Trinity claims that the Jews believed that a Son is equal to his Father

[Ehav4Ever]

Could you simply write down those points? Because it is not always easy for people to watch and listen to videos. Especially is they are long and have a lot of foreign language in them or strong accents.

Essentially, what I wrote in post 118 that should ask the author of the article you posted is the starting point. Other than that information in the video is visually presented so that you can see what the actual scripts look like which is something that can't be represented in English on a forum.

1. Several ancient Semetic languages work off of three letter roots, in Hebrew called (שורשים), what is the meaning of the following (שורשים) in Proto-Canaanite, Sumerian, and ancient Hebrew? (א-י-ל), (א-ו-ל) and (א-ל-ה)
2. What is the earliest source, description, of how the language of the Jewish (תנ"ך) worked and the meanings of its words?
3. What is the earliest source, description, of how the language of the Samaritan (תורה) worked and the meanings of its words?
4. What characteristics make a text a Torah based Israeli/Jewish text?
5. In the writing of Nechamya there is a description of two langauges one being native to the people of Yehudah called (יהודית) and the other being foreign called (אשדודית) - what are the differences between the two?
6. What native Canaanite text describes the vowel system, i.e. correct pronunciation of words among the Canaanites?
7. How do ancient Jewish texts discuss the process they call (נבואה)?
8. What ancient Torath Mosheh Jewish sources, prior to about 1,700 years declare that (יהוה) is pronounced yahweh? Why do some Karaite Jews give a difference pronuciation?

I will be covering these topics in the video I am working on.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Ehav4Ever regarding father and son relationship. When I was a young child my father brought me to an orthodox synagogue. I had no idea what was going on, he usually didn't go to synagogue but I think his mother had just died. So there I was next to him and he was bowing, wearing his prayer shawl and kippur. I remember there was a little throne on the platform where the rabbi stood. That throne was for the rabbi's son.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Ehav4Ever regarding father and son relationship. When I was a young child my father brought me to an orthodox synagogue. I had no idea what was going on, he usually didn't go to synagogue but I think his mother had just died. So there I was next to him and he was bowing, wearing his prayer shawl and kippur. I remember there was a little throne on the platform where the rabbi stood. That throne was for the rabbi's son.

There are no "thrones" for anyone in a synagogue, including the rabbis son. There are special chairs in the front that are for people who play a part in the liturgy, for example the cantor, or the President (who gives announcements).

 

[YoursTrue]

Another thing, @Ehav4Ever -- in the scriptures, it was the first-born that got a special inheritance. In general, it was the oldest son of a father, rather than the firstborn of the mother. In those times, the firstborn son held an honored position in the family and was given the headship of the household when the father died.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are no "thrones" for anyone in a synagogue, including the rabbis son. There are special chairs in the front that are for people who play a part in the liturgy, for example the cantor, or the President (who gives announcements).

Maybe not now. Back then there was a regal looking chair for the rabbi's son.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Maybe not now. Back then there was a regal looking chair for the rabbi's son.

Sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense. It is far more likely that your memory lacks context, or that you simply have a false memory.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are no "thrones" for anyone in a synagogue, including the rabbis son. There are special chairs in the front that are for people who play a part in the liturgy, for example the cantor, or the President (who gives announcements).

Thank you for bringing that up. "According to Deuteronomy 21:15–17, a father was obliged to acknowledge his firstborn son as his principal heir, and to grant him a double portion of his estate as inheritance." (Jewishvirtuallibrary.org under "firstborn.")

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense. It is far more likely that your memory lacks context, or that you simply have a false memory.

It was some time ago, I am pretty sure I can't contact those at that synagogue now. I might ask a cousin about this, he is an orthodox Jew.

 

[YoursTrue]

@IndigoChild5559 , by the way, I was looking a few things up. I am not that conversant with the intricacies of the various factions, but interestingly enough, and I realize it may be off the subject, but I came across this about Menachem Mendel Schneersohn. He married his first cousin Chaya Mushka Schneersohn, daughter of Rabbi Dovber Schneuri. (wikipedia) I didn't think it was taught to be proper to marry one's first cousin. Maybe I"m wrong or there are special exceptions.

 

[rosends]

It was some time ago, I am pretty sure I can't contact those at that synagogue now. I might ask a cousin about this, he is an orthodox Jew.

In a couple shuls which I have attended, the rabbi had a chair on the stage and often his son would run up and sit in his father's chair when the rabbi wasn't using it. It isn't a throne and there was nothing set aside for the son.

 

[YoursTrue]

In a couple shuls which I have attended, the rabbi had a chair on the stage and often his son would run up and sit in his father's chair when the rabbi wasn't using it. It isn't a throne and there was nothing set aside for the son.

ok, thank you. I was a little girl and didn't understand much, but I remember being told it was for the rabbi's son. (It was a small 'ornate' chair, looked like a throne to me, but maybe it wasn't.)

