The text and diagram are color-coded for easily associating between them.
24: Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
25: And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks, and [for] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times.
26: And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation.
27: And he will strengthen a covenant for the princes for one week, and half the week he will abolish sacrifice and meal-offering, and on high, among abominations, will be the dumb one, and until destruction and extermination befall the dumb one.
According to most estimations, Jesus died between the years 30 and 33 CE, which is at 64 weeks (450 years). If this is true, then he died between 40 to 37 years too early to be the “anointed one, cut off," who was cut off at the same time that the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE (at 483 weeks).
For the record, this doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, it just means that Daniel 9:24-27 is not talking about Jesus.
228 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 228 of 228Response to June 24, 2022 at 1:43 AM:
"The Sadducees, the Karaites, the Ethiopian Jews all tried and made it."
They've all developed some semblance of an oral law to compensate for the intrinsic ambiguity of the text.
"Does it mean then that Moses received an oral law on the Mount Sinai?"
Yes, because if the Jews were able to consult with the written text for the answer they would have without relying on him. They relied on him because he received the details of the Oral Law and they did not (until a system was put into place to teach it to them).
"I'm a lawyer and I also work with courts, and they didn't receive an oral law to decide the cases."
In the legal world is it not common to apply and interpret laws in a number of ways based on a range of circumstances? I typed in Google "how is law applied" and found that, "Statutes are laws created by the legislative branch through the lawmaking process. Statutes are written, discussed, argued and voted on in Congress or in the legislature of a state. The courts then apply and interpret these statutes on a case by case basis." This is virtually identical to how Moses applied the Oral Law in the verses I mentioned in Exodus 18 (perhaps to the exclusion of voting in "Congress").
"If he had received an oral law on Mount Sinai he would not need to come back to God later and ask Him what to do, do you agree?”
Good question. I'm not mistaken, there are three recorded cases where Moses had to ask God for a legal answer (Leviticus 24:12, Numbers 9:8, Numbers 27:5, which you cited). Going back to Exodus 18:13, the text doesn't tell us that he went up and down Mt. Sinai hundreds of times, indicating that he already knew how to answer their questions all day long. He knew because God gave him the Oral Torah on Mt. Sinai during the 40 days he was there. This means that these three cases are exceptions that were not covered in the Oral Law.
"Regarding the oral law, don't you think that, if it really existed, at least once in the entire Tanakh would appear some story of someone who was punished for disobeying it?"
Not necessarily, and there is almost no mention in the Torah of an actual punishment administered for violating one of the (written) commandments. One exception I can think of happens in Leviticus 24:12. We can be sure that people were violating commandments quite often, and yet the Torah almost never mentions punishments that actually happened. If they are scant for the Written Law, we can't come to a solid conclusion about the Oral Law.
By the way, even in the case of Leviticus 24:12 where the man pronounced the Divine Name (which is a violation of a written commandment), the text doesn't tell us what he said or how we knew what the Divine Name was, which is not written out anywhere in the Written Law. This is a perfect case-in-point of the dynamic interplay between the Written and Oral Laws; it assumes information that is not written anywhere.
"The Torah says that people are not supposed to work on the Sabbath, and these people in the book of Nehemiah were working on the Sabbath. It does not matter if the specific work they were doing on the Sabbath is mentioned or not in the Torah, for the Torah says very clearly that on the Sabbath is forbidden to work."
In that case, would Jesus have responded to Nechemiah as he did to the Pharisees in Matthew 12:12, or would he have agreed with him? Nechemiah seems to define "work" as treading, bringing/loading, buying, and selling. Why did Jesus tell the Pharisees that it was okay for his disciples to pick grain?
"Where did I say that? Exactly because God knew that we would not be sinless He gave us the sacrificial system and also the Messiah."
You said it here, "But the fact is that God already knew that no one would make it." The basis for a relationship with God is not to never commit a sin.
"Now, I want to let you know that I will be off for 2 weeks…”
Enjoy.
