Messianic friend: “Belief in Yeshua is 100% experiential”

Below is the recent response from my long-time messianic friend (ethnic Jew, involved in the MJ movement, intermarried, with his non-Jewish children married to Gentile Christian pastors and heavily involved in Evangelical ministries) to being challenged to think about his ongoing sin of idolatry of Jesus-worship. This is the same friend who told me over our dinner-meeting late last year (which he mentions below): “I don’t care what the Bible says, Jesus revealed himself to me.” The theme of his response is that all true believers know that Jesus is true because they feel his presence, and not because he can be proven or shown from the Jewish scriptures (or even from the New Testament) to be either god, messiah or both. To my Christian, ethnically Jewish friend his god Jesus can only be felt and experienced on a personal basis, supernaturally – the proof of Jesus comes from “inner knowing”. He says that since I left Jesus, I must have never known him and “Yeshua never came into” me. According to my messianic friend, it’s futile to look to the Hebrew Bible for evidence of Jesus within its pages (and indeed, my friend refused to do so), for to do so would constitute intellectual “fleshly” attempts to experience what could only be felt in one’s soul. How can one be proved that something they believe is actually false, when one can “feel” Jesus and “see” what he has “done” for his worshipers? True believers in Jesus need no proof that he is god and that he’s real, and not even the Bible can persuade them otherwise.

Note: All names (expect my own) have been changed.

Dear Michael…my friend…I am quite surprised you struggled with this issue [that Jesus-worship is idolatry and not Judaism]. Personally, I truly believe in Judaism and do not believe it was replaced by the religion of Christianity…. and certainly the size of the body of believers no matter how many doesn’t influence us in the least. True faith in Yeshua does not come with the reasoning of the natural mind. People can explain anything away and boy do they try. Belief in Yeshua is 100% experiential. HaShem bypasses our intellect and moves right into our inner most being. When we went to dinner and Gene wanted to show me 100 scriptures trying to prove to me something I know is not true (that Yeshua is not Moshiach) it became clear to me that although he followed Him [sic], Yeshua never came into him [to Gene] and changed his life. I can understand how Gene was reasoned with [DM: meaning, how anti-missionaries brainwashed him] and how he now follows his [Orthodox] form of Judaism. Intellect and human reasoning is how it is done. Please understand that faith in HaShem and His Son is an injection of His amazing forgiveness and love into our deepest places of the heart. This “inner knowing” assures us that He [Yeshua] is real and is true. I really love and miss you guys and it is my prayer that you and your wife would bow your heart and bend your knee asking HaShem for this true revelation that He would dwell in you too.

Blessings and abundant joy in Moshiach,

David.

170 responses to “Messianic friend: “Belief in Yeshua is 100% experiential””

remi4321

June 1, 2015

What Gene, I am surprise that he didn’t say that Yeshua could be proven and that ALL scriptures talk about him. Unfortunately, you have to believe to be able to see the evidences. Yes, Gene, No unbeliever can see all those proof, because they do not believe. Gene, I tell you the trick, pray first that god will reveal that he is Jesus, then forget all logic, pray the prayer, yes the sinner’s prayer and render your heart to him, and read a few times the non-testament (Make sure you believe everything that is in it as Paul said in 1 Tim 3:16) Then read again the old testament, but do not doubt (Jesus, I believe help my unbelief)! Ask Jesus to help him find all those evidences, then everything you see then you don’t understand, that’s the proof you are looking for, that’s Jesus!

Gene Shlomovich

June 1, 2015

“What Gene, I am surprise that he didn’t say that Yeshua could be proven and that ALL scriptures talk about him. ”

He doesn’t place much importance in any religious literature. He “experienced Jesus” when he was in his late teens, when he got “saved” through a kindly Charismatic Christian couple who “loved Jewish people”. My friend, who came from a totally assimilated, dysfunctional home that was actually against Judaism (he wasn’t even bar mitzvahed), readily bought into everything they told him (including “speaking in tongues”, etc). He saw the messed up lives of his parents and siblings and once he got married (to a nice Christian girl in a church) and his new life in Christianity was going great, that was the confirmation he needed that it was no other but Jesus who “fixed” everything in his life.

Gene Shlomovich

June 1, 2015

BTW, people like my friend in the post, that is Christians who are anti-intellectual, emotional and experience-driven (they are quite common in the Evangelical/messianic Charismatic circles) are virtually beyond hope of repentance from idolatry. It’s very hard to reason with folks like that from scriptures, from history and even common sense, because reason and evidence is exactly what they reject as “satanic” and “human”.

Jim D.

June 2, 2015

Gene,

When G-d commands His people to love the LORD your G-d with all your heart, doesn’t the Hebrew for “love” really mean “be faithful”, and wasn’t the heart considered the seat of the mind? Therefore, the commandment is not to experience love in the modern sense, but to remain loyal and obedient to G-d with all of one’s intellect, life and strength. Would you agree? And would this understanding cause experience-oriented believers to stop and take note?

Gene Shlomovich

June 2, 2015

“Therefore, the commandment is not to experience love in the modern sense, but to remain loyal and obedient to G-d with all of one’s intellect, life and strength. Would you agree?”

Yes, I agree, Jim. However, Christians (like my friend above) completely transpose their loyalty and obedience to Jesus, since to them he’s is god. To them, worshiping Jesus IS being loyal and obedient to “G-d’s commandments” (a.k.a. “the law of Christ”). This can only be done by being ignorant, by chance or choice, of what the Hebrew Bible actually teaches about idolatry.

Jim D.

June 2, 2015

It sounds like a drug addiction In many respects. Maybe there is an intervention and treatment model which would apply.

Gene Shlomovich

June 2, 2015

“It sounds like a drug addiction In many respects. Maybe there is an intervention and treatment model which would apply.”

I think that you are on to something here, Jim. Idolatry is indeed comparable to drug addiction in some respects:

– Dependence on idol to make one feel good (Jesus saves, comforts and helps)
– Fear of painful withdrawal (fear of hell and eternal damnation if Jesus is dropped)
– Altered state of mind (the whole world view changes)
– Paranoia and delusions (afraid of Satan and unbelievers trying to subvert your faith).
– Hallucinations (imagining that idol is speaking to you and doing things)
– Sharing the idolatry with others to make them feel good (like drugs, often secretly, since there’s some shame involved, especially with Jewish Christians approaching “unbelieving Jews”)

Concerned Reader

June 2, 2015

While it’s true that intellect is important, the idea of the “heart as seat of intellect” was imported from Greek philosophy. That said, yes, the commandment to love G-d is bound up with obedience to the commandments. Once a person reads psalms, there isn’t a doubt about it.

Menashe Dovid (מנשה דוד)

June 3, 2015

Reblogged this on Menashe's Blog and commented:
It is not just me saying it, here intheir own words.

jeramiahgiehl

June 8, 2015

The whole Jesus “experiment” experience is about emotional in relation to propaganda, peer pressure, group dynamics, intentional use of brain washing techniques and crowd control eliciting mass hypnosis through music, rhythm candence in speech, and please on emotionalism. I also believe that creating a multiple personality syndrome where the compartmentalize their own evil inclination and shut it off and fear it as a devil as opposed to a natural instinct to choose between the good and evil inclination, this creates a divide soul, then the teach a divided g-dhead and divisive doctrines, which lead to a binding of the mind and will. The use of hell and fear of rejection is also used to bind. Then Jesus is sold as the only hope, they never met his standards and always must rely on him since for them G-d won’t forgive them because they don’t believe they have direct access to G-d. It’s tragic and painful to see how the religion is addictive and abusive to the soul. It truly is an addictive religion that many former drug addicts turn to as their new addiction. To much is put on subject experience rooted in crowd control, peer pressure and mass hypnosis. It is a dangerous mix.

Concerned Reader

June 9, 2015

It’s actually quite ironic that JESUS TOLD AND EXPECTED HIS FOLLOWERS TO FOLLOW THE TORAH QUITE LITERALLY, but the Church looked at his standards and said, “No way, is he serious? Nah he must have meant us to follow Torah as a metaphor.” Then, they created a theology about how onlyJesus could do it. Very sad.

Jim D.

June 9, 2015

Geza Vermes of Oxford, who characterized the historic Jesus as a charismatic faith healer and itinerant preacher who believed the end of days was imminent, demonstrated in his books, fairly convincingly I might add, that there was probably an initial list of Jesus’ sayings written down and in circulation. This seeded the first sources of the NT.

In his book, The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, Vermes strives to analyze all of the quotations of Jesus and categorized them into groups such as “almost certainly authentic”, “probably not authentic”, “almost certainly not authentic”, etc. Matthew 5:18 was, of course, deemed to be in the almost certainly authentic category.

As we know, layer upon layer of fiction was added to the original list of Jesus’ sayings, probably beginning with Paul’s gospel (my speculation), ending up with the NT gospels as we have them today.

Concerned Reader

June 9, 2015

It needn’t even be speculation, just over zealous students embellishing. Look at lubavitcher messianists. They have almost thoroughly mythologized the rebbe, and his teachings, and it’s only been 21 years since he died! It’s remarkable to see how this can happen.

KAVI

June 10, 2015

Question: Might it be reasonable to observe that speculations regarding what others may believe is easier than examining the mythology contained within the Oral Torah?

Are Karaites, Mashiachim, Conservatives, etc truly wrong when they find no divine inspiration in the Oral Torah?

Concerned Reader

June 11, 2015

Kavi, no aggadic portion of oral torah is authoritative for Jewish practice, Jews are free to disagree, so it doesn’t really matter if people find inspiration in those aspects. As for parts of the oral torah that deal with how to live out and apply the mitzvot, that’s just a part of the Bible because the written text is very vague. It seems like Christians have a very negative view of the oral torah because they think of it as being akin to Church creeds or doctrines. Its not.

Jim D.

June 11, 2015

I don’t think Karaites and conservatives find no divine inspiration in the oral law. They just don’t regard it as binding in the same way as the commandments in the Torah. Therefore, they feel freer to accept what makes sense to them — and a lot does — and reject as binding what does not.

But, to refocus, there is ample and convincing proof in the Torah itself, let alone the Nevi’im, to knock every leg that Christianity stands on right out from under it, without a single word being needed from the oral tradition. It is easy to strain gnats but swallow the camel, nes pas?

Concerned Reader

June 11, 2015

The ironic thing is that without much of that oral tradition in existence, Christianity simply wouldn’t exist. If the Sadducees had been the group to survive the destruction, Christianity would have simply faded away. There are too many aspects of oral Torah, pseudepigrapha, and haggadic interpretation, that bear enough similarity to Christianity, to be dangerous if misunderstood. Irrefutable Proof of this is Chabad’s messianism. It’s like early Christianity, but halachic.

KAVI

June 11, 2015

The witness that L-rd Yeshua has indeed become the “light to the nations” through the same Emunah as Abram is powerful proof that HaShem continues to keep His Word alive and powerful.

Isaiah speaks of Yeshua HaMashiach, Emunah, and the nations:
****Isaiah 55:1-5
“Come, everyone who is thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you without money,
come, buy, and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost!

Why do you spend money on what is not food,
and your wages on what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
and you will enjoy the choicest of foods.

Pay attention and come to Me;
listen, so that you will live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
the promises assured to David.

Behold, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
a leader and commander for the peoples,

Behold, you will summon a nation you do not know,
and nations who do not know you will run to you.
For the L-RD your God,
even the Holy One of Israel,
has glorified you.”

Leonard Goff

June 11, 2015

So the next time a Xian goes through the OT to promote Xanity (you know the drill), I should say what? A pithy sentence or two would be nice, please!

Leonard Goff

June 11, 2015

My question is to Concerned Readers last post (8:58pm) above KAVI’s who slipped in before me.

Jim D.

June 12, 2015

KAVI,

I’m not going to get into too much detail in response to your post because you have already shown us quite clearly that you are not hear to consider and discuss — you are hear only to continue reciting the party line regardless of contradictory information that is presented to you.

Suffice it to say that your interpretation of Isaiah 55:1-5 is just simply wrong. It has nothing to do with your “Yeshua HaMashiach”. The verses are spoken by Hashem to Israel, and simply make reference to David. It’s King David, or possibly a future Davidic king, that Hashem refers to here as being a witness, but Hashem’s words and primary message are directed to the people of Israel. “You” — Israel — will summon a nation “you” — Israel — did not know, and a nation (or nations) that did not know you — Israel — will come running to you — Israel.

But you just can’t see it, can you?

It is Israel which was always, and remains, G-d’s choice to be a light unto the nations. You think Jesus is the light because you think he has brought the gentiles closer to G-d. You may have come closer for having our scriptures in your hands, but your idolatry keeps you from understanding them. You cannot read or understand the Hebrew scriptures with clarity and understanding because your vision is blinded by your belief in Jesus. You look through Jesus-colored glasses. You see him everywhere he is not.

When I was a freshman at university, I took an intro psychology class. Those of you who did too might remember learning about a classic experiment in perceptual adaptation, performed by psychologist George Stratton in the 1890’s, in which his subjects wore special binocular goggles that inverted their vision. The ground looked to be above them, the sky below, and people walked around upside down. Interestingly, after a week of wearing the goggles, the subjects’ brains adapted and everything appeared right side up. If that wasn’t amazing enough, what was particularly surprising was that when the goggles were removed, everything appeared upside down again! Humans adapt to whatever perception they are exposed to for long enough.

Like Dr. Stratton’s volunteer subjects, Christians are so conditioned to what they read and hear from the NT, that the myth looks right side up to them, and the truth looks upside down. They just cannot see it.

Jim D.

June 12, 2015

(Apologies for my typos “hear” instead of “here”.)

KAVI

June 12, 2015

Shalom,
It is mankind as a whole who have an evil pride that leads to a callous, obstinate heart [Isaiah 6:9-1 and 65:1-2]– instead, HaShem wants our hearts to be humble:

****Habakkuk 2:4
“Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.”

HaShem is not proud– He is more than willing to reason out difficult questions anyone may pose to Him.

_____________________________________

Instead, there is a danger that pride will lead to what Isaiah foretold:
****Isaiah 28:9-11
“Who is he trying to teach?
Who is he trying to instruct?
Infants just weaned from milk?
Babies removed from the breast?

For it is, ‘precept upon precept,
precept upon precept,
line upon line,
line upon line,
a little here,
a little there.’
כִּ֣י צַ֤ו לָצָו֙ צַ֣ו לָצָ֔ו קַ֥ו לָקָ֖ו קַ֣ו לָקָ֑ו זְעֵ֥יר שָׁ֖ם זְעֵ֥יר שָֽׁם׃

So He will speak to this people
with stammering speech
and in a foreign language.”

___________________________________

HaShem will reveal His Word of Truth to His chosen ones that His redemption of mankind is through Emunah in the L-rd Yeshua HaMashiach, the “Son of Man” Daniel prophesied of.

****Isaiah 55:6
“Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.”

Concerned Reader

June 13, 2015

Leonard, what you can say to Christians simply is that Judaism is based, and stands or falls in the OBSERVANCE of Halacha, not on a belief in the myriad of aggadic concepts and literature, and that even if you could hypothetically “prove” the existence of a Christian like theology in Judaism at any time, it wouldn’t change the duty to observe mitzvot as we have recieved them and as Jews were commanded to observe them on Sinai. That is to say, Israel is commanded to worship the father alone exclusively multiple times.

Christian theology which emphasizes an incarnation of G-d in a body (an incarnation in a human form) violates a plain reading of Deuteronomy 4, ( and consider carefully that nobody ever prays to the burning bush as a manifestation alongside the father for example, even though HASHEM spoke through it, ) BECAUSE ISRAEL IS TOLD THAT THEY SAW NO FORM ON SINAI, THEY HEARD ONLY A VOICE.

So, simply, Even if you could prove that the angel who bears hashem’s name in Joshua 5 and elsewhere, was in fact a pre incarnate divine manifestation of a word from hashem, there is no scriptural precedent or command given to Pray to, celebrate, or make a go between or mediator of such a being in the way Christians do with Jesus.

To worship Jesus, or the rebbe, or anyone else the way the Christians do would violate the same principle as what was violated by those Jews who worshipped the brass serpent in 2 kings.

I want to shoot information straight with Christians. The Talmud tells us that some Jews saw the Angel of G-d’s presence (Sar ha panim,) as a sort of second power/person. The problem is, there is no Mitvah on Sinai from G-d the father in Tanakh to worship a logos incarnate. In fact, Jews are told that the Sinai experience and the commandments given at that time are for Jews to follow in “all generations,” so if the pattern deviates from that (as Christianity does,) it is considered idolatrous according to a plain reading of the Torah of Moses. It’s wrong to worship Jesus, or ANY OTHER FORM as G-d, as Tanakh proves.

IF CHRISTIANS WERE CONTENT TO TREAT JESUS AS A HUMAN RABBI AND OEAVE IT AT THAT, JEWS WOULD BE FINE WITH HIM I’m sure of it.

Jim D.

June 14, 2015

Isaiah’s not you friend here, Kavi. If he heard anyone quoting him to support idolatry, he’d chew them up and eat them for breakfast. (Kosher or not.)

KAVI

June 14, 2015

Jim my Friend,
Although I have come to believe what Isaiah revealed of Yeshua as the Messiah, I nonetheless enjoyed your “Kosher” comment [and am still smiling about it as I write] :)

Thank you and Shalom!