 

[YoursTrue]

In a couple shuls which I have attended, the rabbi had a chair on the stage and often his son would run up and sit in his father's chair when the rabbi wasn't using it. It isn't a throne and there was nothing set aside for the son.

Now I wonder why his son would run up and sit in it.

 

[rosends]

Now I wonder why his son would run up and sit in it.

for the same reason I liked jumping on my parents' bed or sitting in the drivers seat of the car when my parents were in the house.

 

[YoursTrue]

for the same reason I liked jumping on my parents' bed or sitting in the drivers seat of the car when my parents were in the house.

I would say that probably the other children in the congregation did not have that privilege of jumping into the chair. Anyway, the point is that according to the Bible, a man's firstborn son is the one that gets a greater portion of the inheritance. Nothing, I guess, about jumping on chairs.

 

[rosends]

I would say that probably the other children in the congregation did not have that privilege of jumping into the chair. Anyway, the point is that according to the Bible, a man's firstborn son is the one that gets a greater portion of the inheritance. Nothing, I guess, about jumping on chairs.

Yes, a firstborn gets a double portion. And a second born son who is also a son doesn't. A first born is subject to other laws specific to first born also.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus is not an adopted child (Son)? Tell me what does this mean:

• ‘You are my son; THIS DAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER!’

Is that not a declaration of an adopter to the adoptee?

Historically it seems that Psalm 2 is a Psalm of victory and when the victory happens it is as if God is declaring the truth about the victor for all to see. "You are my son, this day I have become your father".
This is why that Psalm is applied to Jesus resurrection (Acts 13:33) even though before that we know that Jesus is called the Son of God.
At Romans 8:23 we also see the resurrection of believers' bodies is called an adoption to sonship even though the believer who is born of God is already a child of God while living on earth.
The resurrection is the triumphal declaration and demonstration of the truth of the claim to being the children of God.
How are you applying Psalm 2, and to which incident?

 

[Brian2]

Please explain what do you think being "one in us" and "one with us means", what is the difference in practice?

Being "one in us" means that the group who are in Christ are one, one group joined as one because we share the same Spirit.
Being "one with us" means that we are not only one with the group but also with Christ and God. iows there is an equality of position between Christians and Christ and God.
The truth however is that the equality is between the believers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, a firstborn gets a double portion. And a second born son who is also a son doesn't. A first born is subject to other laws specific to first born also.

OK...Interestingly, as I understand it, the firstborn of the mother is not considered as the firstborn of the father.

 

[David Davidovich]

No. The reason is that discussing language, how they work, how they don't work, and cultures around said languages is not something that one writes down for someone without being comprehensive. This is especially true when it comes to ancient and modern Jewish language and text. It is for this reason that historically Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews invest years of energy and resources in training Jewish children in being fluent in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and other Jewish dialects.

This is the reason that when people actually study language often have to spend large amounts of time looking at texts, learning scripts, and breaking down cultural norms - and they spend years doing so. This is especially true when said language is thousands of years old and foreign to those who don't live the culture and interact with it. Further, there are some articles, books, etc. that don't even break down what the text they are explaining actually says, in its cultural context, and where it says it in the text and what natives of the language and culture actually state.

If a video where all of that is broken down visually and explained at a basic level is difficult for some then it is possible that the topic is not one that they can grasp correctly. This is another cultural difference. A Torath Mosheh or Orthodox Jew would request me to show them detail, in the languages in question, what I am stating rather than have me write out in English that can be debated simply on the fact that the English doesn't refelct the actual text in question.

Lastly, if a person has the ability to spend several days, weeks, months, etc. going back and forth on RF about topics I don't see how a 10 minutes to 1 hour is a heavy investment.

Well, perhaps you will enlighten the forum with a more detailed way of saying that you 'believe' that no Jew has ever entertained the idea of a second power in heaven... Well, good luck with that... Also, perhaps you will also help Soapy, um, find what he's looking for.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I remember there was a little throne on the platform where the rabbi stood. That throne was for the rabbi's son.

I have never seen a synagouge with a throne for the rabbi or a rabbi's son. If that is what you actually saw there that was not the norm in any generation. Maybe they had just done a Purim play or something. What was the name of the synagogue?

There are synagogues that may have reserved seats for the rabbi or leader of the community who teaches Torah. If said rabbi's son was also a rabbi that taught Torah then there may be a reserved seat for him too but it would have nothing to do with them being father and son. It would only because they are both teachers of Torah. It would essentially have to be a very well to do and wealthy community for there to be anything more than a spot or a regular chair near the place where the Torahs are kept. Below are some examples of synagogues from the most ancient Jewish communities.