Response to June 24, 2022 at 7:04 PM:
"I have already shown to you in the Tanakh that the Messias has 2 comings."
You must distinguish between what the Tanakh says and your interpretation of the Tanakh. It's very clear to you, it's not very clear to me.
"Even the rebe of Lubavitch is a proof that Orthodox Jews can believe in 2 comings of the Messiah, for many still believe that he is the Messiah, even though he is dead for many years."
You're aware that the majority of Orthodox Jews don't agree with the Messianic portion of Chabad that believes the Rebbe to the Messiah? Are you aware that even within Chabad there is a split regarding those who believe that he is explicitly the Messiah and those who don't?
Shalom Yaniv,
Common sense would tell us that the people from Sodom and Gomorra would not inherit the world to come even if there were 10 righteous living there, although the city would be saved from destruction if these 10 righteous were there.
I never head about a consensus among Messianic Jews whether God forgave the people of Sodom and Gomorrah only in this world, only in the next, or in both. But I'm sure Messianic Jews don't believe that the people of Sodom and Gomorra will inherit the world to come.
"They are put in the same place because the altar is the location designated for atonement (whether or not there is any blood on it)."
Not at all. Because one offering is put upon the other in that passage. If you were right, the sacrifice would be first removed from the altar and then the other offering would be placed there.
"Let's say that everybody was poor and nobody had money to put a blood sacrifice on the altar. Would the flour offerings still atone for whoever brought them in that case, or would they be out of luck because they were poor?"
The flour offering is supposed to be placed upon the blood sacrifice according to the Torah. If you don't place it upon the blood sacrifice it is not the flour offering.
By the way, did you receive the email I sent you? I'm still waiting your answer. I sent you an email to your email we used to talk in the past. Are you using another one? If yes, please let me know your new email.
המשך שבוע טוב
Daniel, I'm not sure where you get the idea that people who do evil forfeit their place in the World to Come. That is not a Jewish idea and not supported explicitly in the Tanakh.
However, I do not wish to continue going around in circles with you. Over the past year that we've spoken I have often felt discouraged by what seemed a line of argumentation running dangerously close to a mild form of gaslighting. Now you may say that it was simply your wish to broaden my horizons and to help me see things from another angle, which I accept wholeheartedly. However, there is a fundamental difference between viewing things from a different perspective and mildly narcissistic tendencies aimed at sowing doubt. Because we are dealing with the Tanakh, if the doubt is sowed due to concepts found in the Tanakh, so be it. But if the doubt is sowed due to extra-Biblical appeals to inferences, I cannot accept it. For instance, many times in our discussions you made the argument that ancient Jews in fact believed in a Binity or Plural Godhead. This cannot be Biblically demonstrated because it is a judgment call on what Jews believed versus what is actually written in the Torah. You cannot tell from the verses what the Jews actually believed, you can only tell what God was telling them to believe.
Having said that, even if there were Jews, whether in great or small numbers, who believed in a Plurality of God, this by no means demonstrates that this belief was not in fact a form of deviance from the true understanding of Who God is. We know for a fact that the Jews sinned over and over and over again with every form of idolatry imaginable. And just as they continually fell into idolatry, I see Christianity as just another iteration of that same pattern. The interesting thing about idolatry is that it is fluid and flexible and can take many forms. We are "more fortunate" this time around because we actually have an entire religious text left behind of this particular iteration of idolatry, which gives us greater insight into its inner workings, and into how a relatively large number of Jews can be duped into such treachery. In a strange way I am thankful for it because it helps me understand how the Jews were able to worship Molech, Ba'al, and every other abomination they bowed to, and to be so committed to it. In this way it is priceless.
I also wish to say that just as, as a Christian, you see typologies in the Tanakh for Jesus, I too see typologies in the Tanakh which portray Christianity as an expression of Jewish seduction into idolatry. I think that Christianity falls more neatly into that pattern than into the pattern of monotheism.