Jim D.

June 14, 2015

Kavi, I’m glad you got a laugh out of my Kosher comment. Shows you know what’s kosher and what ain’t.

Leonard Goff

June 15, 2015

Thanks CR. That’s good stuff.
I wonder if this not praying to the burning bush can apply to the Tora.
What I mean is that it seems that science has disproved some stories in Genesis and the other books of the Tora and Tanakh.
For example, we know that there was no Flood or Babel-language-confusion-incident as depicted in the Tora in actual history, so I wonder how you would see the Tora?
You say that Moses didn’t pray to the bush; the Children of Israel saw no form on Sinai; [I would add] God wasn’t in the quaking/fire/noise (Elijah at Sinai).
In other words, perhaps one could say that actual history is not in the Tora/Tanakh, and that’s ok. because neither was God in those other things, including angels who appear now and again in Tanakh. But these things and angels signified God (as strange things that occur in my life signify God, but aren’t God – signifying versus Signified). (In other words, when a very strange thing (miracle) occurs in my life, I think it’s healthy to soft-petal it (i.e. don’t idolize it/literalize/’pray’ to its burning bushiness- i.e. look away and ‘live’, whether intellectually, spiritually, or both)).
Now, someone will say: “O, you mean the Tora lied/got it wrong? You say the Flood, Babel, etc. didn’t occur –according to our best science– as written? Well, then doesn’t that make the whole Tora into a lie?; and since God is Truth, how can that which signifies God (Tora) tell a lie/get it wrong?”
I could respond: “As God wasn’t in the quaking/fire/noise, so it’s ok for the historical/actual/scientific truth to not be in the Tora/Tanakh. In other words, there is something “stiller and smaller” beyond the Tora/Tanakh THAT ALLOWS/ENCOURAGES JEWS TO CALL OUT SOME OF THE STORIES AS NOT LITERALLY TRUE, AND THAT IS OK, SINCE GOD TRANSCENDS RELIGION AND THE UNHISTORICITY OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES.”.
I would like to get your (Concerned Reader) input on this.

Concerned Reader

June 15, 2015

I know that Gene will disagree with me here, but yes, I do not believe that the Torah is a verbatim history book, because the history in the region is very well documented. For one thing, the Exodus miracles and national revelation on Sinai purportedly involved millions of people from 2 different nations. (600,000 male Jews not counting their families) let’s say (for argument sake,) 1 million Jews total, and say, 300,000 of Pharoah’s chariots. That’s 1.3 million people leaving Egypt (AFTER the plague of the firstborn killed 1st born Egyptian children.) So, the Torah is describing a HUGE HUGE event, and you’d think we would have some pottery? Bones? An Egyptian memorial to their fallen children? An enemy of Egypt laughing at their defeat? Anything!

That said, I believe that the message of the Exodus and the Torah from Sinai has unquestioningly lived on in the Jewish people’s historical experience down to modern times, and so the Torah’s teachings still ring with truth even if we can’t literally know the facts of a historical Exodus.

Anyone who survived the Shoah could hear the Exodus story and feel it’s message as palpable, that’s what I mean. Even if the literal history isn’t known, the experience is known. I don’t know if that makes sense. What do you think Gene?

KAVI

June 16, 2015

CR,
Just to make sure– you are saying both the Oral Law and the Tanakh contain myths?

If so, are you ready to go to Yerushalayim and express your beliefs in the midst of a synagogue of the Haredim??

Concerned Reader

June 16, 2015

Kavi, there is nothing I’ve said that Egyptologists, scholars of religion, and even some rabbis, like rabbi Wolpe haven’t also said. Something that many modern people (who haven’t studied history) don’t know, is that myth is not automatically a bad word. Myth is a genre, a style of conveying information, it does not automatically equal falsehood or mean someone is lying.

For example, Star Wars is in the genre of space opera and is a modern myth. It uses the themes of the hero, herroine, good, and evil, and teaches very common and true lessons about life. The literal physical reality of that universe is unimportant because the purpose of the composition is to teach a lesson. The Torah isn’t just part of Judaism’s past, it is a living document, attached to living people, and a living social structure, (and through Talmud and commentary) this life grows and enriches itself in each generation. Do you literally accept that there was a golem that a person made?

Many Haredim simply haven’t been exposed to that type of information, or even had that thought to ask the question, so no, I wouldn’t just say something like that that may hurt them or cause them pain.

Each person knows G-d on his level, Jew and non Jew and that’s fine, that’s how the world was made. This is a Torah value that Christianity mostly does not know of, because Christianity formulates and defines righteousness mainly as being a strict adherence to a set belief, and not thoroughly judging the question by whether a person had righteous actions. In Judaism, people can be united in their observance, while at the same time, separated by a vast chasm in their ideas.

Even Maimonides held opinions that he did not share with the laity openly, (as the Church fathers also do btw.) Maimonides held the doctrine of the incorporeality of G-d, while many laity (and even some rabbis in France for example,) did not have the aptitude to understand the necessary information in order to accept this view.

remi4321

June 16, 2015

Still CR, you can believe in the Force, but it still does not help for you to move objects. In my opinion, if they are not actual facts, then those are myths and god is a myth as well. There are 3 books written about the exodus, if it did not actually happened, then god is not real. We are all trying to convince each other on myths and fables then. Each and every of us inherited a lie, if Abraham’s not real, then there is not even a Jewish people. I do understand that a lot of historian and philosophers believe that, but I think that they also believe that god is not true. You wont convince many if all was written by a few folks with a good imagination. How do you know god is not one of the myth? I don’t want to be rude, I just don’t understand how you can believe in a god that did nothing of what he say he did.

Gene Shlomovich

June 16, 2015

In Judaism there is such a thing as being a heretic. Views by those Jews (e. g. liberal Conservative Wolpe) who question the truthfulness (and divine inspiration) of the Torah narrative fall within the realm of herecy. Not all differences of opinion among Jews is herecy, far from it – there are plenty of varied views among Orthodox Jews; only some specific things that strike at the core of the Jewish faith qualify as such. Questioning the reliability of the Torah account is one of those things.

Jim D.

June 16, 2015

This is a very timely and important topic, worthy of discussion. In fact, as I see it, everyone so far has put forth valid points. The underlying “problem” is that science has caught up with the Torah and has clearly shown that some significant stories and pronouncements written there cannot be true.

Aside from the story of the Exodus, which is huge, there are a number of other claims that science has disproved. For example, according to Torah the earth was formed 5775 years ago. We now know that is unquestionably false. Interestingly on this particular subject, I was talking about it last year with a friend of mine who is a Lubavitcher. Of course, out came the pat response that science doesn’t really “know”. Scientists, of course, are all godless heretics. When I brought up carbon dating and that science has proven that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago and we have many bones to prove it, his answer was that God planted them in the earth to test man. What else can a believer say? There really isn’t another type of answer that preserves the authority of the Torah. It is as much an issue for the Orthodox as for the Christian’s necessity for an inerrant New Testament.

The following excerpt from a book by Jacob Milgrom was intended to explain how one could claim that Rabbinic or oral laws were handed down at Sinai. Although that’s the intent of this passage, I think it can be applied to our present discussion as well. And it teaches an important lesson for those who tend to have a knee-jerk reaction of categorically dismissing all Rabbinical precepts.

——————————–
“But how is it possible to affirm the Mosaic origin of the entire Torah, not as blind faith but with conviction-rationally? I resort to a Rabbinic story.

During a discussion about how the Torah would be interpreted in the future, Moses requested of God that he be allowed to visit Akiva’s academy. The request was granted. Moses sat down in the back of the classroom and listened to Akiva exposit a law purportedly based upon the Torah. Moses didn’t understand a word. … Akiva replied, “halakhah l’Mosheh mi-Sinai” ([It is] an oral law from Moses at Sinai). The story concludes that Moses was reinvigorated-” his mind was put to rest” (BT Men. 29b).

This story leads to an obvious deduction. Between the times of Moses and of Akiva, the laws of the Torah underwent vast changes, to the extent that Moses was incapable even of following their exposition. But the story conveys a deeper meaning. After all, why was Moses pacified when Akiva announced that his law is traceable to Moses? It couldn’t be true. Moses never said it! The answer, however, lies on a different plane. After announced that the specific law was given by Moses at Sinai, Moses recognized that it was based on Mosaic foundations. Akiva was not creating a new Torah, but was applying the Torah’s law to new problems. Moses had been given general principles; successive generations derived their own implications. Presumably, although Moses was not the author of Akiva’s legal decision, he might have intended it. That is, had Moses lived in Akiva’s time he might have concurred with Akiva’s conclusion.

This interpretation is explicitly confirmed in Scripture…. (In the case of) Nehemiah’s amanah (covenant, agreement) subscribed to by Israel’s leaders and accepted on oath by the people (Neh. 10:1ff.). The amanah comprises 18 laws, “b’yad Mosheh eved ha-Elohim” (given through Moses the servant of God; Neh. 10:30, cf. vv. 35-37), yet none of them can be found in the Torah precisely as prescribed in Nehemiah’s amanah. Nonetheless, Nehemiah feels authorized to attribute the 18 laws to Moses since they are built on Mosaic foundations.

Each law can be derived from a precedent in the Torah….
—————————–

Now, backing up to look at the big picture of this discussion, I would state that it is clear from studying the history of Judaism that it has continually evolved over the millennia. Although we would like to think that if we just go back far enough we might unearth the “true” scriptures (I was one of those seekers), what we find instead is something quite different.

In fact we find that Judaism has always been on the move. Applied to our current discussion, and hearkening back to the Moses/Akiva story, the issue for me is — especially in light of what science is showing us — what can we say is truly Jewish? In other words, will/should Judaism continue its evolution and harmonize with science? Or should we stick our heads in the ground?

Is it more important to hold to the belief that the earth is 5775 years old, or understand from the story that there is only one God who created it and is sovereign above creation? In this example, we would have to take CR’s position. And I would agree with him.

In my opinion, I think what’s at the core of Judaism are it’s values and religious philosophy, which we know as “ethical monotheism”. IF we are going to believe in and worship a god, we should worship Hashem alone, and according to Jewish scripture (not the NT). Secondly, we are to live righteous lives according to the ethical values taught by Torah. Finally, Jews are a people and we are to live as a community, not as individuals. These are the pillars of Judaism, and they can certainly harmonize with science or anything else that comes along in the next few millenia, without needing to get hung up on whether every verse in the Torah is a factual.

Concerned Reader

June 17, 2015

Remi, again, myth doesn’t equal falsehood. Tell me, hypothetically, if you had two events that were almost identical to the Exodus and Sinai events, (but one event being more modern had verifiable independently attested evidence,) provided that the message given was a Torah faithful message, would it be worthy of following?

Gene Shlomovich

June 17, 2015

“provided that the message given was a Torah faithful message”

How would you judge something as “Torah faithful”, CR? By what measure? May be Torah itself was made up and full of errors, laws that were never handed down by G-d too?

Concerned Reader

June 17, 2015

Gene, did HASHEM hand down specific laws to Moses about driving a car, pushing a wheelchair, the eruv, etc.? Or do we have a method handed down from Hashem? Gene, I fear you are inadvertently reading something into what I’m saying. If Torah is mythical (in terms of genre) this DOES NOT MEAN that you throw out the established system of laws, it means you approach it with a careful eye.

Gene Shlomovich

June 17, 2015

“did HASHEM hand down specific laws to Moses about driving a car, pushing a wheelchair, the eruv, etc.?”

No, He didn’t and He didn’t need to, because that’s not the way Halakhah works. Torah provides a framework from which people can extrapolate any future legislation.

remi4321

June 17, 2015

CR, the way I understand your point is “Torah is just a bunch of good fables with good moral, but G-d is still real.That’s why you have to approach it with a careful eye, because it was just written by normal people and some times they may have been way off.” Why do you believe in G-d after all then? There is not reason to believe in the G-d who brought Israel out Egypt if it did not happen. There is no reason to believe in Jesus if he is not risen from the dead like Paul say and there is no reason to believe in the G-d of Israel if it was a bunch of meteorological coincidences. Stories can have good morals and that is fine if it is understood as such. Parables are good, but when it comes to a real story that is meant to be understood as such, then if it has not happened, then forget it. There are a bunch of Jewish people that do not believe in the Exodus and those ones are the one you won’t see at the synagogue.

Concerned Reader

June 17, 2015

Remi, G-d is not a physical being, we all know that, so logically, relating to him through a physical reality (wether it be an event in history, or a person) will always be temporal, (that is to say, will be bound by the limitations of our senses, bound by the passage of time.)

“There is not reason to believe in the G-d who brought Israel out Egypt if it did not happen. There is no reason to believe in Jesus if he is not risen from the dead like Paul said.”

There is reason Remi, but to confine G-d to a single event is as bad as confining him to a single physical body. The way we determine if something happened in history is to look for the evidence of its happening, like ww2 or the Shoah. We know it happened because there is physical, written, testimonial, forensic, etc. evidence from the multiple groups involved. In these cases the physical evidence, and testimony of different groups involved, serves to cross examine various people’s testimonies.

You are not supposed to just blindly trust any witnesses who make a claim, (because as happened with Jesus’ followers,) this can be dangerous, and lead people wrong. We know from experience that people lie, even just white lies. You must test for the truth of claims made by anyone.

So, the Torah tells me there was a huge clash of 2 nations that lasted for hundreds of years, and culminated in great plagues and a mass Exodus, followed by G-d speaking on a mountain top to a very large group of people. The very nature of this claim, (it’s multi national scale,) makes it very odd indeed that there are not more references to it from cultures outside of the Bible, or data in the archaeological record, or forensic evidence. The Torah seems mythic, not necessirily false, for this reason. The claims made cannot be cross examined or externally verified.

remi4321

June 17, 2015

CR, you are right that it cannot be examined, just like the creation or Jesus resurrection. Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead, Jews and xtian believe that the exodus was true. It’s true, you cannot prove it for either. There is a difference thought. Only a few saw Jesus after his resurrection, but a LOT of people were in the exodus. All those who believe in the exodus were descendent of those who were there. That’s the thing, we cannot know for sure it happened, but usually people who believe it believe in G-d, those who don’t believe it believe in evolution or in an other religion. It could be that David wrote it and force everybody to practice it… with time, people forgot and bang everybody believe in the lie. Just like it could be that a bunch of Romans wrote the new testament to have a unified ecumenical religion with followers that would be taxed and would obey the government without complains. Everybody that would not follow the new Religion would be persecuted like the Jews and “Pagans”. None of it on either side can be proven. As Kavi said, I believe in the Exodus by Emunah :)

Concerned Reader

June 17, 2015

but a LOT of people were in the exodus.

Remi, consider something very carefully. We only have a BOOK (that’s just 1 source preserved by 1 group) that SAYS (makes the claim) that a lot of people saw and experienced an Exodus, and as you’ve said, there is no way to prove it.

Having a book that Says 1000,000,000,000,00 people saw an event, is not at all the same thing as having 1000,000,000,000,00 independent accounts from all the different groups of people involved. Do you See the difference?

Just as its true that Jews and non Jews alike believe that the New Testament cannot be brought as a proof that the New Testament is true, so too you cannot use the Torah to prove that the Torah is true.

As an example, lets say a nation of 6,000,000 people approaches me with an ancient chronicle of their people that says “our ancestors saw a unicorn, and heard it speak.” The proof given for this claim is, “why would our whole group and our ancestors accept such an outlandish claim if it hadn’t actually happened in reality?

That in and of itself is not a proof of anything, it is a claim, (albiet a unique one) until you can demonstrate its truth.

remi4321

June 18, 2015

CR, I agree with you, you cannot prove it. Just like Christian believe Jesus was raised from the dead, so jews believe that the exodus happened. They believe in the G-d / god that made the thing happened. In itself it’s not a proof, but it’s hard to believe in the G-d of Israel if it was just a fable. Nobody can prove it, and I will not try. It’s just something nobody can prove or disprove in the end. And even if we could prove that the exodus really happened, then people could still say that it was a natural phenomenon. But if you believe in the G-d of Israel, then you should take the account as fact, because it is not provable or disprovable. If you don’t want to take it as fact, it’s OK, but for most people, it will not make sense to believe in a god that could not show himself to be true.

Gene Shlomovich

June 18, 2015

CR, if Exodus from Egypt is a myth in the sense that the awesome events in the Torah never happened as described (but rather a feel-good midrashic lesson to teach us some “truths”), then you’ll also have to declare Israel’s prophets as false prophets, e.g. Jeremiah who said, “You performed signs and wonders in Egypt and have continued them to this day, in Israel and among all mankind, and have gained the renown that is still yours. You brought your people Israel out of Egypt with signs and wonders, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with great terror. (Jeremiah 32:20-21)”

KAVI

June 23, 2015

Shalom,
Gene originally made this post about his friend who said their belief in Yeshua is 100% “experiential.”

However, many scientists, all atheists, most skeptics, etc would equally criticize both Gene and his friend as uniformed fools for having any faith– whether based solely on the Tanakh or experience or both.

And, from what I am reading here, anyone who mythologizes just pieces of the Tanakh and/or Talmud would be no different. As Remi says, why stop with just mythologizing certain events like the Exodus or creation?

