply say angels...if we take the texts in the NT, it certainly would or can imply Jesus.

 

[wizanda]

Some Christians believe this means Jesus, some simply say angels...if we take the texts in the NT, it certainly would or can imply Jesus.

If we just take the text on its own to begin...

It says mankind was made in the image of Divine Beings plural (Elohim); the idea some people have tried to reiterate that EL and Elohim are the same, when Isaiah 46:9 says the exact opposite, is blasphemous adultery on a global scale, as Revelation indicates would happen.

Yahavah Elohim became Yeshua Elohim (Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2)... Which is to say the Lord of Creation, became the Lord who Saves (Yehoshua).

The easiest way to understand it, is Elohim are like Archangels, who are representatives from the Divine; El Elyon is the Source of Reality, who is like a CPU beyond form & infinity.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

First the Hebrew written language did not begin to exist until about 11th or 10 century BCE as a primitive Canaanite/ Hebrew.

More and more modern scholars disagree; especially anyone who has looked at how Ancient Hebrew is used in the Bible, before they added the Masoretic points system, and assumed it is like other Semitic languages...

There are multiple articles online expressing ideas that Hebrew evolution goes back before 1800 BC.

In my opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

More and more modern scholars disagree; especially anyone who has looked at how Ancient Hebrew is used in the Bible, before they added the Masoretic points system, and assumed it is like other Semitic languages...

There are multiple articles online expressing ideas that Hebrew evolution goes back before 1800 BC.

In my opinion.

There are not multiple academic sources that confirm this. You are citing a laynan's source with a great deal of conjecture. There are absolutely no early Proto-Hebrew writing that contains anything comperable to the claimed as Egyptian alphabet characters.

From: Ancient Hebrew writings - Wikipedia

"Before the Aramaic-derived modern Hebrew alphabet was adopted circa the 5th century BCE, the Phoenician-derived Paleo-Hebrew script was used instead for writing, and a derivative of the script still survives to this day in the form of the Samaritan script."

In review of several sources the answer is no, what is claimed as the early simplified Hieroglyphic Alphabet
DID NOT correspond to the Hebrew alphabet. in part because it is not a separate alphabet. The misunderstanding is that there categories of Hieroglyphics: One corresponds to 22 consanents. others correspond sounds combinations of consanents, and they were not used separately, Pretty much all early writing in all the Middle East Cultures did use vowels.

The archaeological finds in Israel corresponds to the Canaanite alphabet.

More to follow . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Isaiah 44:6 says Elohim at the end, which is saying YHVH is an Archangel (plural), who serves EL according to Isaiah theology; thus that is an equal concept to the Trinity.

The Source of Reality (EL Elyon - God Most High) sent Yeshua Elohim down here; thus implying that it wasn't the same Source who made Yeshua isn't logical.

In my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Too much of a stretch of Canaanite polytheism to justify the Trinity. Angels are not Gods. If you go down this rabbit hole your logic to justify the Trinity, becomes overwhelmingly polytheistic. Your view becomes an ancient world view of a pantheon of Gods in heaven and wandering round on earth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry this is eisegesis; in Isaiah 52:10-15 it says that the Vessel of the Lord (Isaiah 52:11), who is his Servant David (Isaiah 52:14) shall appear in the form of a Son of Man...

Just a comment about your quotes in general...
Let's assume for a second that your quotes actually are messianic prophecies (they actually aren't, the "son of man" for example refers to Israel, but lets assume for the moment that you are right for the sake of argument). Nothing in the Tanakh indicates that God will be the Messiah. Thus, although the Messiah will be a man and have a body, God does not have a body. He is spirit.

 

[wizanda]

Too much of a stretch of Canaanite polytheism to justify the Trinity.

There is a clear case from Abrahamic texts to show it isn't Canaanite.

Angels are not Gods.

Elohim are the equivalent of Archangels... Making them into gods is a lack of understanding of the Abrahamic contexts.

justify the Trinity

What has been showed is there are clear verses in the Tanakh, to show the Trinity concept already existed...

Just because some people have eisegesis, and have denied contexts, doesn't mean exegesis doesn't show it.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

Let's assume for a second that your quotes actually are messianic prophecies

As showing Isaiah 52:14 has additional yod on the word blemished, making it paraphrasing David as being the Anointed one...

Thus it literally isn't possible to say it isn't Messianic, as the contexts shows it is.

Please be aware the contexts many of the Jews are applying makes them Anti-Messianic, with it being the flesh of David with the spirit of Salvation put upon him (Yehoshua).

Nothing in the Tanakh indicates that God will be the Messiah.

Jeremiah 33:15-16, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Isaiah 9:6-7, Zechariah 14:9, Zechariah 14:16-17, Psalms 89:18, Psalms 98:6, Psalms 24:9-10, etc.

Just to be clear Yahavah is an Elohim, which means a Divine Representative, and is the spokesperson for God (EL); which is like a CPU beyond form.

In my opinion.