I also wish to say that if I am wrong, my error is more justifiable than yours in that I genuinely seek to avoid anything that seems like idolatry. If so, perhaps God will allow me to have a relationship with Him in my ignorance even though I mistakenly reject His Triune nature. On the other hand, if you are in error, it seems sensible that by correlating plurality with unity, even if wrongfully and indeliberately, that you are completely cutting yourself off from God. It is sensible to think that God would extend less mercy to a person who mistakenly correlates foreign forces with God than to a person who still prays to God alone - one sin is surely greater than the other. It seems reasonable that "good intentions" may indeed mitigate an imperfect form of faith, which nevertheless exists, but it does not seem reasonable that they can justify a sinful manner of devotion.
I do not for a moment think that I will turn you away from your current faith, but I feel it necessary to say exactly how I feel. "He who has ears, let him hear."
Where are you? Did you see my email and my post?
Hello Daniel,
I haven't checked my email yet, but I responded to your post.
Thanks,
Yaniv...
"Daniel, I'm not sure where you get the idea that people who do evil forfeit their place in the World to Come. That is not a Jewish idea and not supported explicitly in the Tanakh."
I got this idea in Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 66:23-24 for example. And yes, it is a Jewish idea:
"But everyone agrees that the minor children of the wicked of the nations of the world will not come into the World-to-Come, as they have no virtue at all. And Rabban Gamliel derives this matter concerning those children from the verse: “And you have caused all their memory to perish” (Isaiah 26:14)." Talmud, Sanhedrin 110b.
Regarding what you said about the triune nature of God and what the Jews believed in the past regarding this, I quote them to you just to tell you that I am not the only one telling you that the Tanakh speaks about the triune nature of God. And it is not about the Jews in the past, for the Targumim, speaking about the Memrah (Word of God), say very clearly that the Memrah is a person and God Himself. It cannot be viewed as a Jewish view of the past, but of the present, for you know that the Targumim are sacred writing for Orthodox Jews like you.
Now, I have shown you a lot of passages in the Tanakh showing that God exists in more than one person, but for every passage I quote, you refuse to see it. Why? Because you simply don't want to accept it, even without reasons for that. Why don't you just read the texts I quoted to you as they are written? Perhaps you don't do it because you value more the Jewish tradition than the Tanakh, and you think that the rabbis cannot be wrong about that. But if you think this way, why then do you dislike when I quote the sages to you showing that they believed in the past that God existed in more than one person? Do you see?
And no, it is impossible for you to please God and do His will if you reject the Messiah He sent you. If Yeshua is indeed the promised Messiah, you are living in a great sin rejecting him. Rejecting the Messiah is equivalent of rejecting Moshe in the desert. When you reject Moshe or the Messiah, you are not rejecting them, but God who sent them and gave them His words.
Yeshua fulfilled so many Messianic prophecies as you know, all of them regarding the first coming of the Messiah, in the right time, before the destruction of the Temple, and performed miracles as no one has ever done in the world, what shows the seal of God that He is indeed the one. Besides that, He rose from the dead, and His resurrection is one of the most attested miracles historically speaking. Even Pinchas Lapide, who is an Orthodox Rabbi who does not believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, and is one of the world’s leading Jewish Theologians, affirms: “I accept the resurrection of Jesus not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as an historical event.”
All of this together proves that Yeshua is the one, and if He is the one, we should accept His words and let the light of His words illuminate the writings of the Tanakh, so that we can fully understand it.
It's true that there are people who forfeit their place in the World to Come, but according to same Jewish thought you refer to, particular sins are required to lose that place and not just simply doing evil. In fact, teshuva for just about every sin and circumstance can restore a person's World to Come, which is what you'd expect from a forgiving, merciful God, which is Who Jews worship. It seems to me that the "Christian God" is rather the unforgiving one, preventing people from entering Heaven unless they accept one absolute condition, one which, by the way, requires them to stoop to idolatry. It's bizarre and crazy.
