Religion II

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Ps 110:1 is in the OT. You don't understand what Jesus did to the Jews of his day? He turned their OT scriptures upon their own heads as heaping hot coals!

So, tells us Mr. I-Have-No-Answers: Who is Yahweh in the OT and who is Adoniy in the OT? Why don't you avail yourself of a concordance and study those two terms and see how they're used in the OT? And then get back to us with your findings.

You see, you are turning this into something about me...it was never about me. I was curious how you would respond to the video, not to me. Not about me. Stop making it about me.

I don't know what the Matthew 22 dilemma is, but I do know the book of Matthew is in the NT, which is why I wrote what I wrote.

No reason to try and debate ME...offer your thoughts on what the Rabbi says in the video...that was the whole point of my post.

You can debate me all you want, but it will do nothing for you.

Why not address the direct quote I provided you from the Rabbi in that video? You know, the one that makes it pretty much impossible to claim that there is evidence of the Holy Trinity in the OT:

"(Jewish theology holds that) God has never and will never assume a human form. Once you deal with the reification or the corporealization of the diety, you are violating a tenant of God being infinite and non-material."

Found elsewhere on the web:

"Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form."

And again, another example why there can be no Trinity in the OT:

One of the primary expressions of Jewish faith, recited twice daily in prayer, is the Shema, which begins "Hear, Israel: The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd is one." This simple statement encompasses several different ideas:

There is only one G-d. No other being participated in the work of creation.
G-d is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to G-d is merely man's imperfect attempt to understand the infinite.
G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as "The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone," meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other.

[PaceAdvantage]

And if you don't like videos, you might want to read this:

https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

And if you don't like videos, you might want to read this:

https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

Very weak argument for the Ex 7:1 text. Moses was a type of Christ -- therefore, a type of God in the OT since Moses redeemed (delivered) his people from under the bondage of the Egyptians. God always had his prophets as his spokepersons with his ultimate spokesperson being Christ The Prophet. Likewise, Moses had his prophet who was Aaron; therefore, Moses was made like a "god", and by implication Aaron as well.

Also, Moses acted as a judge in the Wilderness and the OT uses the term lohiym as a term of deference to magistrates (judges). After all, isn't Christ the antitype to these earthly judges as Judge of all the earth? (Christ himself also spoke to this very issue but since the NT must be irrelevant to you as well, I will refrain from providing details.)

Also, the argument for the use of Elohiym is exceedingly week. The term "created" in Gen 1:1 would have also been used if the text had read "the Gods created the heavens and the earth". Also, the explanation for why "Elohiym" is used is even more anemic. There is no potentiality with God. In fact, there can be none because this would imply that God is not already perfect in every respect. God is the Unmoved Mover which means he cannot change, which further means he has no potentiality to change. Therefore, there is no such thing as a plurality of potentiality with God. And "plurality of majesty"? What does that even mean!? And where is this kind of explanation even remotely hinted at in the OT? However, if Elohiym is understood as plurality of persons, this would nicely explain all the "We's and Us's that are used to reference God in the OT.

Also, the writer fails to explain why 'Eel (singular form) is also used in the OT in reference to God. Or why isn't "'Eel", for that matter, used throughout the OT when speaking of God? Why did the OT writers switch back and forth?

God The Father is El.

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God [El} Most High (Genesis 14:18).

The Son is El.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (El) (Isaiah 7:14).

This verse was cited by Matthew to refer to Jesus. The angel of the Lord said to Joseph.

She will bear a Son; and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us" (Matthew 1:21-23).

The Holy Spirit is called El.

The Spirit of God [El} has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life (Job 33:4).

We also read in Job.

From the breath of God [El] ice is made, and the expanse of the waters is frozen (Job 37:10)

Consequently we have the three Persons of the Trinity all designated with the singular El.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...ewart_1303.cfm

So...now you see...the OT interprets itself -- just as all scripture is self-interpretive. The Father is El; the Son is El; and the Holy Spirit is El. Three distinct persons in one divine essence. These verses nicely interpret (explain) why so often the plural form of El is used in the OT. And it also nicely explains all the We's and Us's when used to reference God. All is in perfect harmony, as one should logically expect when dealing with Truth.