__________________________________

The science of mathematics disproves evolutionary creation by natural means– we are therefore forced to recognize that a supernatural spirit, G-d Himself, can make anything happen miraculously.

Does HaShem really need the Tanakh to prove His reality? “No”– since anyone can see He exists by observing what He has created. The fact that He worked through the Yehudim to reveal more of His purpose and redeem mankind through a Jew, Yeshua, is His own sovereign choice.

HaShem never expects or requires that faith [Emunah] be 100% “blind”– Adonai has given us more than enough evidence for faith in Him through His creation and His Word.

__________________________________

As G.K. Chesterton observed: “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

Well, I know what I believe. I am sorry if it expressing it makes me sound more knowledgeable than I really am– I really don’t have all the answers.

However, I do know enough to say that regardless of ones belief– Conservative, Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox, Reformed, Reconstructionist, Messianic, Netzari, Karaite, atheist, xtian, agnostic, Muslim, “scientist”, etc– They all require faith.

Do you think your faith is “right” and mine “wrong”? There’s no sitting on the fence for this question– we will all need to answer to the Eternal Sovereign Judge.

And to HaShem it’s all or none– there is no such thing as those who have a faith that’s “in-between” where heavenly scales determine whether an individual is judged righteous based on their good deeds outweighing the bad deeds– HaShem condemns that belief system and, instead, requires His righteous ones live by faith [Emunah] [Habakkuk 2:4].

Regardless of how many people on earth believe that I am 100% wrong, I personally have found that HaShem graciously gives mankind holy righteousness through faith in L-rd Yeshua, HaMashiach– and I have strong reasons to find my faith firmly planted in the Tanakh and Adonai’s sure mercies of David [Psalm 32:1-2 & Isaiah 55:3].

______________________________________

Gene Shlomovich

June 23, 2015

“Regardless of how many people on earth believe that I am 100% wrong, I personally have found that HaShem graciously gives mankind holy righteousness through faith in L-rd Yeshua, HaMashiach– and I have strong reasons to find my faith firmly planted in the Tanakh and Adonai’s sure mercies of David [Psalm 32:1-2 & Isaiah 55:3].”

Actually, Kavi, most people on earth believe that you are right about Jesus in some way – 2.2 billion Christians who think Jesus is god and 1.9 billion Muslims who claim he was a prophet. Most other religions too incorporate Jesus into their pantheon in some way. It’s the Jews alone who remind you that you worship an idol, a false non-god as your god, as you will find out for yourself one day.

remi4321

June 23, 2015

Hi Gene/Kavi, some people think only “Born again” are right, some other believe only “Mormons”, of “JW” are right, so they put themselves as minority, and everybody else, not having the holy spirit, must not be saved. I read in a book that my wife bought “How to study the bible” by Macarthur, that your first step to be able to understand the bible is to be a believer, because without the holy spirit, you cannot understand the bible. How convenient it is, you cannot see all the proofs unless you believe in the proofs.

It’s the same than if you go to a court and the jury say the the person is guilty, before seeing any evidences. Then, they reply, we believe all the proofs of the accuser, even if the rest of the world believe the person is innocent. And they reply “you cannot believe the proofs because you do not believe he is guilty” What? And if someone changes his mind, they would reply “you never believed in the first place he was guilty, because you would not have changed your mind after seeing ALL the evidences, because he is guilty” and that person would ashamedly be put out of the jury, because he could not see the truth, that that person was guilty. Imagine such a justice system.

Jim D.

June 23, 2015

Kavi,

God gave the ten commandments as well as the others in the Torah. Let me ask you a purely theoretical and unrealistic question: God said to be holy because He is holy. Do you think God would commit any sins Himself — if could? We know for example, that not eating unclean foods would not apply to God since He doesn’t eat. But what about other sins that He could conceivably do — although all of this is clearly a stretch and just a theoretical discussion — such as committing murder (unjust killing), adultery, stealing, worshiping Molech, etc? Can you imagine that God, if he could, would do any of the things He commanded man not to do?

KAVI

June 24, 2015

Friends [and I mean it very sincerely],

Gene,
Adding to CR’s discussion– the 2.4-billion mentioned is misleading in that only a tiny fraction of those actually are what one would consider Mashiachim.

_____________________________

CR,
I have read some of MacArthur’s books and have also found them lacking in quite a few areas– however, in this case, I do know what he is referring to:

***II Corinthians 4:3-4 [amplified]
“But even if our gospel [Basar] is not understood, it is hidden only to those who are spiritually dying.

For the god of this world has blinded the unbelievers’ minds [that they should not discern the truth], preventing them from seeing the light of the Good News of the glory of the Messiah, Who is the mirror-like representation of God the Father.”

Your point is understood– and we find the same idea written by Isaiah:
***Isaiah 6:9-10
“He said, “Go and tell this people:
“ ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’

Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

So, whether in the Tanakh or the B’rit HaChadashah– HaShem appears to use satan as a pawn to accomplish what He needs [just like we find in the book of Job].

_____________________________________________

Jim,
Your hypothetical question is interesting and I am not sure I can answer it– we do know that there are some laws in the Torah that are not ‘good’:

Ezekiel 20:23-25
“However, I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them among the countries. For they did not practice My ordinances but rejected My statutes and profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were fixed on their fathers’ idols. I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances they could not live by.”

The question I have is how do we know which ones were not good?

The only hint I am aware of is the one about divorce– Yeshua basically said that this commandment was given only because of the people’s hard hearts.

Mark 10:5-9
And Yeshua said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.

But from the beginning of creation, ‘G-d made them male and female. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore G-d has joined together, let not man separate.”
______________________________________________

Gene Shlomovich

June 24, 2015

“the 2.4-billion mentioned is misleading in that only a tiny fraction of those actually are what one would consider Mashiachim.”

You mean, Kavi, that you do not consider the mainstream Christians who are not into “Hebrew Roots” as your spiritual “brothers and sisters in Christ” and part of the same “body of Christ”?

remi4321

June 24, 2015

Kavi: Malachai 2:16 is mistranslated in xtian translations to fit Jesus teaching.

If you hate [her], send [her] away, says the Lord God of Israel. For injustice shall cover his garment, said the Lord of Hosts, but you shall beware of your spirit, and do not deal treacherously.

For Isaiah 6, nowhere it talks about Jesus, it talks about a dull heart because of idolatry. Nowhere it say that Satan will dull anybody. Satan is an angel as any other, not a cursed demon falling from the sky. What if you are dull because of your idolatry. What makes you think that Isaiah 6 speaks about traditional Jews and the not dull are the Mashiachim? Are born-again hebrew christians part of the “Dull” people as well? I could tell you that Isaiah 6 talks about you, or maybe anybody that does not believe as I do, but it does not make it true…

Jim D.

June 24, 2015

“Jim,
Your hypothetical question is interesting and I am not sure I can answer it– we do know that there are some laws in the Torah that are not ‘good’:”

Okay Kavi, for the sake of argument let’s assume that based on Ez 20:25 there may be some commandments that are not good. I disagree with that, and can offer an explanation, but let me save that for another post. I don’t want to get sidetracked here.

So let me rephrase the question: Without qualifying God’s commandments in the Torah as good or bad, do you think — and I am asking you for your own opinion here — that God would do any of the things He commanded man not to do? To narrow the focus of my question, let’s keep it limited just to the Ten Commandments.

Leonard Goff

June 25, 2015

Thanks Kavi for alerting us to Ezekiel 20:25. That’s a real head-scratcher for me. Any more?

KAVI

June 25, 2015

Gene,
Defining a true believer of “The Way” can be as controversial as defining “Who is a Jew?” :)

So, maybe the best way would be to describe the “good news” [basar] of redemption as:
*** “If you profess with your mouth, “Yeshua is L-rd,” and believe in your heart that G-d raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” [Romans 10:9]

Apostle John says the same,
*** “If anyone professes that Yeshua is the Son of G-d, G-d lives in them and they in G-d.” [I John 4:15]

Where does this type of profession of faith [Emunah] originate? At least as far back as Abram– it was he who believed G-d and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

After much searching, I still have yet to find absolute proof in the Torah that the Everlasting Elohim cannot exist as a unified plurality. Starting with Genesis, Elohim’s singular plurality is found beginning with “Let Us make man in our image” in Genesis and then following throughout the Scripture with the many uses of the plurals “Elohim, “Adonai”, “Echad”, etc.

And yes , I know most readers of this website adamantly disagree with these assertions and they have strong reasons to disagree. So, please understand that I am only trying to discuss what a true believer in “The Way” is.

NOTE> I will try to address the other questions in separate emails.

remi4321

June 25, 2015

Kavi, I don’t think it is a sufficient definition. Most Christian would fit, even Catholics, JW and Mormons. I think that for a start, a true believer of the way would believe in “Grace through faith” and in the Finish atonement of the lamb as the only mean of salvation. Most christian also agree that you HAVE to believe in the trinity, because the holy spirit reveals that to all believers and all believers believe in the trinity. It is amazing to think that catholics (people who do not have the holy spririt because they believe in sacremental regeneration) could come with the idea…

Jim D.

June 28, 2015

Kavi, I take it that you don’t have a position regarding my last question to you?

KAVI

June 28, 2015

Jim,
First, of course, we all understand HaShem cannot sin nor even be tempted by sin.

G-d does not murder and He commands mankind, “Thou shalt not murder”– yet He commands Abraham to offer up Isaac as a human sacrifice on the altar.

KAVI

June 28, 2015

Remi,
You’re absolutely right– As Abram did not profess his faith in a void of understanding of who His G-d is, so the same is true here.

When unpacked, these verses are rich in understanding that:
** Elohim must exist [Genesis 1]
** The Ancient of Days is the “Father” [ Daniel 7, Psalm 2, Proverbs 30:4 ]
** Yeshua is G-d and is identified as the “Son” [see above ]
** Yeshua was sent to redeem mankind according to G-d’s promise [Genesis 3]
** Yeshua suffered and died to satisify the requirements of the Law [Isaiah 53]
** G-d raised Yeshua for a reason to certify that Yeshua was indeed innocent of sin [Isaiah 53]
** Yeshua returned to Heaven to await vengeance upon the satan’s unseen world as well as mankind who reject His way of faith [Psalm 110; Habakkuk 2:4]

_____________________________________________

Based on roots deeply set in the Tanakh, the true Emunah found Romans 10:9 and I John 4:15 could be restated:
[] There is only One Sovereign Elohim who created all things;
[] All mankind is sinful before G-d, with no hope of attaining the holiness Adonai requires;
[] The Ancient of Days sent the Son of Man [Yeshua] to redeem mankind from their sins;
[] Redemption occurs when one Trusts that Yeshua’s death and resurrection atones for ones own sins;

This simple faith can be understood by young and old alike.

__________________________________________________

Whatever you think of Yeshua, He did not die upon a wooden stake because of any hatred of His beloved Yehudim– nor did He weep over Yerushalayim because He had no compassion. No, it was done because of His own faithful love to draw back to Him and redeem sinful people who had no hope of attaining His holiness– David often sings of the L-RD’s enduring love to those who profess true Emunah [e.g., Psalm 32]

And who, of all mankind, would be in the best position to understand this faithful love of Elohim? Certainly not the Gentiles– it’s the Jews.

Jim D.

June 28, 2015

Kavi,

That would include the sin of committing adultery, correct?

Remi4321

June 29, 2015

[Genesis 1] I agreee
** The Ancient of Days is the “Father” [ Daniel 7, Psalm 2, Proverbs 30:4 ]
He is YHVH, not the father of a triune god. The son of man if Daniel 7 could be Israel. What makes you think that it talks about Jesus anyway?

** Yeshua is G-d and is identified as the “Son” [see above ]
Yeshua, claimed to be the son of G-d, I have no problem with that, we are all sons of G-d.

** Yeshua was sent to redeem mankind according to G-d’s promise [Genesis 3]
According to Romans 16:20, G-d will crush satan under feet. Not Jesus. Not yet, this is again a prophecy that did not happened yet.

** Yeshua suffered and died to satisify the requirements of the Law [Isaiah 53]
It cannot be Jesus, he did not have seeds and again this has not happened yet.
See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
When was Jesus exalted? This whole scene will be at the end of time and until then, we cannot say Jesus fulfilled it. You may think it talks about Jesus, but again it has not happened yet, Jesus was never exalted, or maybe in the mind of peoples, but not on earth.

** G-d raised Yeshua for a reason to certify that Yeshua was indeed innocent of sin [Isaiah 53]
Good, but nobody saw it except his followers.

** Yeshua returned to Heaven to await vengeance upon the satan’s unseen world as well as mankind who reject His way of faith [Psalm 110; Habakkuk 2:4]

This is the part that nobody can see. Hard to show it to be proof of anything. Jesus was god because he ascended to heaven. Again, it’s hard to see that as a proof of anything.

Jim D.

June 29, 2015

“And who, of all mankind, would be in the best position to understand this faithful love of Elohim? Certainly not the Gentiles– it’s the Jews.”

Yes, this has always perplexed the believer, sure in his faith and understanding. But Remi did a good job explaining just some of the reasons. And there are many more.

KAVI

June 29, 2015

Remi,
We agree on one thing– Yeah!

Since this thread is about Gene’s friend having a faith that’s 100% experiential, let’s consider monotheism. It is either:
[1] Plurality of Majesty – Faith of Judaism
[2] Unified Plurality – Faith of “the Way” or “true” Christianity

First, despite what Gene’s friend says, his faith cannot be 100% experiential because he received all his information from the B’rit HaChadashah. He may have evidence of his faith based on “experiences”– but the faith appears to have been based on teaching gained from the Old and New Covenants.

Second, does not Judaism and Christianity both think of G-d in “plural” terms?

Even the SHEMA uses plurality [“Echad”]– so why should the Rabbi’s concept be accepted as true? What if Judaism is 100% experiential?

____________________________________

Daniel 3 and Daniel 7
The “Son of Man” man cannot be Israel– otherwise it would be truly be idolatry. Why?

[a] Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not serve [ יִפְלְח֑וּן] the gold image of Nebuchadnezzar;
[b] The Most High is served [ יִפְלְח֑וּן ] by ALL dominions;
[c] The “Son of Man” is given a kingdom of ALL nations who will serve [ יִפְלְח֑וּן ] Him;
[d] Therefore, this Son of Man is G-d who is brought before G-d, the Ancient of Days

This Hebrew word [ יִפְלְח֑וּן ] only occurs in this form in Daniel– there are no alternative or competing definitions.

____________________________________

So, just a very brief summary on the second issue you raise–
[a] “Plurality of Majesty” is only a concept invented by the Rabbis;

[b] Daniel, Moses, and the other Prophets argue against this rabbinical concept of “Plurality of Majesty”;

____________________________________

Jim D.

June 29, 2015

Kavi, can you also squeeze in a response to my last question to you?… Thanks.

remi4321

June 29, 2015

Hi Kavi, Deu 4 boils it down. Echad means one, Jesus was not at Sinai and I am not sure what you are trying to prove with prophecies that has not come to past yet. Daniel 7, again has not happened yet. The son of man is not clear, why? Because no son of man (literal or not) has been given a kingdom of ALL nations. So basically, you may want to say it is Jesus, Buddha, or Mohamed, it cannot prove anything, because it has not happened yet. Let’s all wait and see, but for now, you cannot claimed it was fulfilled by Jesus. You cannot allow your idolatry because some passage could mean it will be Jesus. Jesus said he will come back on a cloud, but that does not change the fact that he has not come yet. Now look at all the CLEAR warning against idolatry. You shall not put any gods before YHVH. But the Non testament say “there is one G-d and one mediator between G-d and man, the man christ Jesus” Now, there is a mediator between G-d and man, Jesus is before the face of G-d, but the First and most important commandment according to Jesus his “You shall not put any gods before my face”. If you want to throw all warnings because of types and shadows and so call prophecies, make sure they are 100% sure talking about Jesus. If there is a shadow of doubt, then it cannot be used as proof. If also the new testament contradict the “old” then it should be a red flag as well.

KAVI

June 29, 2015

Remi,

[**] “Yachid” means numeric singleness– not “Echad”.

[**] Daniel 3 and Daniel 7 is relevant for at least a couple reasons:
–The Son of Man is G-d [as already proven by Daniel’s use of the word “serve” [ יִפְלְח֑וּן ]
–The Ancient of Days is G-d
–The Son of Man did not need to be given all kingdoms two millennia ago when He walked this earth [Psalm 110 affirms]

[**] Deuteronomy 4 is irrelevant in the case of the “Son of Man” for at least a couple reasons:
–G-d indeed has a form as the Ancient of Days [Daniel 7]
–The Son of Man is neither some created image of man NOR did the Most High create Him [Deuteronomy 4 and Daniel 7]

[**] Yeshua is against idolatry because He clearly upheld the validity of the Torah. [Matthew 5:18]

[**] John the Apostle even warns against idolatry as we see in the very last sentence of the first epistle.
“Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.” [ I John 5:21 ]

[**] Only rabbinical teaching made Elohim into “yachid”– Moses did not [Genesis 1]

Remi– I hope you understand that I am just as much as against idolatry as you are.

remi4321

June 29, 2015

Echad is one, just like in English. One day (even if there is an evening and a morning), one mountain even if there are a lots of rocks and yachid means “only”. How did your KJV translated it? All your translations say “one” or “alone”. And that’s pretty much what it means. For Daniel 7, it’s a vision. Why don’t you take the beasts as literal beasts? So why the Ancient of Day should have a form, when G-d say He does not. It’s a vision, you are taking something literally when the whole context is prophetic and has to be taken figuratively.