I don't wish to respond to every point you made, but rather to a general one, which is the "two powers in Heaven" that you've mentioned often in our discussions. To that end please see Exodus 23:21, which says that he (the angel) "will not forgive your transgression." Is that not enough for you? And if not then turn to Hebrews 1:5 where Jesus rhetorically asks, "or to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'? Or again, 'I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.'" Daniel, get rid of your idolatry and enter into a pure relationship with God, for it seems that that is what you seek.
Shalom Yaniv,
Actually God so loved the world that He decided to send the Messiah to take upon him our sins, in our place, so that we could be saved by faith in him. In other words, the Messiah came to save us from our sinful life, and not to condemn us. God, through the Messiah Yeshua is giving us salvation. Salvation is a free gift, we just need to accept it. If we do it, then there is no more condemnation upon us, for the Messiah already took it all when He died on the cross for us. Don't you think this is such a forgiving God?
Regarding what the Torah says about the angel that will not forgive the sins of the Jewish people, I think you didn't get the point, this angel has the name of HaShem in him, the Jewish people should obey him and he has the power to forgive sins, otherwise God would not say that if the Jewish people rebel against him this angel will not forgive them.
Regarding the passages in the book of Hebrews that you quoted, it is not Yeshua speaking there first of all, but the writer of Hebrews who nobody knows who is, and second that this passages are not speaking about "the Angel of the Lord", but of simple angels, messengers of God.
Are you a student of kabbalah? If yes, how come can't you believe that God is able to appear in this world in a human body? Kabbalah says that God is in everything of the world, and that we all are sparks of God. Why then would it be impossible or difficult to God to appear in our world in a human body?
This is a good solution to a non-existent problem, because Judaism doesn’t understand “salvation” as a binary thing. In other words, it’s a fallacy; you only need this solution if indeed the consequence for sin is as Christianity understands, which it isn’t.
You’ve already made this point about the angel, if you don’t remember, and I disagreed then too (December 30, 2021). Yours is a convoluted way of understanding a very straightforward and simple verse. The verse simply says that he will not forgive without supplying the reason, and you are supplying your own reason that he will not forgive (that he has the Name of God in him). Next time you accuse me of inserting words into the Torah, realize that you have just done the same exact thing.
Regarding Hebrews 1:5, fine, it’s not Jesus speaking, but the writer is claiming that God never refers to any angels as His sons, nor claims to be their father. The basis on which you differentiate between angels being normal angels, and angels being “the son,” is completely based on a presupposition that you've already made!
The Kabbalah also says that the world exists in God, and that God does not exist in the world. That’s why He is referred to as “the Place,” being “the location” of the world. Don’t quote things that seem to support your contentions 1% of the time and negate it the other 99% of the time. It’s quite patronizing actually, and foolish.
What I really wish would be for you to realize is that you seem to have an issue with gaslighting, every time you tell me that I’ve seemed to misunderstand something. You know what gaslighting is, correct? Look it up, it’s a personality disorder. I don't recall once having told that you've misunderstood something, only that you've overlooked other information that contradicts arguments you've made. It's quite aggravating, actually, and demeaning.
Shalom Yaniv!
Sorry if you felt offended by the way I spoke to you. It was not my intention.
"This is a good solution to a non-existent problem, because Judaism doesn’t understand “salvation” as a binary thing."
What do you mean by that? Are you talking about hell and Heaven? Because Judaism believes in that. Gehenna and Gan Eden. And the sacrifices in the Temple did exactly what Yeshua did on the cross, they took upon themselves the sin of the people, especially on Yom Kippur with the sin offering of the goat. The rabbinic ritual of the chicken on Yom Kippur, named kapparot, also teaches the same thing, the chicken being the substitute of the penalty of the sins.
"The basis on which you differentiate between angels being normal angels, and angels being “the son,” is completely based on a presupposition that you've already made!"
Not really, the Angel of the Lord in the Tanakh, as I have already shown you, is identified as YHWH Himself in many passages of the Tanakh. See for example Gen. 32:24-30 (To Jacob) in connection with Hosea 12:4; Judg. 6:11-23 (to Gideon). Judg. 13:21-23 (to Samson’s parents); Exodus 3:2-6 (to Moses).