[PaceAdvantage]

An occasional anomaly proves as little as the fact that Joseph’s master is described by a plural noun several times (Ge. 39:2, 3, 7, 8, 19, 20). Will anyone contend that “Joseph’s mater [plural in Hebrew] took [singular verb] him” is incorrectly translated? Abraham is the “masters” (plural in Hebrew) of his servant (Gen. 24:9 10). Is there plurality in Abraham? No one would want to alter the translation of another passage in Genesis: “The man who is lord of the land spoke harshly to us.” But though the verb is singular the noun has a plural form, “the lords of the land” (Gen. 42:30). (Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound [Lanham, N.Y.: International Scholars Publications, 1998], 272)

and

[I]t is not uncommon to find Trinitarians arguing for the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of the fact that the word for God in the Old Testament is Elohim, which is the plural of the word El. Hence, it is thought to imply a plurality in the Godhead.

Unfortunately, this is indeed, as most Hebrew scholars recognize, a very weak argument on which to base the doctrine of the Trinity. When a numerical plurality is intended, the corresponding verb(s) in the context will be plural. When the one true God is referred to as Elohim, however, the corresponding verbs are always singular. Moreover, as Bernard [a Oneness Pentecostal Boyd is responding to], the term is applied to the one angelic being who wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32:30) and to the one golden calf the Israelites worshipped (Exod. 32:1, 4,8) (Bernard, Oneness, 147) . . . Even weaker is the argument that the Hebrew word for “one” “(echad) used in the Shema (“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord”) refers to a unified one, not an absolute one. Hence, some Trinitarians have argued, the Old Testament has a view of a united Godhead . . . [notwithstanding] one cannot at all base such a view on the Godhead on the word itself. (Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity: A World-Wide Movement Assessed by a former Oneness Pentecostal [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992], 47-48; comments in square brackets added for clarification)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

and

The corresponding verbs that are used with "Elohym" are singular because God is One (Deut 6:4). Not one in Person but one in essence.

[boxcar]

A little quiet in here. Everyone must be studiously doing their homework to research out the feasibility of the Trinity doctrine in OT theology. Well...here's another text to ponder. This one is a Messianic prophecy:

Isa 9:6-7
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.
NASB

So to Israel a son would be born -- a son will be given. This child will be a human baby and this baby will have multiple names, including "Mighty God" (i.e. in the Hebrew 'Eel in singular form). This Son would inherit and sit on King David's throne forever, thus fulfilling the Davidic Covenant.

But how could he also have the name "Eternal Father"? There is only one answer to this: The Son of God is one in essence with his Father. He came to this world to do the works of his Father. Whatever He saw the Father do, the Son did. Whatever the Father speaks, the Son speaks. "I and the Father are One." Again, all scripture is in perfect harmony.

[Actor]

This transcript is approximately 15% of the video. I believe my posting this transcript is reasonable use.

Narrator: People who are Christian are asking "Why for Jews is Jesus not the Messiah?"

Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz, Jerusalem: Excellent question. The question can logically be asked, in fact, I'm sure you know this, the very early Christians did regard themselves as Jews, Jesus himself regarded himself as Jewish and many of the apostles in fact were Jews. And they considered themselves Jewish. In fact Peter himself differed with Paul. Peter took the position that a follower of Jesus should practice circumcision, and keep kosher and keep the Shabbat because they were Jewish, so the question, and of course we have Hebrew Christian this very day, the question is why can't I be a religious Jew, believe in the Torah, and still say that Jesus is the Messiah?

Narraror: Definitely, that's what they want to know.

Rabbi: I would say that Judaism has three fundamental issues with Christian theology. Issue number one, which does not go to the Messianic aspect of Jesus but to the divinity and the trinity, the father, son and the holy ghost. Our problem would be that we believe that God has never and will never assume a human form. Once you deal with the reification or the corporalization of the diety you are violating a tenant of God being infinite and non-material. That of course goes to the divinity and that was a later development in Christianity. In terms of the Messianic vision, let's say that I say "well I don't believe that Jesus was God or the Son of God but let him be the Messiah which we do believe in." So let's say there are two points. Point number one is that classical Jewish literaure does not accept the notion of a second coming, that is, one the Messiah reveals himself he will accomplish a designated mission of getting the Jews back to Israel, rebuilding the temple, and hopefully establishing world peace. Now Jesus of course was crucified. Jesus was murdered before he completed any of those things and, because of that, Christianity developed the idea of a second coming, that Jesus will come back and complete the mission. As I say, as far as normative Jewish theology is concerned when the Messiah comes he's going to get the job done. He's not going to die and them come back. That is point number one.