” I hope you understand that I am just as much as against idolatry as you are.”

I understand that you think you are against idolatry, but “there is a way that is right for a man and it’s end is destruction”. Those who worshipped false gods think they are right, catholic bow down to Mary and status of Jesus and use bible verses to back themselves. up. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues

How many songs have you sang to Jesus this week end. Hajejura, to the lord (baal) and to the lamb. We will praise him because god shed his blood, our redeemer.

If Jesus is not part of a tri (that means THREE) une god that catholics invented, then you are indeed committing the worst idolatry and saying HIS name in vain. G-d is NOT a man,

“I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another (not Jesus either)
or my praise to idols.

remi4321

June 29, 2015

And if G-d decides to send me to hell because I refuse to bow to another god, and if he sent millions of Jews to hell for refusing to kiss the cross, well, that’s a messed up, bipolar god that contradict himself and likes to throw people in hell for no reason, especially after telling them no to worship him (Jesus – the god who was not at Horeb).

Jim D.

June 30, 2015

Alright Kavi. I see that you’re wrapped up in dialogue with Remi and probably don’t see the importance of my question. So I’ll answer it for you. You said:

“First, of course, we all understand HaShem cannot sin nor even be tempted by sin.
G-d does not murder and He commands mankind, “Thou shalt not murder”– yet He commands Abraham to offer up Isaac as a human sacrifice on the altar.”

Before I get to my point, what you wrote above deserves a few comments too. It is God who, by His commandments, defined what is sin. You say that He “cannot” sin, but who are you to put a limitation of what God can and cannot do? Of course He could break His own commandments (sin) if He chose to do so. And He cannot be “tempted” by sin? I’m afraid that does not even compute. How could He be tempted? He is not human. I am speaking of YHVH, not Jesus. Your statement reflects the Christian view of sin, which is not supported by Torah (therefore Hashem).

So first you say that we all understand that Hashem “cannot” sin. But then you backpedal a bit, perhaps because you are unsure, and state that He commanded Abraham to murder Isaac. Why do you consider the binding of Isaac to be murder? God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son, and that is precisely why His angel stopped Abraham from following through with it. It was a test. Gen 22:12. Murder isn’t murder if it doesn’t occur.

Aside from that, my question was would God Himself sin — not whether He would have men sin. But He doesn’t do that either.

So this brings us back to the question of whether God sins. Nowhere in the Torah do we see God committing sin. So we know that God does not sin. We can’t even say for certain what God’s thinking is, that God *chooses* not to sin — although we probably wouldn’t be too far off if we did. But we do understand what we read in the Tanakh: God doesn’t sin. But suddenly in the New Testament, God commits a grievous sin. We will get to that.

Now, as I approach my point, let me bring back into the discussion the sin of adultery. It’s a pretty significant sin, one of the Ten Commandments, right up there with murder and idolatry. And what is adultery in the bible?

Adultery in the Torah is not how we define it today. In modern society, adultery is any sexual act by either a husband or wife outside the bounds of their marriage. (And I agree with that.) But in the ancient middle East and in Torah, adultery was the act of a man, married or not, having sex with a married woman. So if a married man had sex with a woman who was not his wife, it was not adultery so long as the other woman was not married — or betrothed.

And so, we received God’s commandment for the situation where a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, in Ex. 22:15-17. In this case, he is to take her as his wife. But if the girl’s father won’t allow the marriage, the seducer is to pay the bride’s price to her father, and then he may go on his way. This is reiterated in Deuteronomy 22:28. Notice the proviso; a virgin “who is not betrothed”. If a virgin is betrothed, it is a very, very different story.

If a virgin that is “betrothed to a husband” and willingly has sex with another, both she and the man are guilty of adultery. The penalty is death. (Deut. 22:23) If a man finds a “betrothed” girl in the country and forcibly has sex with her, he is guilty of adultery. The penalty is death. (Deut. 22:25-26)

When a woman was engaged to be married (betrothed), even before the wedding she was considered to be the man’s wife. There is no question about it, and this is exactly how it worked in ancient Israel. In fact, once a woman was betrothed to a husband, if he didn’t want her for a wife he had to legally divorce her, the same as if it were after the wedding.

So according to God’s own commandments in the Torah, a betrothed woman was the wife of her husband, and if she had sexual relations outside of the marriage it was adultery. Now guess what we have?

Matthew 1:18: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.”

Hm. Sounds pretty much like adultery to me. Yes, you have God committing adultery in Matthew 1:18.

In the Akedah, God Himself doesn’t tell Abraham to put the knife down; He sends one of His angels to do it. But we still consider that God prevented the sacrifice. Equally so, in your holy book, God commits adultery via his holy spirit — whatever that is. Oh yes, part of your triune God. So the “holy spirit” is God then. Any way you slice it, your sacred scriptures have God committing adultery.

Furthermore, the statement in Mat 1:22-23 that her pregnancy fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is based the mistranslation in the Septuagint (“virgin” instead of “young woman”), but Isaiah 7 wasn’t even messianic. It had only to do with the present situation at that time before him. Is 7:1-4 makes that abundantly clear.

And the genealogy that precedes the story of the birth of Jesus? We can visit the mistakes therein at another time. But there are mistakes.

Kavi, I want you to take a breath, back up a couple of steps and contemplate this. As well as everything else that’s been said to you in this forum. I’m sure you can see it all just doesn’t add up. The only explanation that fits, and is right under your nose, is that Matthew 1:18-25 is fiction. Like so much of the NT. It’s made up, my friend.

KAVI

June 30, 2015

Jim,
I see what you are trying to say:
[] Miryam asked the very same question– without becoming crass, she basically said, “I am a virgin– wouldn’t I be committing adultery if I become pregnant by having sex with a man?”
[] Gabriel assured her sex was not part of the plan– so Miryam agreed.
[] So, G-d did not have sex with Miryam– Yeshua came to earth through the “sign” of being miraculously being formed within her womb. She was a virgin who gave birth to the Son of Man. [Isaiah 7:14, Jeremiah 31:22]
[] Almah always means virgin– no exceptions.

KAVI

June 30, 2015

Remi,
I am of the faith of the Mashiachim– not Catholic.

In Deuteronomy 4, G-d simply says that Israel did not see His form on the mountain. It never said the G-d does not have a form.

In Daniel 7, it does not matter whether it is a vision or not– the Ancient of Days is G-d and the Son of Man is G-d. There are no alternatives with Daniel’s use of very clear language.

____________________

Isaiah 42:8
“I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.”

This verse is rich in meaning for we find:
Genesis 1,
Then Elohim said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.”

Since Elohim cannot give His glory to angels, mankind, or idols– He can only be referring to Himself as the Ancient of Days, the Son of Man, and the Ruach HaKodesh.

______________________

Jim D.

June 30, 2015

I see, Kavi. Tell me, what bible version are you quoting from? Because I don’t see that conversation between Mary and Gabriel in mine.

remi4321

June 30, 2015

Hi Kavi, I am not saying you are a catholic, but that you are committing idolatry just like Catholics and uses your bible to justify yourself. Your are a christian, you may call yourself Mashiachim or use other nice hebrew words, but your belief system is probably evangelical christianity in disguise mixed with a bite of legalism. You may not like xmass or easter and celebrate so call jewish feast. But they are all centred around your idol. Pesach is about the lamb of god, unleaven bread is Jesus who had no sin, shavuot is the holy spirit, feast of trumpet is when Jesus will come back, day of atonment is Jesus going in the wilderness and Jesus dying (he is actually the two goats!) Atonment is Jesus making atonement (I am really not sure why you should fast if Jesus provided atonment and paid for all your sins but you probably do without asking questions), and sukkot is Jesus being our sukkot. Nothing to do with YHVH!

remi4321

June 30, 2015

Hi Kavi, I have a question for you. Do Jews and people that believe only in the Tanakh believe in YHVH? It’s clear that Jews believe that the followers of the god Jesus are idolatrous, but what about you. I know a lot of people calling me pagan of hearten, but I believe in the G-d G-d that brought Israel out of Egypt.

Thank you

Jim D.

June 30, 2015

Remi,

I am sure Kavi does not fast. If he observes the festivals, he does it along with the messianic “synagogue”, which he likely attends. But even then, he wouldn’t keep them fully because it would just be for show in front of Jews. But the fact is, he doesn’t need to keep more than the Noahide laws because he wasn’t born a Jew. Kavi is a gentile-born, evangelical Christian, and so its really not a problem for him if he doesn’t observe the holy days that were given to Jews.

Most importantly, you need to understand that Kavi’s mission in life is to bring Jews to the cross. He has spent years learning Jewish ways, Jewish thinking and Jewish scripture toward that end. He slings Hebrew words around to impress Jews — and you can find his lexicon and script right out of the pages of the “Complete Jewish Bible” and the “Orthodox Jewish Bible”, which are messianic bibles designed to accomplish that purpose. The truth is, he doesn’t know Hebrew at all (as evidenced by a number of misuses of Hebrew as well as his remark, “Almah always means virgin– no exceptions”).

You can go back to the first time he posted here and review every one of his comments. You will see that there is no real give and take going on. He’s not interested in coming to any new understandings. In the thousands of words exchanged, there isn’t a single instance where he has accepted anyone’s explanation of anything that counters classical evangelical apologetics. He has not, and will not, seriously entertain any explanation we have to offer.

Understand that he is here for one purpose: to hone his missionary skills by debating us so he can be more effective at converting Jews to Christian idolatry.

remi4321

June 30, 2015

Hi Jim, as an ex-messianic, I don’t think that he necessary does it on purpose. I am not Jewish either and I did believe most of the Hebrew root. I did fast on passover, but never did keep Sabbath properly. In the messianic mind, you never know if you have to or don’t have to keep it. Some will say that you don’t have faith if you keep Sabbath. Most will say that they keep Sabbath and eat kosher, but they invent their own rules. I can drive my car, do gardening and buy at the grocery, when I have no milk. but for the rest, I keep Sabbath. Nevertheless, I believe that Kavi, like most xtian believe that we will go to hell if we do not accept Jesus as our personal saviour. He will not read most of our comments seriously, because he is scared that Satan could use it to put doubt in his faith. As a xtian you cannot doubt Jesus or you will stumble like the book of Hebrews says. Every Sabbath, he hears a sermons proving Jesus is the messiah, pretty much going around with the same twisted prophecies and allusion of Jesus. I know, I still go to a messianic congregation! I am the black goat in the congregation, but I do it for my wife who is still a strong believe in Jesus. I also do it for a 80 year of friend that needs my help for some grocery and other things. The worst, I used to preach there the D’var.

Jim D.

June 30, 2015

Kavi,

You said,

“Miryam asked the very same question– without becoming crass, she basically said, “I am a virgin– wouldn’t I be committing adultery if I become pregnant by having sex with a man?”

But the discussion in Luke had nothing to do with her concern for committing adultery. It is clear that she was only confused as to how she could become pregnant if she was still a virgin. (Which, by the way is nonsensical in and of itself because she was about to marry Joseph. But being accurate was not the aim of the author of the gospel.)

The fact is that sex in and of itself was not the issue addressed by the law. The purpose was knowing that every child a wife bore to her husband was indeed his, because male children carried the family line and received the father’s inheritance. Because sex is the only way a woman can conceive, notwithstanding the mythical fiction in the two gospels, the act of sex is what God regulates through the commandment. You miss the point.

The gospels have God committing adultery. Plain and simple.

“Yeshua came to earth through the “sign” of being miraculously being formed within her womb.”

This is no sign at all because pregnancy occurs from a single act of sex, so there would have to be proof to the people that she never did. Unless there were witnesses at Mary’s side 24/7 who saw that she never had sex, then it was no sign. It was no sign.

“She was a virgin who gave birth to the Son of Man. [Isaiah 7:14, Jeremiah 31:22]
Almah always means virgin– no exceptions.”

You do not understand those two verses. Further, you don’t know Hebrew and you are not qualified to declare what a Hebrew word means and what it does not. In fact, it is to the contrary: ‘Almah’ almost always means young woman, not ‘virgin’. It has that meaning in every instance in the Torah except one. When ‘virgin’ is intended, “betulah” is used in scripture. Your self-confident statement even goes against Strong’s. But you know better, right? And I invite you to go back and read the story of the defiling of Dinah. The Torah refers to her as “almah” after she was raped and no longer a virgin. Your astounding display of self-confidence is unsupported — in this case and in many others.

Jim D.

June 30, 2015

Dear Black Goat,

I’ve said it before and it’s well worth saying again: I admire your willingness to think clearly about what was preached to you (and what you preached to others!) and your courage to follow the truth despite your fears. Mazel Tov!

Thank you for your explanation. I suppose that might very well apply to Kavi. But what raises my suspicions is that he has obviously gone to great lengths to be able to present Christianity to Jews — far beyond, it seems, what a Hebrew Roots Christian needs in order to feel right within themselves. Maybe it’s just a reflection of his curiosity or passion. Maybe both.

You know what they say about three Jews in a room — that you get five opinions? In fact every Jew is a black goat, even among his own people. Welcome to the club!

Thanks Jim :)

“to hone his missionary skills by debating us so he can be more effective at converting Jews to Christian idolatry.”

Only those Jews who are even more ignorant about Judaism than the Christians who are targeting them for conversion.

Jim D.

June 30, 2015

“Only those Jews who are even more ignorant about Judaism than the Christians who are targeting them for conversion.”

Which, unfortunately, is the majority. And when a person first views Tanakh through the Christian lens, it becomes much more difficult for them to refocus and see clearly. Added to that, Judaism is complex, rich and can be perplexing to the uninitiated. It requires quite a bit of study, which most secular Jews don’t do.

Leonard Goff

June 30, 2015

Exactly, Jim D.
I’ve been mulling over Ezekiel 20:25 since Kavi brought it up about how the laws are bad and can’t be lived, and it seems that the Prophets (including Moses) talked about how God sometimes blinds/deceives us (and certainly gives us over to deception). It seems the NLT translation of verse 25 and 26 supports this:
v.25 “I gave them over to worthless decrees and regulations that would not lead to life. v.26 I let them pollute themselves…”
(also, v.11 says the laws ARE good and CAN be lived; also the NT itself says the laws are good- just that they can’t be lived).
This is perhaps not actively blinding and deceiving like in Isaiah 6, but who can skin that cat?
I guess you can say this verse (Ezekiel 20:25) is one of those opportunities to stray.
To paraphrase Rashi regarding the use made by some people of Elohim and ‘us’ in the early chapters of Genesis: “the Tanakh gives opportunity for one to stray if one wants to stray.”
Maybe because of that it’s futile to argue with the Kavi’s of the world, because straying has sanction by God. At the end of the day, it can be like this or it can be like that. One has the choice: the laws are bad and can’t be lived or– as the NLT and the rabbinical commentators (Radak and Rashi on this verse, for example) have it– “I gave them over to [straying]”.

KAVI

June 30, 2015

Friends,
I do have to admit that some of you are very curious [and persistent] as to figuring out who I am– which is what I did not want to happen. Oh well, I tried to be anonymous :(

So, to keep you all from killing yourselves too much, I will say that my occupation is an accountant and let’s just say that Chicago, Illinois and its commuting area is pretty familiar territory. I hold no theological degree, have never taken theological coursework, attended no yeshiva, hold absolutely no leadership position of any kind in “church” or synagogue, have written no books, am no professional blogger, have no facebook page, no twitter account, etc. I am pretty much just a regular person who goes to work every day and who has all the usual problems just getting through each day.

Well– let’s back up on the part about writing a book– sometimes, after looking at all I have written on Gene’s site, I have to wonder :)

__________________________________

I only joined the discussions on this website because it seemed frustrating that no one was able to see that the Tanakh was written by HaShem to reveal His plan to redeem mankind from their sins.

So, if I have any “purpose”, it is to proclaim that:
— HaShem made mankind a promise of a Redeemer who would lovingly cleanse us of our sins according to the sure mercies of David. [Genesis 3, Psalm 32].

— HaShem grants this cleansing only through Faith [Emunah] — the same Faith professed by Abram [Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4]

______________________________

Getting back to our conversations in Gene’s “Agora of Reasoning” . . .

Reading no real objections, it would appear that we must conclude that:

[**] The Hebrew text [“serve” יִפְלְח֑וּן ] in Daniel 3 and Daniel 7 reveals that:
–-Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not serve the idol in Babylon
–-The Ancient of Days is served as G-d, the Most High
–The Son of Man is served as G-d [ Yeshua ]

[**] Starting with Genesis, Elohim’s singular plurality is found throughout the Tanakh beginning with “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness”
— Both Judaism and Christianity think of G-d in “plural” terms.
— There is no Scripture that absolutely prevents us from understanding Elohim as a “Unified Plurality” rather than the rabbinical concept of “Plurality in Majesty”.
— The Son of Man is neither a created image of man nor a creation of the Most High.
— Moses, Isaiah, Daniel and the other prophets teach us that Elohim is a “Unified Plurality”.
— Even “the Shema” uses the concept of plurality [“Echad”]

[**] PS> Jim,
You are mistaken regarding the word Almah:

— Only the Greek Septuagint records Dinah as a virgin after being raped, not the Hebrew text [ הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ ].