David Kimchi says the Angel of the Covenant in Malachi 3:1 is the King Messiah. Rambam says in his letter to Yemen that the Adon (Lord) of Malachi 3:1 is speaking about the Messiah. Ibn Ezrah says the Angel of the Covenant in Malachi 3:1 is the Messiah Son of Joseph and the Lord (Adon). And Rashi says that the Lord (adon) is the God of justice.
"The Kabbalah also says that the world exists in God, and that God does not exist in the world."
What is it supposed to mean? If we are all sparks of God, why can't you believe that God can appear in a human body while also sitting on His throne in heaven and also filling the earth by His Spirit?
Shavua tov!
Of course we believe in Heaven and Hell, but we don't believe in that either go to Hell forever or Heaven. That's what I meant by it's not binary.
Daniel, you don't need to convince me that we believe in the expiation of sins through a sacrifice (even though kapparot is a custom and not a law). What I disagree with is that mechanism being applied to a divine human being, but we will go in circles with this, which is why I feel like there isn't much more to speak about. The same goes with all the sources you mentioned, which like the Tanakh, are being understood and interpreted out of context, which is a recipe for disaster.
I didn't say that we are sparks of God, I said that God cannot be confined to His creation, not because He is unable, but because any created, finite thing cannot contain an uncreated, infinite thing. I can't believe it because that idea is based on the same idea of polytheism, meaning that polytheists found it nearly impossible to fathom the idea of a "divine singularity" composed of one inseparable essence. If you dig for enough into the mindset of a person who believes in the Trinity, you'll see that despite superficial differences, that it's the same thing. It's just a different way of saying what polytheists believe in essence, which is multiplicity. God is a jealous God; not only is He intolerant of the other (false) gods, He is intolerant of the idea that He exists in plurality.
Now you're going to start quoting me passages and Talmud citations, but I would like you to focus on ideas.
Shalom Yaniv,
Sorry for the great delay in answering you.
You didn't say that we are sparks of God but kabbalah says this, and if it is so, why can't you believe that God can appear in a human body? The doctrine of the Trinity does not say that God is confined in a human body, but that His Word incarnated there, while God remains seated on His Throne, and filling the universe. Why would it not be possible according to the Tanakh? Actually God came in a human body before according to the Tanakh, as I have already shown you. But the problem is that you try to allegorize all these passages instead of reading them as they are, and this because of the Greek philosophy of Maimonides which has nothing to do with the Tanakh.
Where did you read in the Tanakh that God is intolerant regarding the idea that He exists in a plural unity? I actually showed you passages saying exactly the opposite, that He indeed is a plural unity according to the Tanakh.
המשך שבוע טוב
Hello Daniel, that's okay.
"You didn't say that we are sparks of God but kabbalah says this, and if it is so, why can't you believe that God can appear in a human body?"
Because you're not saying that Jesus is a spark of God, but that he is God.
"The doctrine of the Trinity does not say that God is confined in a human body, but that His Word incarnated there, while God remains seated on His Throne, and filling the universe."
I understand, and didn't mean that God relinquishes His throne while incarnated, which is just as weird as saying that God is in two places at once. God is the substrate, He cannot be localized, and the Shechina is a localized force.
Let me ask you a question. If I cause myself to materialize somewhere else while remaning in my original position, have I not in effect duplicated myself? What you are saying causes you to view God in separation from God, which is why it's so serious and dangerous.
In addition, if God is already omnipresent, then what "added value" do we get by His incarnation into a human body? You can't be "more everywhere than everywhere," which means that Jesus being God is just an illusion. It's like saying that water fills the whole world, and that there's a drop of water in the world, too. 100% is the maximum that anything can be.
Then there's the added problem that Christians often speak about "the Father" as being aloof and inaccessible, and I've heard Christians speaking about Him this way. Christians focus on "the Son" much more than on "the Father," which confirms my position that Christians struggle relating to a faceless, bodiless, yet personal, God without humanizing Him into something that they can see and touch. This is one reason the Gentiles need the Jews to guide them to understanding God the right way, because they tend to struggle with absolute theological concepts. I know that this isn't PC, and it doesn't apply to all Gentiles as there are many who see through the illusions and become Jews.