Point number two, which is actually more important, is ... and I'm not going to get into the debate whether Jesus said it or the apostles or later peoples said it ... but the notion in the New Testament, the notion that God has abrogated his covenant with Israel and that God has replaced the Sinaiatic Revelation with Justification by Faith, which is really Paul's innovation, Paul created the idea that one gets redemption not be works but by faith, that's called Justification by Faith. That is a theological postulate that is absolutely inconsistent with the eternity of the Torah and the divinity of the Torah. Now again I understand one could make the argument that that's not Jesus's argument, that there are passages where he says "I'm not going to abrogate a single letter of the Torah," and yet, even within the Christian Bible there are narratives in which he implies that certain commandments are no longer binding, and certainly Paul took the position that none of the commandments are binding, and that is a postulate we cannot accept because, as Maimonides writes in his articles of faith, even the Messiah will not abrogate or replace the Torah. And that's our problem with Christian theology.

[Light]

My understanding is that the Jews split from Jesus as their messiah around 70 AD when their 2nd temple fell to the Romans. They expected Jesus to save them from the Romans even though Jesus predicted what would happen.

Jews looked to a political messiah rather than a spiritual one. Jesus warned his followers not to take part in that method of bringing in God's kingdom. The destruction in 70 AD was not God's judgment as much as it was the natural result of human beings seeking salvation through their own political and military might. Jesus' method was the opposite of such an approach.

Jesus's methods for peace are still revolutionary today because it requires a higher degree of consciousness to implement. Christians today make the same mistake as the Jews back in 70 AD by looking to Jesus in military conquests. That has nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You see, you are turning this into something about me...it was never about me. I was curious how you would respond to the video, not to me. Not about me. Stop making it about me.

I don't know what the Matthew 22 dilemma is, but I do know the book of Matthew is in the NT, which is why I wrote what I wrote.

No reason to try and debate ME...offer your thoughts on what the Rabbi says in the video...that was the whole point of my post.

You can debate me all you want, but it will do nothing for you.

Why not address the direct quote I provided you from the Rabbi in that video? You know, the one that makes it pretty much impossible to claim that there is evidence of the Holy Trinity in the OT:

"(Jewish theology holds that) God has never and will never assume a human form. Once you deal with the reification or the corporealization of the diety, you are violating a tenant of God being infinite and non-material."

Found elsewhere on the web:

"Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form."

And again, another example why there can be no Trinity in the OT:

One of the primary expressions of Jewish faith, recited twice daily in prayer, is the Shema, which begins "Hear, Israel: The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd is one." This simple statement encompasses several different ideas:

There is only one G-d. No other being participated in the work of creation.
G-d is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to G-d is merely man's imperfect attempt to understand the infinite.
G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as "The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone," meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other.

Well, then..this discussion is over. I explained the dilemma with the Ps 110:1 text which Jesus used against the Pharisees. You obviously don't have any answers as to who YHWH is in the OT and who Adoniy is in the OT.
But even more than this...you don't want to know! You love your spiritual ignorance too much. As you said in the beginning, "don't look to me for any answers". Truer words never spoken!

Further more, the ASSUMPTION that all unbelievers make (including Jewish "scholars") is that Deut 6:4 is teaching that God said, through Moses, that He is one person. But that idea is foreign to scripture. There isn't one scripture text in all the bible that says that God is one person. See below the explanation for the Shema. You'll learn that there is nothing in Deut 6:4, or any of the other texts in the Law of Moses, that prohibits the idea of unity in diversity.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scr...the_shema.html

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

This transcript is approximately 15% of the video. I believe my posting this transcript is reasonable use.

Narrator: People who are Christian are asking "Why for Jews is Jesus not the Messiah?"

Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz, Jerusalem: Excellent question. The question can logically be asked, in fact, I'm sure you know this, the very early Christians did regard themselves as Jews, Jesus himself regarded himself as Jewish and many of the apostles in fact were Jews. And they considered themselves Jewish. In fact Peter himself differed with Paul. Peter took the position that a follower of Jesus should practice circumcision, and keep kosher and keep the Shabbat because they were Jewish, so the question, and of course we have Hebrew Christian this very day, the question is why can't I be a religious Jew, believe in the Torah, and still say that Jesus is the Messiah?

Narraror: Definitely, that's what they want to know.