— In Hebrew, there are less than 10 occurrences of the word Almah [ הָעַלְמָ֗ה ] and they all mean virgin.

______________________________

Jim D.

July 1, 2015

Kavi,

“Almah” means a young woman or maiden. It can be that the girls is a virgin or not. In fact there are 7 instances of the use of “almah” in Tanakh. One, for example, can be found in Psalms 68:25. Here, there is no indication that the dancing young women are in fact virgins. Similarly, Proverbs 30:19 basically says that young men become fools around young women. The understanding is that what drives guys to ridiculous behavior is the sex, or the promise of sex. (I think we can all relate to this one!) But it is not at all clear that it refers to virgins. A newlywed groom can still be expected to act like a complete goofball around his new bride.

There is a word that means “virgin” — explicitly and without any doubt — and that word is “betulah”. If Isaiah was actually predicting a virgin birth he would have used the word that has only one meaning: “betulah”. Isaiah was speaking of “the maiden” — who was standing right there. She was most likely (one of) the king’s young wives who was either still a virgin at the moment, or had just conceived.

But this is really beside the point. Let’s stop counting beans and get to the bottom line, shall we?

Even if you want to argue that “almah” means virgin, it’s moot anyway. Isaiah is standing before King Ahaz according to God’s instructions. God sent him to reassure the king that Syria and Israel would not conquer Judah. That was Isaiah’s marching orders and that is what his prophecy is about. His sign is that the child who will be born soon will still be an infant before the opposing forces will themselves suffer defeat and will no longer pose a threat. Isaiah always used children as signs. It was one of the things he did, and this was another instance of it. Now let’s look at when this child will be born. 700 years later?

No. Isaiah says that the child will be given curds (sour) and honey (sweet), and:

“For before the child shall know how to refuse the bad (better, ‘unpleasant’) and choose the good (better, ‘pleasant’), the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.” (Is 7:16)

That means that by the time the baby is ready to be weaned, the danger would be over. The child was to be born right then, at that time. Would it have helped King Ahaz to calm down and not panic to know that in another 700 years the Messiah will come? Would that have fulfilled God’s purpose and instructions to Isaiah?

In fact, history shows the events panned out in the short time frame Isaiah predicted. Ahaz partnered with Assyria to repel kings Pakah and Rezin, and within two years Assyria had decimated Aram and exiled Israel. Their lands were empty.

Isaiah 7:14 is neither messianic, nor did he predict that a woman would bear a child while still a virgin. That is pure nonsense. Matthew 1:22-23 is nonsense.

And Kavi? I’m sorry, but I’m wasting a lot of time with you, and I don’t want to continue with this nonsense. You will never accept anything I’m presenting to you (nor from anyone else here, for that matter). I once saw a guy with a plaque on his desk. It read, “Don’t confuse me with the facts.” You should have one of those on your desk, friend. So long.

Jim D.

July 1, 2015

Leonard,

Let me take a stab at that tomorrow. (And I happen to like cats, by the way..)

Yehuda Yisrael

July 1, 2015

Alright Kavi…Here we go!

I will now demonstrate to you how the “virgin birth” that matthew speaks of is a lie. Isaiah never made such a prophesy!
The birth of Isaiah”s child was clearly the fulfillment of the sign prophesied in Isaiah 7:14-16. How do I know this? Isaiah tells us himself! Lets look at these verses

Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

Isaiah 7:16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

Keep verse 16 in mind. It is crucial to the context of Isaiah. Now, lets look at the next chapter of Isaiah and see what he has to say:

Isaiah 8:3. And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Isaiah 8:4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, “Father” and “mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”

Well what do you know! Isaiah said a young woman would give birth to a child and in the very next chapter his wife has a son! Prophesy fulfilled! The interesting thing about it is that Isaiah explicitly says he was intimate with her. This means that this “alma” described in Isaiah 7:14 is Isaiah”s wife. Morever, she is not a virgin! Thus, the word “alma” does not exclusively refer to women who are virgins! Isaiah says it himself!

And if you are still not convinced, here”s a direct statement from Isaiah saying his sons are signs:

Isaiah 8:18. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.

The natural birth of Isaiah”s son was the fulfillment of the sign of Isaiah 7:14, namely that his wife would give birth to a son, and that before he knew the difference between good and evil/father and mother, “the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”And if you are going to whine that Isaiah”s son was not called “Immanuel directly,” I will kindly point out to you that your yeshua was never called “Immanuel” by his mother either, so you would be setting a double standard, as Isaiah states that the mother of this child will call him “Immanuel.”

And just to delve into the idea behind “Immanuel” a bit more, II Chronicles 32:7-8 describes the events which occurred concerning the king of Assyria, during the reign of King Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz:

II Chronicles 32:7. “Be strong and of good courage; do not fear and do not be dismayed because of the KING OF ASSYRIA and because of all the multitude that is with him, because *HE WHO IS WITH US is greater than those with him.*

II Chronicles 32:8. With him is an arm of flesh, and WITH US IS THE LORD OUR G-D to help us and to wage our wars,” and the people relied on the words of Hezekiah, king of Judah.

So lets put it all together: The birth of Isaiah’s son was a sign for King Ahaz that the two kings who he dreaded would be destroyed by the king of Assyria. By after the king of Assyria defeated these kings, King Hezekiah (Ahaz’s son) assured his kingdom that G-d WAS WITH THEM. Since King Hezekiah and Isaiah’s son both lived during the same time as well, it is safe to conclude that the birth of Isaiah’s son can be linked to King Hezekiah’s understanding that G-D WAS WITH THEM, even though Assyria appeared to be a threat. Remember, this prophesy was TIME SENSITIVE and involved the two kingdoms being destroyed by the king of Assyria. This is how Isaiah’s son is considered Immanuel. It’s all linked together within the time frame.

If you are going to argue that this is a “dual fulfillment” regarding Matthew”s application of this to the supposed virgin birth of yeshua, you will have to concede that the word “alma” does not exclusively refer to a virgin, as I have demonstrated above. This shows lack of exclusivity to the nature of the word “alma” and demystifies the “yeshua believer’s” obsession with the birth needing to be “miraculous” in order to see fulfillment.

In other words, Isaiah 7:14 has just as much to do with the birth of yeshua as it does the birth of Karl Marx, or Jerry Seinfeld, assuming a “multiplicity of fulfillments” theory”

Or perhaps my birth! I was born of a woman! Maybe Isaiah 7:14 is about me!

See how ridiculous it is to attribute this prophesy to yeshua?

Yehuda Yisrael

July 1, 2015

And Kavi, you are also incorrect in asserting that the word “alma” is always referring to a virgin in the Tanach. Besides the obvious example that I just described concerning the use of “alma” referring to Isaiah’s own wife, (who was not a virgin by the way…) there is another instance where the word “alma” refers to an adulterous woman!

I used to use this argument as well, but I found that christians didn’t have the attention span to comprehend the argument. Lets see if you’re any different…

Proverbs 30:18 There are three things which are too wonderful for me, for which I do not understand:

Proverbs 30:19the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a **young woman (alma).**

Proverbs 30:20 This is the way of **AN ADULTEROUS WOMAN:** she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea.

What do these four things all have in common?

They leave no trace.

After the eagle has flown across the sky, it is impossible to determine whether an eagle had ever flown through that airspace. Once a snake has slithered over a rock, there is no way to discern that the snake had ever crossed there (as opposed to a snake slithering over sand or grass, where it leaves a trail). After a ship passes through the sea, the wake behind it comes together and settles behind it, leaving no way to discern that a ship had ever moved through this body of water.

Similarly, King Solomon declares that once a man has been sexually intimate with an almah, i.e. a young woman, no trace of sexual intercourse is visible, unlike a virgin who will leave behind a discharge of blood after her hymen is broken.

Therefore, in the following verse (Proverbs 30:20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman “eats” (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual infidelity, “wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’” The word alma clearly does not mean a virgin.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 1, 2015

here’s another example of why the word “alma” is not exclusive to virginity.

Deuteronomy 22 explains how we determine whether or not an adulterous woman is lying…

Deut. 22:13. If a man takes a wife, is intimate with her and despises her,

Deut. 22:14. and he makes libelous charges against her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I took this woman, and when I came to her, I did not find any evidence of virginity for her.”

(By the way, the Hebrew word for “virginity” in this verse is “Betulim.” The word “alma” is no where to be found here.)

Deut. 22:15. Then the girl’s father and her mother shall obtain evidence of the girl’s virginity, and take it out to the elders of the city, to the gate.

(Once again, the Hebrew word for “virginity” in this verse is “betulay.” The word alma is no where to be found, again!)

Deut. 22:16. And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man as a wife, and he despised her;

Deut. 22:17. And behold, he made libelous charges, saying, ‘I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.’ But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

(Once again, betulim/betulay are the words used here for “virginity.” The word alma is no where to be found…)

Deut. 22:18. Then, the elders of that city shall take the man and chasten him.

Deut 22:19. And they shall fine him one hundred [shekels of] silver because he defamed a virgin of Israel, and he give it to the girl’s father. And she shall be his wife; he shall not send her away all the days of his life.

(Once again, the Hebrew word for “virgin” in this verse is not alma…It is “betulat”…)

I think you get the idea…

The fact is, this passage speaks EXPLICITLY about virginity and EVERY TIME THE WORD “VIRGIN” IS MENTIONED IN THE PASSAGE, IT IS TRANSLATED AS “BETULAH.”

The word “alma” is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THIS PASSAGE THAT DEALS EXPLICITLY ABOUT VIRGINITY!

But more importantly to our discussion, we see that the manner in which the virginity was determined in the case of a libel made against her by her husband was through whether or not her hymen was intact. If she broke her hymen before her first sexual encounter, then the elders of the city are to display the “tokens of her virginity” which refers to the broken hymen on a garment, as Deut 22:17 states.

Deut 22:17. And behold, he made libelous charges, saying, ‘I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.’ But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

So you have yourself a little problem, Kavi…If “alma” is a better specifier than “betulah,” then why is it absent from Deuteronomy 22 where the topic of virginity is explicit?!

Clearly, the Hebrew word “alma” isn’t as specific to virginity as you would have us believe…At all!

Shalom

Jim D.

July 1, 2015

“Similarly, King Solomon declares that once a man has been sexually intimate with an almah, i.e. a young woman, no trace of sexual intercourse is visible, unlike a virgin who will leave behind a discharge of blood after her hymen is broken.”

Excellent Dvar in your three posts, Yehuda. And this is the correct meaning of Prov 30:19. I believe I heard this explanation in the past by Tovia Singer but had forgotten it.

But the thing is that, for the most part, the Christian thinker doesn’t do well with putting the pieces together in this way. They have been oriented to take verses out of context, focus on the bits, and not understand the whole. They also suffer from the many mistranslations.

And it is good to teach… those who will learn.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 1, 2015

Also Kavi, when it comes to idolatry, it does not matter whether or not G-d “has” a form or “can have” a form.

What matters is what G-d COMMANDS US to do concerning worship.

According to Numbers 23:19, G-d does not lie. And we both know that according to Deut 4:9-19, G-d is commanding Israel not to worship Him in ANY FORM.

It makes no difference if G-d “has” a form or not. What matters is that G-d explicitly told Israel not to worship Him in ANY FORM.

This command effectively serves as a promise that G-d will never assume a form for Israel to acknowledge and worship. Otherwise, G-d’s explicit command to Israel not to worship Him in ANY FORM would be a lie!

You and other christians insist that Deut 4:9-19 does not prohibit G-d from revealing Himself in a form in the future. But this simply isn’t true! G-d makes it explicitly clear that Israel is to teach this prohibition of all form worship to their children, just like the Shema.

G-d forbids the worship of ANY FORM, be it man made or not…

Deuteronomy 4 tells us not to worship Hashem in ANY FORM. Lets start at verse 9, shall we?

Deut 4:9. But beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, *and you shall make them known to your children and to your children’s children,*

Here we see that G-d is commanding Israel to teach these things throughout their generations. G-d is directly telling Israel to teach their children about the things they saw and the things on their hearts. What are these things you ask? Lets continue reading:

Deut 4:10. the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, “Assemble the people for Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, *and that they may teach their children.*

Deut 4:11. And you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire up to the midst of the heavens, with darkness, a cloud, and opaque darkness.

Deut 4:12. The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.

Here we have G-d explaining to the children of Israel what they “saw.” *Notice that what they “saw” was no image according to G-d Himself!* Moving on…

Deut 4:13. And He told you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.

Deut 4:14. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, *so that you should do them in the land to which you are crossing, to possess.*

This verse is important to read in context with the next few verses because it reiterates the fact that these commands are not just a “one time deal.” Rather, G-d is commanding Israel not to acknowledge Him in any form throughout all our generations! With this in mind, lets continue reading:

Deut 4:15. And you shall watch yourselves very well, *for you did not see any image* on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire.

Deut 4:16. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, *the representation of ANY FORM, the likeness of MALE or female,*

Deut 4:17. the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the heaven,

Deut 4:18. the likeness of anything that crawls on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters, beneath the earth.

Deut 4:19. And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, which the Lord your God assigned to all peoples under the entire heaven, and be drawn away to prostrate yourselves before them and worship them.

So, from this we see two explicit themes:

1. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel not to acknowledge Him in any form. (Deut 4:16)

2. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel to teach this to their children and their children’s children, even after they come to the land of Israel. (Deut 4:9-14)

It is important to note that this is not simply explicit to “man made forms.” Did G-d create Adam, the first man? Yes…But WOULD G-d appear in the form of Adam? Of course not! Same thing with the “first lizard,” or the “first fish.” How do we know this? Deut 4:16! We are not to worship G-d in ANY FORM.

Likewise, your jesus was a man. Your jesus was a form. Hashem explicitly forbids Israel from worshipping Him in ANY FORM.

Thus, your jesus cannot be “god in the flesh.” On the contrary, your jesus is not Hashem. Hashem clearly states that it is idolatry to worship Him in any form. Thus, your worship of jesus is idolatry.

So you can either continue to obsess on “G-d having a body” and spin your wheels over a dead argument that does nothing for your position on jesus but make you look ignorant to G-d’s commands, or you can be honest and acknowledge G-d’s explicit prohibition for Israel not to worship Him in any form, regardless of His theoretical ability to assume a form…

Your position makes G-d into a liar, Kavi…Are you seriously ok with this?

Shalom

Jim D.

July 2, 2015

Leonard:

“I’ve been mulling over Ezekiel 20:25 since Kavi brought it up about how the laws are bad and can’t be lived, and it seems that the Prophets (including Moses) talked about how God sometimes blinds/deceives us (and certainly gives us over to deception). It seems the NLT translation of verse 25 and 26 supports this:
v.25 “I gave them over to worthless decrees and regulations that would not lead to life. v.26 I let them pollute themselves…”

I don’t see anywhere in the Torah a single worthless decree or statute that does not lead to life. So here’s my take. I disagree with Kavi that this scripture indicates that this is something God does. The verses describe what God DID to a second wicked generation in the wilderness.

In fact, the passage devotes a number of verses to describing the problems Moshe had with the second generation. But our text is silent on this. So where does this come from?

I did not consult rabbinical commentary. It seems to me that this is a witness to a tradition, either oral or even possibly in writing, that was circulating at the time of Ezekiel that never made it into, or was purposefully kept out of, the Hebrew canon.

KAVI

July 3, 2015

Friends,
You have written much, I will write little– Both “Betulah” and “Almah” are in fact interchangeable [Rebekah – Genesis 24:16 and 24:43].

Are you really willing to say that Rebekah and the sister of Moses were not virgins? [“Almah” — Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8]

___________________________

Yehuda, it’s again a pleasure to see you back in the conversation!!

As to Proverbs 30, I do admit it is an interesting idea and is one that has been proposed by other authors– but the premise of “no trace” is faulty in that it does not apply to every situation presented by Agur:

[] First, it figures that only a man could say that coitus leaves “no trace” :)

[] “Wonderous” things that defy “opposing” forces:
— A ship when controlled by a tiny rudder and combined with proper tacking of the sails can navigate a course contrary to opposing winds.
— A snake can move across slippery rock even though there is no obvious opposing friction of water, sand, or earth.
— A man can somehow win the heart of a virgin even though she may initially be in opposition to the relationship.
— The adulterous woman proclaims her innocence in defiant opposition to her obvious sin.

___________________________

By the way–

I am still waiting to hear about Daniel’s description of the Son of Man as G-d.

And, since Yehuda reminded us about Proverbs 30– when included with the writings of Daniel, do we not continue to build more evidences that Yeshua is in fact the Son of Man, the Messiah, and G-d?

[**] Proverbs 30:4
“Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is His name, and what is the name of His Son?

Surely you know!”

_____________________

remi4321

July 3, 2015

For Daniel 7, why do you think it’s Jesus in the first place? It has not happened yet. There are a lots of way it could be interpret because it is a vision. It could be the messiah, not a flying one, but as the beast are not literal beast, the messiah does not have to fly on the sky. Or it could be Israel compared to the beast nations who wanted to force their idolatrous religion on the Jewish people, Babylon, Persia, Greece and the last one the holy Roman empire. Just a little less strong because of the clay who claim they are not from ROME.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 3, 2015

Kavi, in order to demonstrate your error in interpretation, I first need to determine whether or not you are capable of counting to three…This is important in understanding the true context of what King Solomon finds to be “too wonderful for him.”