This struggle most likely exists because the original Christians came from a pagan background incapable of envisioning a universal, intangible, God. This is why "the Son" gets much more airtime than "the Father" in Christian discourse. Christians do with Jesus what the Jews did with the Calf, pointing to it and saying "This is our God!" The Jews paid for that sin and God forgave them, while the Christians persist in their folly.
Shalom Yaniv,
If a spark of God can be in human body why can't the Word of God come in a human body? What is the problem with that? As I have shown you before, God appears in a human body many times in the Tanakh, although you are not willing to accept it because of Maimonides's Greek philosophy that has nothing to do with the Tanakh.
"...which is just as weird as saying that God is in two places at once. God is the substrate, He cannot be localized, and the Shechina is a localized force."
God cannot be in two places at once? Really? Actually He can be in all places at once, as He indeed is, so what is the problem of Him being in Yeshua and also seated on His throne and filling the universe? Why can't it be true? God was in the Holy of Holies of the Beit HaMikdash according to the Tanakh, as well as on the mountain with Moses and many other places. So, how come you say that God cannot be localized? Are we reading the same Tanakh? The problem is that you don't believe in the Tanakh in the first place, but in Maimonides' Greek philosophy that has nothing to do with the Tanakh as I've already said. Why are you abandoning the Word of God to follow a Greek philosophy?
"Let me ask you a question. If I cause myself to materialize somewhere else while remaning in my original position, have I not in effect duplicated myself? What you are saying causes you to view God in separation from God, which is why it's so serious and dangerous."
You can't compare God with us. We are not God, we are not everywhere as He is. Because He is everywhere, of course He can be in two places at the same time. God is one and He exists in 3 persons as the Tanakh says. These 3 are one. The Father, His Word (His Son) and the Ruach Hakodesh. They are not separated from one another, but they are one, from the same substance.
"In addition, if God is already omnipresent, then what "added value" do we get by His incarnation into a human body?
The "added value" is that by the incarnation of the Word of God, the Messiah could fulfill Isaiah 53 taking upon Himself the penalty of our sins, so that we could be saved from the judgement of God. God provided atonement for us through the incarnation.
Christians focus on the Son much more than on the Father because the Son is the One who reveals us the Father. As Yeshua says, when we see Yeshua we are seeing the Father, for He is His exact image. If you want to know the Father, you must know the Son, even because they are one. And no, this idea doesn't come from Gentiles but from a Jew, since Yeshua is a Jew as well as all His 12 apostles. And as I have shown to you before, God appeared many times in human form in the Tanakh, and when He did that it was the Son, and not the Father, for no one can see the Father's face and live.
Part I
"If a spark of God can be in human body why can't the Word of God come in a human body? What is the problem with that?"
What a slippery way to avoid the direct point that I made. To say that something is a spark of God is to say that it resembles God's properties in some reduced, finite, manner. A human soul is a spark of God, not possessing any of His absolute properties, which is why it can be "placed into" (associated with) a finite, physical, entity. An infinite, incorporeal Being can find no shelter in anything finite or physical because the finite is absolutely incapable of containing Him. To say that the absolute, infinite God took on human form is to reduce Him ad absurdum to the point where you completely nullify all of the properties that make Him God in the first place, which is why Christianity is virtually identical in this way to idolatry. Idolatry does the same thing by imagining the absolute infinity of God as separate (gods) and physical (idols). Christianity is only slightly better because it reasons that there is only one God, but it nevertheless puts Him through the same reductive process as ancient idolatry did.
Regarding your repeated mantra that I'm buying into Greek Maimonidean thought, what's more Greek than all of the silly, Greek philosophically-based words (such as hypostatus) used to describe the Trinity? The reason Greek words are required to describe it is because this concept has no convincing corollary in the Hebrew language. The Christian Scriptures had to be written in Greek to accurately capture and convey the polytheistic nature of the ideas found within its pages. Why didn't God just reveal it in Hebrew?!