Rabbi: I would say that Judaism has three fundamental issues with Christian theology. Issue number one, which does not go to the Messianic aspect of Jesus but to the divinity and the trinity, the father, son and the holy ghost. Our problem would be that we believe that God has never and will never assume a human form. Once you deal with the reification or the corporalization of the diety you are violating a tenant of God being infinite and non-material. That of course goes to the divinity and that was a later development in Christianity. In terms of the Messianic vision, let's say that I say "well I don't believe that Jesus was God or the Son of God but let him be the Messiah which we do believe in." So let's say there are two points. Point number one is that classical Jewish literaure does not accept the notion of a second coming, that is, one the Messiah reveals himself he will accomplish a designated mission of getting the Jews back to Israel, rebuilding the temple, and hopefully establishing world peace. Now Jesus of course was crucified. Jesus was murdered before he completed any of those things and, because of that, Christianity developed the idea of a second coming, that Jesus will come back and complete the mission. As I say, as far as normative Jewish theology is concerned when the Messiah comes he's going to get the job done. He's not going to die and them come back. That is point number one.

Point number two, which is actually more important, is ... and I'm not going to get into the debate whether Jesus said it or the apostles or later peoples said it ... but the notion in the New Testament, the notion that God has abrogated his covenant with Israel and that God has replaced the Sinaiatic Revelation with Justification by Faith, which is really Paul's innovation, Paul created the idea that one gets redemption not be works but by faith, that's called Justification by Faith. That is a theological postulate that is absolutely inconsistent with the eternity of the Torah and the divinity of the Torah. Now again I understand one could make the argument that that's not Jesus's argument, that there are passages where he says "I'm not going to abrogate a single letter of the Torah," and yet, even within the Christian Bible there are narratives in which he implies that certain commandments are no longer binding, and certainly Paul took the position that none of the commandments are binding, and that is a postulate we cannot accept because, as Maimonides writes in his articles of faith, even the Messiah will not abrogate or replace the Torah. And that's our problem with Christian theology.

Thanks for posting this, Mr. Actor. I'll save this for possible framing one day.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Thanks for posting this, Mr. Actor. I'll save this for possible framing one day.

Now I see why nobody wants to deal with you in this thread or the prior thread (not the sane people, anyway).

You have zero proof for any evidence of any Trinity in the OT, except your (and others like you) willful distortion/misunderstanding of the Hebrew language. A fantasy made out of whole cloth.

You're correct. No further need to correspond. When it comes to the OT, I'll take a Jewish scholar's thoughts on the subject over yours any day of the week.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

My understanding is that the Jews split from Jesus as their messiah around 70 AD when their 2nd temple fell to the Romans. They expected Jesus to save them from the Romans even though Jesus predicted what would happen.

Jews looked to a political messiah rather than a spiritual one. Jesus warned his followers not to take part in that method of bringing in God's kingdom. The destruction in 70 AD was not God's judgment as much as it was the natural result of human beings seeking salvation through their own political and military might. Jesus' method was the opposite of such an approach.

Jesus's methods for peace are still revolutionary today because it requires a higher degree of consciousness to implement. Christians today make the same mistake as the Jews back in 70 AD by looking to Jesus in military conquests. That has nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about.

For your info, the Jews "split from Jesus" the day they crucified him which was their ultimate expression of hostility toward their Covenant God and the covenant he made with them at Sinai through Moses. Because the Jews broke their covenant with YHWH, He did indeed judge them in 70 A.D., as Jesus predicted. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was God's ultimate expression of his categorical rejection of Old Covenant Judaism that was established under Moses. Indeed..."all things have become new" under this current and eternal New Covenant dispensation.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For your info, the Jews "split from Jesus" the day they crucified him which was their ultimate expression of hostility toward their Covenant God and the covenant he made with them at Sinai through Moses. Because the Jews broke their covenant with YHWH, He did indeed judge them in 70 A.D., as Jesus predicted. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was God's ultimate expression of his categorical rejection of Old Covenant Judaism that was established under Moses. Indeed..."all things have become new" under this current and eternal New Covenant dispensation.

Oh yes, of course.

"For your info" LMAO

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Oh yes, of course.

"For your info" LMAO

Yeah...you're just full of such "good" info, aren't you? Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple and the Jews' exodus from their homeland just before his death was also in harmony with the solemn promises God made to the Jews through Moses that basically said that remaining in the promised land would be totally dependent upon their covenant faithfulness to the Mosaic Covenant. See Deut 29:1ff. for starters.

Why are you so pompous and proud of your spiritual ignorance?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Thanks for posting this, Mr. Actor. I'll save this for possible framing one day.

Did you read it?