Proverbs 30:18 There are **THREE WHICH ARE TOO WONDERFUL FOR ME,** four which I do not understand:

Now, Kavi, remember what I said about counting to three? If you are capable of doing this, then we should be able to come to an understanding! Here comes the next verse! Let’s count!

Proverbs 30:19 the way of an eagle in the sky, (WONDERFUL THING NUMBER 1) the way of a serpent on a rock, (WONDERFUL THING NUMBER 2) the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, (WONDERFUL THING NUMBER 3) and the way of a man with a young woman… Wonderful thing number fou…

Oh wait… Proverbs 30:18 says there were only THREE THINGS which were to wonderful! We ran out of numbers!

I’ve seen other christians try to abuse the context of this scripture in order to try and do the same thing you are trying to do Kavi. It wont work here… This alma is an adulterous. The context is clear.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 3, 2015

Kavi, G-d tells us His son’s name. (Hint: It isnt jesus!)

Exodus 4:22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘So said the Lord, “My firstborn son is Israel.”

I always find it hilarious when christians obsess on the word “son” and think it refers to their jeezer when the context clearly says otherwise. Just another reason why christians are wrong!

Jim D.

July 3, 2015

“… that have eyes and see not; that have ears and hear not.”

remi4321

July 3, 2015

Rebelious people who do not seek the L-rd but seek their idols… Kavi are you sure you follow the L-rd and not a foolish idol? A son of man, a mortal that his followers deified as a god? Can you tell us that we do not trust in the G-d of Abraham, we do not follow idols, are you sure that you do not have your eyes closed and your ears shut. Everything we are telling you goes straight at you like the wind. Jesus is not G-D, G-d was clear and you are following the ways of yours fathers, and it does not go back to Abraham.

remi4321

July 3, 2015

LORD, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in time of distress, to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, “Our ancestors possessed nothing but false gods, worthless idols that did them no good.

Jim D.

July 3, 2015

A Fourth of July D’var:

It’s appropriate in this forum and at this time, I think, to consider that the founding principles of this country as so eloquently expressed in our Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, are rooted not so much in Judeo-Christian principles, but in Jewish doctrine alone.

Jefferson made it a point throughout his political career to keep his personal religious views out of the public eye. But his religious views, as expressed later in life in private letters to colleagues and friends, had a great influence on this country’s founding document, and so they remain incorporated to this day in the fabric of our government and society – even if most of us don’t realize it. Ironically, Jefferson’s views on Christianity would be extremely offensive to the conservative Christian coalition which loudly proclaims its loyalty to the very foundational principles of the United States of America that reflect Jefferson’s disdain for the religion of Christianity.

Jefferson thought that, had he known about them, the real Jesus, would have had nothing to do with the mythical nonsense that the gospel writers concocted around him. He took on a pet project to extract what he thought, after careful analysis, were Jesus’ authentic sayings, and disregarded the rest. He was practicing textual criticism — something that the patriotic, conservative Christians in this country would view as heresy to this day. Once Jefferson had extracted the moral teachings of Jesus, he arranged and pasted them into their own book, which he named “The Life and Morals of Jesus”. We know it as “The Jefferson Bible”. Of his discovery, Jefferson said:

“A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” (In a letter to Charles Thomson from Minticello, Jan 9, 1816)

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation writes, “Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the “outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.” (Monticello.org)

Jefferson valued the rational above the superstitious. He believed that God gave man a brain and expected him to use it. He also felt that Christianity had corrupted Jesus’ original messages and obscured them with irrational, pagan mythology:

“”no one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in it’s advances towards rational Christianity. when we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus, when, in short, we shall have unlearned every thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples: and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian.” (Letter to Timothy Pickering, Feb. 27, 1821)

However, Jefferson felt that it was unfortunate that those who think clearly and reject Christian myth, end up discarding the authentic Jesus along with the rest – essentially, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

“the religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconcievable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce it’s founder an imposter. had there never been a Commentator, there never would have been an infidel.” (Ibid.)

Jefferson extended his views above, in the hope that someday we would recognize the falsities of Christian mythology and embrace Jesus’ authentic, moral teachings. In embracing these, Jefferson held that our country would become stronger, more moral and, in fact, more godly:

“The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.” (Letter to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823 – three years before his death.)

What should come as no surprise to most of us on this blog is that if one can successfully whittle away the mythological nonsense that was built up around Jesus and the so many lies that were put into his mouth in the gospels, and examine what are most likely his authentic sayings (a number of scholars have tackled this task, such as Oxford Professor Geza Vermes), we find that they actually make up only a very small fraction of the gospels. Furthermore, what we would also find is that the true sayings of Jesus are simply expressions of the classical teachings and values of the Torah – nothing more, nothing in opposition to them, and nothing that would replace them.

As for Paul, the gospel writers and the rest of the authors of the New Testament — they have hijacked Judaism. But a careful reckoning reveals that the age-old doctrines of Judaism, embodied in the Torah, expressed by Jesus and deciphered by Jefferson are, through their eventual expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the true core and foundation of what makes this country great.

Happy 4th of July, everyone! And Shabbat Shalom.

remi4321

July 3, 2015

I would add that most christian would add back prayer at school and would say that we removed G-d from our society. They would be the first to scream if they would be force to pray in the name of allah, but want to force people to pray in the name of Jesus? Do to others what you want them to do to you?

KAVI

July 3, 2015

Jim,
Do you not remember that on June 16th, you said that–
“This is a very timely and important topic, worthy of discussion. In fact, as I see it, everyone so far has put forth valid points. The underlying “problem” is that science has caught up with the Torah and has clearly shown that some significant stories and pronouncements written there cannot be true.”

Jim, both you and Concerned Reader believe in a mythological G-d of the Tanakh who has no power to give us truth. So why express concern about some mythological “Jesus”?

And since there is a determined belief that the Tanakh and the Talmud have mythological stories embedded in them– is not this belief just as idolatrous as many of the ancestors were? [with “science” being the new god of this age].

_____________________________

Yehuda,
I know you wish to find truth in your understanding of Proverbs 30:19-20– however, the interpretation you set forth is inaccurate.

First, the “no trace” interpretation is faulty from the start because not all three wondrous deeds occur with “no trace.”

And, if you honestly want to interpret only the first three deeds as “wonderous”, then the fourth deed cannot be– as such, there must be some logic found to explain how the adulterous woman contrasts with all three of the first parts of the Proverb. . . this cannot be done.

Last, as I said, Rebekah is described as Bethulah and Almah.

I plead that you reconsider being honest in interpretation to yourself and others, and all will go well with you– otherwise HaShem Himself will show you false. As we also find in Proverbs 30:

[**] Proverbs 30:5-6
“Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.”

Friends– to date, no one has put forth any “proof” that I am propagating lies. You have brought forth theories and guesses, false interpretations and hope– but no proofs.

_____________________________

Remi,
It is irrelevant whether you believe Daniel had a was a vision or not. There are no other interpretations since the language in Daniel is very clear-cut:

[**] Daniel 3 and Daniel 7
– Only Elohim is “served” יִפְלְח֑וּן
-Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego refused to serve the idol of Nebuchadnezzar
–The Son of Man is served as G-d
–The Most High, the Ancient of Days is served as G-d

[**] Daniel 9
The promised Messiah must come before the destruction of the second Temple in 70 AD

So, we continue building solid evidence– Daniel 3, 7, 9 and Proverbs 30

_____________________________

Last, since no one challenges that Rebekah is both Bethulah and Almah before her marriage to Isaac, I can again say Almah always means “virgin” [Genesis 24:16 and 24:43]

_____________________________
_____________________________

Jim D.

July 3, 2015

Really Kavi, talking to you is like talking to a wall (in my opinion, not speaking for anyone else here).

“Jim, both you and Concerned Reader believe in a mythological G-d of the Tanakh who has no power to give us truth. So why express concern about some mythological “Jesus”?”

Neither of us worship a false god. Neither of us are idolators like you and those you convince to worship the man-god.

“Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.”

The entire “New Testament” is an addition to His words, which is the Torah. The NT is an abomination, and it’s lies breed idolators.

“And since there is a determined belief that the Tanakh and the Talmud have mythological stories embedded in them– is not this belief just as idolatrous as many of the ancestors were?”

No. You fail to understand. Such mythical stories have often provided to explain events in the Torah or fill in missing gaps — but are not idolatrous. For example, one rabbinical myth is that Adam had another wife. But the myth doesn’t include worshiping this wife as a god. There are many fanciful stories that go around like this.

“Friends– to date, no one has put forth any “proof” that I am propagating lies. You have brought forth theories and guesses, false interpretations and hope– but no proofs.”

You are blind to the truth. Because of your idolatrous beliefs and regard for the NT books as authoritative, what is offered to you appears to be only theories, guesses and false interpretations. Interesting that you accepted your Christian teachings without requiring the level of “proof” that you seem to require now of this group. Because if you had, you would have rejected all of it.

“The promised Messiah must come before the destruction of the second Temple in 70 AD
So, we continue building solid evidence– Daniel 3, 7, 9 and Proverbs 30”

You (not “we”) are building on no evidence at all — only the evidence you have been fed by your false scriptures and your false priests. Daniel 9 does not predict the coming of Moshiach before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Your bible has corrupted the original text, changed its meaning, and created a lie.

“Last, since no one challenges that Rebekah is both Bethulah and Almah before her marriage to Isaac, I can again say Almah always means “virgin” [Genesis 24:16 and 24:43]”

Irrelevant. Almah can mean both, as previously stated, but means maiden, not virgin.

You can say anything you want, and you do. You think you proclaim the truth and you do not. You are not capable of a true understanding of the Tanakh. Go count your beans.

KAVI

July 5, 2015

Jim,
I need to remind you again that you said. . .
“The underlying “problem” is that science has caught up with the Torah and has clearly shown that some significant stories and pronouncements written there cannot be true.”

Since you plainly state the Torah contains lies– please just be honest with us and yourself :(

Gene Shlomovich

July 5, 2015

Kavi, I disagree with Jim on this, but even if the Hebrew scriptures are a total fiction, your man-worshipping religion claims to be based on them and fully in accord, yet it twists, mistranslates, misquotes and contradicts them at every turn. So, we can judge the truthfulness of your religion by its own claims vis a vis Judaism (its “mother”) , regardless of whether Judaism is itself truth.

Jim D.

July 5, 2015

The world is not 5776 years old and Jesus was neither Messiah nor God. Both are equally clear. Sorry if that doesn’t fit the bookkeeping rules you were taught and you’re having problems comprending balances that don’t seem to match.

KAVI

July 5, 2015

Jim,
You said that, “science has shown that some significant stories [plural] and pronouncements [plural] written there cannot be true.”

Just how many stories and prounouncements in the Tanakh are false?

Maybe the teaching that Yeshua is NOT the Messiah is false also?

___________________________

Gene,
Judaism is not the “mother” of “The Way”– Judaism is based on rabbinical invention.

Rather, Elohim’s direct teaching from the Tanakh about the way of redemption is the real “mother” of “The Way”– it is this same Faith [Emunah] professed by Abraham, David, and the Prophets.

___________________________

Gene and Jim,
To HaShem, which is worse– idolatry or stubborness?
“For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim” [1 Samuel 15:23]

Why stubbornly cling to the rabbis’ theory that Elohim is “plurality of majesty” instead of Elohim’s teaching that He is “unified plurality” [“Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” Genesis 1]?

Why stubbornly remain silent regarding the prophet Daniel’s clear teaching that the “Son of Man” is G-d?

Although not intentional, have not the rabbis and/or science become your idols?

___________________________

Gene,
What Scripture did I ever twist? I have been trying to provide “two to three witnesses” of Scripture that indicate that Yeshua is indeed HaMashiach, the Son of Man, and G-d. Is this not what the Law demands?

So if there is nothing to counter multiple witnesses of Scripture, why find me at fault? HaShem does not hide His purpose to redeem us from sin– if His Word is clear, would you now find fault in HaShem’s Word in order to justify yourself?

[**] Does not the prophet Isaiah still speak today?
“And He will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.”
[Isaiah 8:14-15]

Is not Yeshua this “stone of offense and rock of stumbling”– the One prophesied to become the Light to the nations?

[**] Do the words of Daniel and Haggai have no unifying purpose– do they not speak to us today just as well?
[Daniel 3 with 7; and Daniel 9 with Haggai 2:9]

_______________________________

HaShem is offering all mankind the “sure mercies of David” through Faith [Emunah] in L-rd Yeshua, HaMashiach–

And since Elohim offers such an incredible offer of grace, why should we hew out broken cisterns that can hold no water while rejecting living waters?

______________________________

Jim D.

July 5, 2015

“Jim,
You said that, “science has shown that some significant stories [plural] and pronouncements [plural] written there cannot be true.” Just how many stories and prounouncements in the Tanakh are false? Maybe the teaching that Yeshua is NOT the Messiah is false also?”

Kavi, I’m not even going to begin to answer that. You are so stubborn in your lostness that it’s just not worth going around in these OCD circles with you. My hat is off to the rest of the gang though, as they appear to have much more patience with you than I do.

KAVI

July 6, 2015

JIm,
I answered each of your questions– it is unfortunate that you choose not to reciprocate.

If I am stubborn, then it is because I stubbornly cling to my Rock and my Salvation. He is my Fortress, I will not be shaken. [Psalm 62]

Elohim is merciful to whom He chooses– If He has blessed me to drink from the fountain of life through Faith in Yeshua, it is not because of anything good I have done, but because of His grace.
[Exodus 33:19, Isaiah 53:6, Psalm 36:5-9, Psalm 32:1-2, Habakkuk 2:4]

remi4321

July 6, 2015

Kavi, your interpretation are wrong but only you wont open your eyes because you don’t want to deny your idol. Seriously. Blessed is the one who believes without seeing! There are no proof for Jesus, to argue about almah will lead to nothing. But lets be honest, Jews, those who spoke the language know more than your christian messianic preacher who went to southern baptist school (Not to offend any but I do not know many messianic preacher who went to study hebrew with Jewish people).

Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Jesus is a rock that cannot save, but again, you will say that He is the Lord. Baal was translated as Lord as well. You need 100% proof that he is part of the G-d of Israel, but all you have is bible verses taken out of context, and Daniel 7, Psalm 2 and Isaiah 53, which have not happened yet, and yet you said that it was fulfilled. That’s a lie, because it has not, Jesus is not ruling over all the earth and the man flying on the could has not come. You may say that the man will be worshipped, but again, no man flying in the sky was worshipped. So it does not prove it is Jesus. Stop that non-sense and open your eyes. Please provide ONE prophecy that is not disputed and prove Jesus was the messiah.

remi4321

July 6, 2015

Coming back to the original topic, my friend said during the weekend that “maybe I try too much to understand with my head”. And someone else in the congregation said “do whatever you want Remi, but dont leave Jesus”. I guess it is 100% experimental, as there are no proofs “We wont see a thing unless we soften our hearth” (Keith Green) and believe first that Jesus is god. And my friend again said that I should open my eyes to all the new lives that Jesus brought that I know. Seriously there are 2000 years of “finding evidences” wherever it may be, and as soon as you go to church you are thought again and again that the “Jews” are wrong and legalistic and doomed to hell people who G-d blinded and which deserve to go to hell. Hard for xtian to see anything else! Almah is virigin, because Matthew said so! Duh

remi4321

July 6, 2015

Jim “My hat is off to the rest of the gang though”

Hey Jim, use Gene’s advice, in the end you may not persuade Kavi, but other people will see your comments and will be able to see that there is no reason whatsoever to bow our knees to him, a human. That he is not god and that all the claims of xtianinty goes against what the scriptures teach. There are thousand of xtians website and so called jewish website that are messianic in disguise trying to lure Jewish people. There are thousand of xtians that believes what comes out of the pew and if they would come to a site like this, would read the comments and would come to know the truth. I do not set my hope to convince Kavi, but there are really people like me, that sought to know the truth and went to website that show the other side of the coin. It is foolish and a teaching of the new testament to avoid checking anything that would disprove xtianity, but some people will check to make sure that what they believe is true. And in the end will reject the falsehood of xtianity.

Gene Shlomovich

July 6, 2015

Remi, I receive emails from readers on a regular basis thanking me for running this blog and encouraging me to continue. So, one never knows who will benefit. There are seemingly endless Christian materials online (and offline) trying to prove Christianity and Jesus to the masses, literally thousands of ministries, many with huge budgets and paid missionaries. In contrast, Jewish materials that critique Christianity and its idolatry are minuscule, and the so called Jewish “anti-missionary” organizations one can count on half of one hand.

remi4321

July 6, 2015

Yes of course, most of the tithe, after paying the building goes to evangelism and charity. Most of Christian Charity has second objective to share the gospel. All Christians are mandate to share the gospel and should spend time and money for that cause. Furthermore all Christian would love to convert Jewish people first. Also, as Paul said, they don’t care to put a “Jewish” visage to show the gospel attractive. Lobbies push the government to put back prayers in school and of course it should be in the name of Jesus. I asked my friend if we should put prayer in the name of Jesus back in school. He said yes. Then I asked if instead they would pray in the name of allah, then he said it would be wrong. I asked about those who do not think Jesus is god, if it is faire to force praying in the name of Jesus, and told him that for the Jews, praying to Jesus would be as bad as praying to allah and that because he thinks Jesus is god, does not necessarily makes it true or false and even if it would be true, it would be forcing your view on others that do not think like you do.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 6, 2015

Kavi’s position on the “son of man” being synonymous with G-d can be refuted with one swift verse!

Psalms 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, **nor in the son of man in whom there is no salvation.**

There is NO SALVATION IN THE SON OF MAN!

Thus, since jesus identified as “the son of man,” there is no salvation in him according to Psalms 146:3.

Thank you for showing us all that your jeezer didn’t save anyone!

I couldn’t have done it without you! ;-)

KAVI

July 6, 2015

Yehuda,
I always congratulate those who make an honest effort to closely examine Scripture– when making the examination, consistent interpretation requires consistent application.

The most essential rule to employ is “p’shat”

With p’saht in mind, there are at least two application errors in comparing Psalm 146:6 and Daniel 7:13

[**] Misapplication in Immediate Context [i.e., the verses immediately surrounding the text]
In the Psalm, the context is in reference to relying upon mankind for deliverance and the following verse is, “When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.”

In Daniel, the context is where the Son of Man is brought into the presence of the Ancient of Days.

[**] Misapplication of Author’s Intent [i.e., how does Daniel use the words and context]
Daniel uses the word יִפְלְח֑וּן that ties Daniel 3:28, 7:14, and 7:27 together.

Daniel tells us that:
— Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not “serve” the golden idol of Nebuchadnezzar;
— Both the Son of Man and the Most High are “served” as G-d.

________________________________

So, even though we cannot compare Psalm 146 and Daniel 7, it’s great that you try to examine everything closely. And, it keeps me spiritually sharp– “like iron on iron” :)

Shalom!

Yehuda Yisrael

July 7, 2015

Kavi, your pathetic attempt at defending your already lost position was nothing short of what I was expecting. You dug yourself into a hole with your “son of man” argument. Now that I have exposed the linguistic error that you have made, showing you that the “son of man” does not bring salvation, you want to accuse me of abusing the context of Psalms 146:3. Now suddenly, you’re not so keen on the “son of man” argument you were previously parading around with and now you want to talk about “context.”

Let me give you a lesson in context, Kavi.

Daniel 7:1-14 describes Daniel’s DREAM/VISION. Do you know what a DREAM/VISION is Kavi? A DREAM/VISION is not to be taken literally and utilizes vivid imagery to represent various ideas and concepts. The beginning of Daniel chapter 7 begins like this:

Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar, the king of Babylon, **DANIEL SAW A DREAM,** and the visions of his mind [while asleep] on his bed; then he wrote the dream and said the beginnings of the matters.

Daniel 7:2 Daniel raised his voice and said: I saw in my vision during the night, and behold the four winds of the heavens were stirring up the Great Sea.

Daniel 7:3 And four huge beasts were coming up out of the sea, each one different from the other.

Daniel 7:4 The first one was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle, until its wings were plucked and it was taken from the earth, and it stood on feet like a man, and the heart of a mortal was given it.

Daniel 7:5 And behold another second beast, resembling a bear, and it stood to one side, and there were three ribs in its mouth between its teeth, and so did they say to it, ‘Get up, eat much meat.’

Daniel 7:6 After this, I saw, and behold another one, like a leopard, and it had four wings of a bird on its back, and the beast had four heads, and dominion was given it.

Daniel 7:7 After this, I saw in the visions of the night, and behold a fourth beast, awesome and dreadful and exceedingly strong, and it had huge iron teeth. It ate and crushed, and trampled the rest with its feet, and it was different from all the beasts that were before me, and it had ten horns.

Now Kavi, I want to interrupt here to ask you a question. Given the description of these beasts,” do you believe that we are to take this literally? Must we assume that there will be four beasts, one of them having “iron teeth” and “ten horns” that will come in the future or who have already came? Is this what you believe?

Anyway, moving on…

Daniel 7:8 I looked at these horns and behold another small horn came up among them, and three of the first horns were plucked out before it, and behold eyes like human eyes were on this horn, and a mouth speaking arrogantly.

Daniel 7:9 I was looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days sat; His raiment was as white as snow, and the hair of His head was like clean wool; His throne was sparks of fire, its wheels were a burning fire.

Daniel 7:10 A river of fire was flowing and emerging from before Him; a thousand thousands served Him, and ten thousand ten thousands arose before Him. Justice was established, and the books were opened.

Daniel 7:11 I saw then from the sound of the arrogant words that the horn spoke, I looked until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to a flame of fire.

Daniel 7:12 But as for the other beasts, their dominion was removed, and they were given an extension of life until a set time.

Now here come your favorite verses, Kavi. **Keep in mind that they are still within the context of Daniel’s DREAM…**

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him.

Daniel 7:14 And He gave him dominion and glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and tongues shall serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion, which will not be removed, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

Now Kavi, have you ever read the next verse? Daniel 7:15-28 is CRUCIAL to understanding what was meant in Daniel 7:1-14. Lets read on:

Daniel 7:15 My spirit-I, Daniel-became troubled within its sheath, and the visions of my mind terrified me.

Daniel 7:16 I drew near to one of those standing [there], **AND I ASKED HIM THE TRUTH OF ALL THIS, AND HE TOLD IT TO ME, AND HE LET ME KNOW THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MATTERS.**

Kavi, here we see that Daniel was confused about the vision. Daniel did not understand what the vision meant on his own. He needed the assistance of an angel to gain true understanding of the dream/vision. Thus, the next few verses will explain to us what Daniel’s dream actually represents. Moving on…

Daniel 7:17 [He said] “These huge beasts, which are four, are four kingdoms, which will arise from the earth

Daniel 7:18 And **THE HIGH HOLY ONES WILL RECEIVE THE KINGDOM,** and THEY will inherit the kingdom forever and to all eternity.”

Kavi, compare Daniel 7:18 to Daniel 7:13-14. The HIGH HOLY **ONES** (plural!) WILL RECEIVE THE KINGDOM FOR ETERNITY! The “son of man” description is not exclusive to one person according to Daniel 7:18! Please keep this in mind as we read on…

Daniel 7:19 Then I wished to determine the truth of the fourth beast, which was different from all of them- excessively dreadful; its teeth were of iron and its nails of copper; it ate and crushed to powder, and the rest it trampled with its feet.

Daniel 7:20 And concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and the other one that came up and [the] three [that] fell before it, and the horn that was like this and that had eyes and a mouth speaking arrogantly, and its appearance was greater than [that of] its companions.

Daniel 7:21 I looked and the horn that was like this waged war with the holy ones and overwhelmed them.

Daniel 7:22 Until the Ancient of Days came and gave revenge to the high holy ones, and the time arrived that the holy ones inherited the kingdom.

Daniel 7:23 So he said, “The fourth beast [represents] a fourth kingdom [that] will be on the earth, which will be different from all the kingdoms, and it will devour the whole land and trample it and crush it.

Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns that [sprout] from that kingdom [represent] ten kings [that] will rise, and the last one will rise after them, and he will be different from the first, and he will humble three kings.

Daniel 7:25 And he will speak words against the Most High, and he will oppress the high holy ones, and he will think to change the times and the law, and they will be delivered into his hand until a time, two times, and half a time.

Daniel 7:26 And the judgment shall be established, and they will remove his dominion to be destroyed and annihilated until the end.

Daniel 7:27 And the KINGDOM and the DOMINION and the greatness of the kingdoms under all the heavens **WILL BE GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE OF THE HIGH HOLY ONES;** its kingdom is a perpetual kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey [it].”

As you can see Kavi, the kingdom mentioned that was given to the “son of man” in Daniel’s DREAM was interpreted as being the kingdom that was given to the PEOPLE OF THE HIGH HOLY ONES. This is PLURAL. It does not refer to one individual.

And for completion’s sake:

Daniel 7:28 Until here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts terrified me greatly, and my colors changed upon me, and I kept the matter in my heart.

As you can see, Kavi, if we look at the CONTEXT of Daniel 7:1-14, we can see that what the text literally says is quite different from the INTERPRETATION OF THE DREAM given in Daniel 7:15-28. Knowing this, lets review something you said a while back when I showed you Deuteronomy 4:9-19 in order to show you how worshipping G-d in any form is considered idolatry. Here was your strawman response:

“[**] Deuteronomy 4 is irrelevant in the case of the “Son of Man” for at least a couple reasons:
–G-d indeed has a form as the Ancient of Days [Daniel 7]
–The Son of Man is neither some created image of man NOR did the Most High create Him [Deuteronomy 4 and Daniel 7]”

Kavi, I see no mention of the supposed “form of the Ancient of Days” in the interpretation given to Daniel of his dream given in Daniel 7:15-28. I also see no mention of “the son of man” in the interpretation of Daniel’s dream in Daniel 7:15-28. Are you really so arrogant and blind sided that you will put your interpretation of Daniel’s dream over the interpretation given in the Tanach to Daniel by the angel?! It appears that you really don’t care about the interpretation that the angel gave to Daniel, and you would rather make up your own interpretation of who the “son of man” represents, even though the angel clearly tells us that it represents the **PEOPLE OF THE MOST HOLY ONES.** This is not simply one person.

Also, Kavi, concerning your “יִפְלְח֑וּן” argument and how you interpret it to mean “worship,” we have already proven that “יִפְלְח֑וּן” here does not mean worship, as same word is used in verse 27 with regards to the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL/THE PEOPLE OF THE MOST HOLY ONES. In this context, the word “יִפְלְח֑וּן” means “serve.” It does not mean to be worshipped as a god! (Chas v’shalom!)

So unless you want to tell me that the children of Israel are to be worshipped as gods along with your jeezer, I wouldn’t keep pushing for that if I were you… ;-)

So you want to talk about context, Kavi? You want to know about what Daniel’s dream represents? Then read Daniel 7:15-28. Stop making up your own interpretations and isolating two verses of a dream and then saying “LOOK! JEEZER SAID HE WAS THE SON OF MAN! THIS MAKES HIM THE FULFILLMENT OF THIS PROPHESY THAT WAS NOT FULFILLED YET BECAUSE I JUST KNOW!”

Literally, this is your argument, Kavi. Your jeezer did not fulfill Daniel 7:13-14 and you know it. This is one of the christian “second coming” arguments that even the most kooky of christians would have to admit was not fulfilled by jesus during his time on earth. You’ve been obsessing on this “son of man” for nearly a month now. And now that the falsehood of your position has been exposed, you now claim that you care about “context.”

Well there’s your context, Kavi.

Shalom

Jim D.

July 7, 2015

Yasher koach.

But he won’t accept it, you’ll see. He’s not here for understanding the truth — only to sharpen his missionary sword.

KAVI

July 7, 2015

Yehuda,
Remember the mistake about interpreting Almah and Bethulah?

A similar case of misinterpretation is occurring here–
[**] Rashi explains that the “Son of Man” is the Messiah
[**] Rashi further explains that the “holy ones” are Israel

The Messianic King rules over His kingdom of holy ones who have received their inheritance in the Olam Ha-ba.

I know you are honestly trying to find Truth and the more you seek the closer you will come to understanding– but in this case you are “kicking against the barbs” because the whole Tanakh is the source of Truth for those of “The Way”– and there is nothing that can overcome the power of Elohim’s written Word.

__________________________

Gene Shlomovich

July 7, 2015

“The Messianic King rules over His kingdom of holy ones who have received their inheritance in the Olam Ha-ba.”

Wouldn’t be sad and heartbreaking, Kavi, if you, being an idol-worshiper who refuses to repent even though warned over and over of his sin, don’t find yourself among the inheritors?

remi4321

July 7, 2015

Kavi, five words “IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET”. Don’t use that as Proof, it is as convincing as saying that Canada will use no gasoline fuelled cars in 2100 because Harper said so and sign a paper.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 7, 2015

Kavi, the Messiah is a part of Israel. Rashi explains this clearly. Rashi’s interpretation is consistent with the angel’s interpretation in Daniel 7:15-28. I never said the passage didn’t apply to the Messiah and neither does Rashi.

But you error when you assume that the “son of man” who receives the kingdom and dominion refers ONLY to the Messiah. The text doesn’t say that and Rashi doesn’t say that either.

So please Kavi, you have already contextually abused scripture enough in order to falsely champion your jeezer as the subject of this passage. Please do not abuse the context of Rashi. I know you’re sore about your loss in this argument, but its time you come to terms with the fact that Daniel 7:13-14 does not refer to ONLY the Messiah receiving a kingdom and it also does not refer to the worship of the Messiah either. Rashi understood this. Daniel understood this. The angel who told Daniel the interpretation of his dream understood this.

Do you understand this?

It isn’t rocket science…

Shalom

Yehuda Yisrael

July 7, 2015

Here is the Rashi on Daniel 7:14 for Kavi to read.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him.

And here is the Rashi on Daniel 7:13…:

one like a man was coming: That is the King Messiah.

and… up to the Ancient of Days: Who was sitting in judgment and judging the nations.

came: arrived, reached.

Knowing Kavi, he will contextually abuse this Rashi and say that Rashi identified the “son of man” EXCLUSIVELY with the Messiah. But we know better…Lets read the text verse and the Rashi accompanying it.

And here is the Rashi on Daniel 7:14…:

And He gave him dominion: And to that man He gave dominion over the nations, for the heathens he likens to beasts, **AND ISRAEL HE LIKENS TO A MAN BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMBLE AND INNOCENT.**

Get it Kavi? The Messiah isn’t the only one receiving the kingdom in Daniel 7:13-14. Rashi makes it clear that ISRAEL IS LIKENED TO A MAN. The Messiah is a part of Israel, and yes, the Messiah is included as a “Holy one of the Most High.” Your problem is that there is more than one person who receives the kingdom, just as Daniel 7:18 and 7:27 explicitly state.

So you will find no solace in Rashi for your erroneous interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14. The verses do not refer exclusively to the Messiah and the Messiah is not to be worshipped as a god.

So now that you know this, Kavi, isn’t it time you cut out the jesus foolishness? You know that your jeezer failed to fulfill this prophesy on all counts. Now that you know the true meaning of this prophesy, why would you continue to worship jesus?

I suggest you stop worshipping jesus as this passage does not endorse such. Your jesus is not the Messiah as he failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies. Moreover, this passage does not endorse the worshipping of the Messiah, and nor does any other passage in the Tanach.

Shalom

remi4321

July 7, 2015

Yehuda, it’s not only about prophecies, it’s all the changes in his life and his personal experiences. The holy spirit convinces him that those passage talks about Jesus even if it is not the case. You cannot go wrong with that, it’s all about feeling.

KAVI

July 8, 2015

Yehuda,

First, Gene’s friend, Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim disagrees with your interpretation– the Rabbi writes that Rashi speaks of the “final” Messiah in Daniel 7.

However, I’m game– let’s examine the text further!

_____________________________

Considering the Tanakh. . .

[**] The Tanakh argues against your interpretation because Daniel 7:13-14 uses singular nouns and pronouns– there is no plurality.

[**] In Daniel 7:14, “All” peoples, nations, and languages will “serve” King Messiah– “all” includes the holy ones composed of righteous Jews and righteous Gentiles.

[**] In Aramaic, קַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין means, “holy ones of the Most High”

[**] Daniel 7:17-18
— Daniel asks about the meaning of the beasts
— The angel describes the beasts
— The angel says the holy ones will “receive” and “possess” the kingdom, v.18

[**] Daniel 7:19-22
— Daniel asks more specifics about the fourth beast
— The angel describes the fourth beast in detail
— The angel says the holy ones will “possess” the kingdom, v.22

[**] Daniel 7:23-27
— The angel replies the holy ones are given the kingdom [in context, as an inheritance to “receive” and “possess” in vss 18 and 22]
— The Most High is “served” in His kingdom [ מַלְכוּתֵהּ֙ ]– not the holy ones

Summary: Possessing the kingdom is naturally part of HaShem’s promised inheritance to His righteous children. The kingdom will be ruled by the King Messiah where both the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man will be “served”.

_____________________________

A very challenging concept!

Your interpretation that Israel is the King Messiah deserves valid consideration– however, it is not supported in context of what Daniel and the Prophets say regarding the King Messiah.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 8, 2015

Kavi, I showed you the Rashi plainly and clearly. Rashi identifies the “son of man” as referring to Israel as well as the Messiah. Now you are continuing to try and say “so and so disagrees with you.” Please, stop with the disingenuous banter and recognize that Rashi explicitly states that Israel is LIKENED TO A MAN.

Here is the link to Chabad.org concerning what Rashi says concerning Daniel 7:13-14. Read what Rashi says concerning Daniel 7:14.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16490/jewish/Chapter-7.htm#showrashi=true

Here it is for you, once again, plain as day!

And He gave him dominion: And to that man He gave dominion over the nations, for the heathens he likens to beasts, **AND ISRAEL HE LIKENS TO A MAN** because they are humble and innocent.

Rashi clearly identifies the “son of man” as not simply the Messiah, but also as Israel.

So please, stop being a disingenuous fool and respect the fact that Rashi does not identify the “son of man,” exclusively with the Messiah. Thank you…

But unfortunately for your position, Rashi’s interpretation is consistent with the interpretation given to Daniel in Daniel 7:15-28. You really want to go down kicking and screaming, don’t you Kavi?

You claim that since Daniel 7:13-14 uses “singular pronouns” this must mean that it cannot refer to a plurality, or in this case, the nation of Israel.

Well played, Kavi. I guess you also believe that the four beasts mentioned in Daniel 7:3-12 must also not refer to a plurality either…After all, they also use “singular pronouns.” I guess there’s no way in the world that these beasts could actually symbolically refer to NATIONS of PEOPLE because they only use “singular pronouns.”

Right Kavi? ;-)

Or maybe you are being foolish again and you are forgetting (or perhaps, deliberately overlooking) the fact that Daniel 7:1-14 refers to Daniel’s DREAM/VISION and that the singular “beasts” and singular “son of man” are not understood to be singular entities, but rather representations of NATIONS/PEOPLE as the angel describes to Daniel in Daniel 7:15-28.

You go on to say this “The angel says the holy ones will “receive” and “possess” the kingdom, v.18.”

You are correct Kavi! The angel makes it clear that the “holy ones” (PLURAL) will “receive” and “possess” the kingdom.

But did you forget that this is an interpretation of Daniel’s dream? Did you about Daniel 7:14?

Daniel 7:14 And He **GAVE HIM** dominion and glory and a KINGDOM, and all peoples, nations, and tongues shall serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion, which will not be removed, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

The description of the “son of man” RECEIVING the kingdom from G-d (Daniel 7:14) directly corresponds with the interpretation given to Daniel that the “holy ones” (PLURAL) will “receive” and “possess” the kingdom. (Daniel 7:18)

So there’s no way around it, Kavi…Daniel 7:14 directly corresponds to Daniel 7:18. A plurality of people receive this kingdom! You can contextual abuse Daniel 7:13-14 all you want and whine about “singular pronouns” in isolation, but that will never change the fact that the interpretation given to Daniel concerning Daniel 7:13-14 involves a PLURALITY of people receiving the kingdom…

You also claim this concerning Daniel 7:27, Kavi:

“The Most High is “served” in His kingdom [ מַלְכוּתֵהּ֙ ]– not the holy ones”

Actually, “The Most High” is not mentioned explicitly in this verse at all, so your argument doesn’t make sense. If you are arguing about the singularity of the kingdom, that also wouldn’t make sense for your position, as a kingdom can rule over other nations/dominions…Which is precisely what the verse says…The kingdom does not only include the Messiah. That is the error in which you make.

So please Kavi…Own up to your misunderstanding of this prophesy and admit that you have been contextually abusing these verses in order erroneously argue that the Messiah is a “god” that must be worshipped…

And considering the fact that your jesus fulfilled none of this prophesy, it makes little sense why you are so obsessed with it at this point…

Shalom

Jim D.

July 8, 2015

Kavi, what bible are you quoting from?

Jim D.

July 8, 2015

Ex. 4:22.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 8, 2015

One small clarification, Kavi. (Since I know you will bring it up.)

The Aramaic phrase “קַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין” refers to THE PEOPLE of the Most High. This is refers to the kingdom that was given to the “son of man” mentioned in Daniel 7:13-14. However, as I mentioned before, “the Most High” is not referred to exclusively in this verse, but rather, His “people.” This kingdom of “people” are said to be served by all other dominions/nations according to Daniel 7:27.

You want the verse to be interpreted as the nations worshipping the kingdom, and then you are are assuming that this kingdom being served is effectively representative of G-d Himself, or in your case, the jeezer…

But the problem with your interpretation is that this “kingdom” is not referred to as Hashem in and of itself, but rather, this kingdom is a GIFT given by Hashem TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE.

So when Daniel 7:27 says that nations will “serve and obey” this kingdom, it is not referring to the worship of this kingdom as a god…No…Rather, it is referring to G-d’s GIFT to Israel that they will be elevated above all the other nations during the future Messianic age, just as Isaiah 60 describes.

Shalom

Concerned Reader

July 8, 2015

Yehudah, I’m sorry, but “The Jeezer”? Lol sounds like a rude nickname for Scrooge lol or an epithet for someone from the big Lebowski or pulp fiction. Hey dude, where’s the Jeezer? Ah! He’s sleeping.

remi4321

July 8, 2015

Kavi, let’s pretend that everything you said about the son of man is true. He will be served with the Ancient of Days when he comes back. What makes you think that Jesus fulfilled it? Even if Yehuda did not have good reason to think it is actually talking about the holy ones, which I think he does. Then you are back with the fact that it would be normal that, if the messiah is king over all nations (Psalm 2), then everybody should serve him. It will happen, after the battle of Gog and Magog, that all kingdom will be under the messiah’s kinship, and all nations, including Israel will serve him. It does not mean it is Jesus! It is only one possibility, but you cannot use that as a proof for Christianity. To use it has a proof, the event needs to have actually happened, if not, then we can all disagree, I may think it will be my grand-father coming back on the clouds of heaven, it does not mean that it is true. You say it is Jesus, fine, but this is circular reasoning. Why Jesus is the messiah? Because there are thousand of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Which one? Daniel 7. How do you know that Daniel 7 talks about Jesus? Because Jesus said he will come back in the clouds of heaven. You see, it proves nothing because it has not happened yet.

To convince us, it needs to be obvious that Jesus only could fulfil it. It needs to have happened. It needs to have one interpretation. It needs to be clear and not hard play on words that might maybe be a shadow of Jesus. If it is not a proof, then the evidence means nothing. 365 prophecies that could be fulfilled by anybody equals 0. The messiah needs to be born of a woman, is not proof that Jesus is the messiah. Everybody agrees that the messiah will be a descendent of David. What makes you sure at 100% that Jesus is the messiah from the Tanakh?

Let’s talk seriously, not one word out of context, or the messiah coming on a donkey. In the time of Jesus, it was not hard to fulfil! It happened everyday that people rode on donkey to Jerusalem!

Find me one prophecy that could be fulfil by Jesus only. If not we will keep the fact the worshipping a man is idolatry!

KAVI

July 8, 2015

Jim,
Besides the resources of http://www.chabad.org, there are least two others:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3407.htm

http://biblehub.com/
http://biblehub.com/daniel/7-1.htm

___________________________________

Yehuda,
Gene’s Rabbi friend is correct about Rashi, because if he is not, there are at least three problems you would need to overcome:

First, Rashi clearly identifies King Messiah as singular in Daniel 2:44 and Daniel 12:12
[**] Daniel 2:44– The Messiah is identified in the singular
— “The kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which will never be destroyed, is the kingdom of the Messiah.”

[**] Daniel 12:12– The Messiah is “hidden” for awhile and then “revealed”
Fortunate is he who waits etc.: Forty five years are added to the above number, for our King Messiah is destined to be hidden after he is revealed and to be revealed again. So we find in Midrash Ruth, and so did Rabbi Eleazar HaKalir establish (in the concluding poem of the morning service of the portion dealing with the month of Nissan): “and he will be concealed from them six weeks of years.”

Second,
[**] Daniel 7:14
— Rashi specifically identifies the Messiah as the Son of Man [note his words “that man” in relation to the dominion in v 13 ]
— Rashi then makes a comparison between the heathens as beasts and Israel as a man. Here, Rashi assumes the reader understands several references:
(a) The division between Esau and Jacob [aka, “Israel”] in Genesis 25:23 where we the ideas of see “nations” and “kingdoms”.
(b) Esau described as a beast [ see Rashi’s commentary in Psalm 80:14]
(c) The Talmudic concept that Jacob [aka, Israel] would need to be found “worthy” or “repentant” for the King Messiah to come in the “clouds of heaven” [ also see Rashi’s reference to humility and innocence in v 14 ]
(d) The “final” Mashiach ben David will come in victory [in contrast to Mashiach ben Yossef]

Third,
[**] The singularity of the Messiah
— Rashi does not make the mistake of claiming that Israel is the Messiah for a simple reason– the Messiah is of the line of Judah, not all 12 tribes.

So, for Rashi to claim here that “all” Israel is the Messiah would deny the writings of Moses and the other prophets. And would it not pretty well invalidate the other commentators [e.g., Akiva] who were looking for a Messiah to come as a singular King?

PS> You can email Gene’s friend, Rabbi Chaim @ http://www.mesora.org/qa/ regarding Rashi and the “final” Messiah.

PSS> See http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/101747/jewish/Appendix-II.htm which brings a lot of this information together.
______________________________________

After further analysis, I hope you will now see that your interpretation is inaccurate–

But, I do admire your tenacity :)

Yehuda Yisrael

July 9, 2015

Alright, Kavi. Since you want to distort and contextually abuse Rabbinic texts to “support” your erroneous position, lets see how you like it!

John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, **FOR THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I.**

There. Your jeezer himself says that he is not equivalent to the Father. Therefore, jesus cannot be of equal G-d status with the Father even according to your own NT.

**Enter in conversation of Kavi whining about how I abused to context of his false NT and all that…**

Well Kavi, that’s exactly what you are doing to the Rashi here. You are abusing the context and you are shameless about it. Rashi makes it CLEAR that the “son of man” describes Israel in addition to the Messiah. He explicitly says “ISRAEL IS LIKENED TO A MAN,” clearly referring to the “son of man,” mentioned in Daniel 7:13-14 who receives the kingdom from the Hashem. This is clearly supported by his commentary on Daniel 7:18, which states this:

Rashi on Daniel 7:18 “And the high holy ones will receive the kingdom: THESE ARE ISRAEL, who will take the kingdom from the fourth one.”

Who receives the kingdom according to Daniel 7:13-14 and the interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14 in Daniel 7:18, Kavi? Who does Rashi say it is? Does he say its only the Messiah?

NO!

So stop being an ignoramus and a fool and respect what Rashi is saying.

And I’d be willing to bet that Gene’s “friend that supposedly disagrees with me,” actually does not disagree with me and you are contextually abusing his words as well. The Rashi is clear. The “son of man” is not exclusive to the Messiah in this dream. Yes, it does refer to the Messiah’s kingdom, but it is not exclusive to the Messiah.

Moreover, and most importantly to this discussion, Rashi does NOT interpret Daniel 7:13-14 or Daniel 7:27 as involving the “worship of the Messiah as a god.” So like I said before, you will find NO SOLACE in the Rashi for your position.

The big elephant in the room, Kavi is that the text itself shows us that your position is wrong. The “son of man” does not simply only refer to the Messiah and the Daniel 7 does not give us any indication that we are to worship the Messiah as a god. The fact that you have to resort to distorting and contextually abusing the Rashi in order to try and argue your point just shows how desperate and hopeless your position is on this matter.

You’ve been ousted, Kavi, it’s time you fess up and admit your error.

Shalom

KAVI

July 9, 2015

Yehuda,

Since you were not able to counter my well-documented response, here is the quote and direct web link to Rabbi Chaim’s Q&A:

From a set of several question in 1998,

Question: Who is Daniel 7:13-14 referring to?”As I looked on, in the night vision, one like a human being came with the clouds of heaven; he reached the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him.14. Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed.”

Response: This is a reference to the final messiah. (Rashi)

Source: mesora.org/messiah-daniel.html

_____________________________

I reiterate that your interpretation is complex and valid to discuss– but I have given a logical, solid response.

So, you may indeed call me a “fool”, but you have to admit that I well-document my foolishness :)

_____________________________

Again, to summarize a couple things:

[*] The respected Rabbi Chaim does not agree with your interpretation.

[*] Rashi does not make the mistake of claiming that Israel is the Messiah for a simple reason– the Messiah is of the line of Judah, not all 12 tribes.

So, for Rashi to claim here that “all” Israel is the Messiah would deny the writings of Moses and the other prophets as well as other Jewish commentators [e.g., Akiva] who were looking for a Messiah to come as a singular King.

[*] In Daniel, “possessing” the kingdom is naturally part of HaShem’s promised inheritance to His righteous children, Israel. The kingdom will be ruled by the King Messiah where both the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man will be “served”.

I truly do wish you Shalom as you continue to ponder these types of issues.

_____________________________

Gene Shlomovich

July 9, 2015

Kavi… even if Daniel is speaking about the “final Messiah” here (the context of Daniel, however, is clear that it’s about the Jewish people as a whole, of whom Messiah is one either way, and only midrashically it can be said about the Messiah), Jesus, whom your worship, was given nothing. Nobody but Christians serve him. He’s dead and not ruling over anything. He’s become an idol. How’s then Jesus a fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14? He’s not. You were pointed this out over and over, and yet you are too obstinate to acknowledge truth.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 9, 2015

Kavi, you are blatantly misrepresenting Rashi when you claim this:

[*] Rashi does not make the mistake of claiming that Israel is the Messiah for a simple reason– the Messiah is of the line of Judah, not all 12 tribes.

KAVI, Rashi doesn’t identify the son of man exclusively with the Messiah. His commentary on Daniel 7:14 and Daniel 7:18 confirm this.

You can keep yelling and screaming that Rashi only meant the Messiah, but you are simply being disingenuous and you are abusing the text.

And if you can do that, then Im sure you would understand if someone used John 14:28 do disprove the “deity of jesus.”

Shalom

KAVI

July 10, 2015

Gene,
The “final” Messiah is never Israel as a whole, but Mashiach ben David.

Defining the Mashiach ben David as Israel contradicts the solid understanding that the Final Messiah must come from the line of Judah.

___________________________________

Yehuda,

Although it is good to think outside the box of previous tradition and commentary– in this particular case, the internal and external evidences are too great to overcome.

As another witness,

[**] Zechariah 14:5
“And the LORD, my G-d, shall come; all holy ones with you.”

Zechariah 14 is an interesting chapter that speaks about the LORD coming down to rescue Yerushalayim, placing his feet upon the Mount of Olives, and triumphing over His enemies.

Who is this LORD other than the victorious King Messiah coming with Israel [both righteous Jews and Gentiles]?

And is not this LORD the promised Redeemer, LORD Yeshua?

___________________________________

Gene Shlomovich

July 10, 2015

“The “final” Messiah is never Israel as a whole, but Mashiach ben David.”

Kavi… you are the one redefining Messiah as “whole Israel” by interpreting Daniel as referring to exclusively to messiah instead of Israel as a whole, which includes the anointed king (as is clear from context). In fact, it’s a staple of Christianity to imagine Jesus as “one man Israel”!

Yehuda Yisrael

July 10, 2015

Kavi, I think I’ve finally shed light on your position, but I want to be 100% certain that we are on the same page.

Deuteronomy 5:2-4 says this:

Deuteronomy 5:2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.

Deuteronomy 5:3 Not with our forefathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of whom are here alive today.

Deuteronomy 5:4 FACE TO FACE, the Lord spoke with you at the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

Kavi, do you understand the the “FACE TO FACE” interaction that G-d and Israel shared at Horeb to be Jesus being present and speaking to Israel?

I want to gain clarity on your position as to what you believe Deuteronomy 5:4 means by “face to face.” I think we are getting closer to a connection!

Shalom

KAVI

July 10, 2015

Yehuda,
The term “face to face” only means there was no one between G-d and the people when He spoke.

A similar expression is found in Exodus 33:11 where G-d spoke to Moses with no intermediary.

______________________

Yehuda Yisrael

July 10, 2015

Ok Kavi. Good answer. So we are in agreement that when G-d spoke to Israel at Horeb, they saw no form. Correct?

Jim D.

July 10, 2015

You know what, Kavi? I don’t think we ever finished discussing Isaiah 7:14 before we moved on to other verses. There was a lot of back and forth about the definition of “almah”, which itself wasn’t fully resolved, but we didn’t address the rest. I just don’t see it as messianic. Why do you?

KAVI

July 10, 2015

Yehuda,
How about I reply in “Judaism vs Christianity” where the discussion seems more related than this thread?

KAVI

July 12, 2015

Jim,
You said, “Irrelevant. Almah can mean both, as previously stated, but means maiden, not virgin.”

When saying “both”, does that mean Almah and Bethulah can both refer to a virgin and chaste young maiden [of marriageable age]?

Jim D.

July 12, 2015

Kavi,

I said it’s irrelevant for two reasons.

First, even if Isaiah meant ‘virgin’ when speaking with King Ahaz, the verse doesn’t mean she will conceive and bear a son while remaining a virgin. ‘Sign’ as used here doesn’t mean ‘miracle’, as the NT wants it to.

Second, the passage is not messianic in any sense, and does not predict events beyond two to three years past the date of their discussion.

This is why whether ‘almah’ means ‘virgin’ or ‘maiden’ doesn’t matter — and why the NT declaration is nonsense.

Yehuda Yisrael

July 12, 2015

Isaiah 7:14 has already been addressed and Kavi had nothing to counter it. His interpretation goes against the interpretation of Isaiah himself! Here it is again:

I will now demonstrate to you how the “virgin birth” that matthew speaks of is a lie. Isaiah never made such a prophesy!

The birth of Isaiah’s child was clearly the fulfillment of the sign prophesied in Isaiah 7:14-16. How do I know this? Isaiah tells us himself! Lets look at these verses