Please read what William Lane Craig says in his essay A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity, "Connecting the divine Word (Logos) of the prologue of John’s Gospel (Jn. 1.1-5) with the divine Logos (Reason) as it played a role in the system of the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (25 BC-AD 40), the Apologists sought to explain Christian doctrine in Philonic categories. For good or for ill, their appropriation of Hellenistic thought is one of the most striking examples of the profound and enduring influence of philosophy upon Christian theology."
Do you hear that, Daniel? So much for criticizing me of thinking in Greek categories when Craig says that Greek thought had a "profound and enduring influence of philosophy on Christian theology." Who are you trying to lie to, here?
Part II
"...which is just as weird as saying that God is in two places at once. God is the substrate, He cannot be localized, and the Shechina is a localized force."
Daniel, please try to use your brain here. Saying that God is in all places at once is not like saying that He is in two different places at once. God is everywhere, but can you see Him everywhere? He doesn't present Himself in every location that He possesses (which is all locations) as a localized entity, because He is the substrate of everything, He is the "background" of everything, yet filling it absolutely at the same time. To say that, in addition to being the substrate of existence that He as well chose one finite location to occupy is absurd and absolutely insane. You are rotting your mind with such an idea and I beg you to stop.
No, we're not reading the same Tanakh. You're reading the Tanakh through the lens of a silly idolator, and I'm reading it through the lens of a Torah observant Jew. You're right.
"You can't compare God with us. We are not God, we are not everywhere as He is."
And you can't compare Jesus with God, because God is everywhere and Jesus is not.
"Because He is everywhere, of course He can be in two places at the same time. God is one and He exists in 3 persons as the Tanakh says. These 3 are one. The Father, His Word (His Son) and the Ruach Hakodesh. They are not separated from one another, but they are one, from the same substance."
Back to the Greek, if not I'm not wrong, the word describing "from the same substance" is the word "hypostasis." Can you show me a Hebrew word that describes this same concept, and show where it's used in the Tanakh? You can't because Christian thought is permeated with Greek categories - it's not Jewish!
"The "added value" is that by the incarnation of the Word of God, the Messiah could fulfill Isaiah 53 taking upon Himself the penalty of our sins, so that we could be saved from the judgement of God. God provided atonement for us through the incarnation."
BS, there is no added value here because God forgives sins without this!!! If God can do whatever He wants, as you say when you defend the Trinity, He can forgive us without incarnating, and He does this over and over and over again throughout the Tanakh!
"Christians focus on the Son much more than on the Father because the Son is the One who reveals us the Father."
You don't need anybody to reveal the "Father," to you, and to say that He needs to be revealed means that He is concealed. Psalms 145:18 says, "God is close to all who call, to all who call Him sincerely." You don't need anybody to intercede on your behalf in developing and maintaining a relationship with God. Christians focus on the Son much more than than on the Father because they think that the Father is concealed, but they're utterly wrong!
"As Yeshua says, when we see Yeshua we are seeing the Father, for He is His exact image. If you want to know the Father, you must know the Son, even because they are one. And no, this idea doesn't come from Gentiles but from a Jew, since Yeshua is a Jew as well as all His 12 apostles."
Jesus was a Jew, yes, but if he really said this he was a heretic or an utter moron. I opt to think that he didn't really say this and that it's Greek mumbo jumbo. Just because a Jew says something doesn't mean that he is right. The majority of history has been filled with Jews who completely strayed from the path that God provided for them, and Jesus is no exception.
"To say that something is a spark of God is to say that it resembles God's properties in some reduced, finite, manner."
Really? Are you saying that a spark of God is not a part of God? You know very well that it is a part of God, and that according to kabbalah God is in everything. It is interesting your arguments against the Word of God coming in a human body. I don't know if you noticed, but you didn't quote the Tanakh even once to say that it is impossible to happen. All your argument comes, not from the Tanakh, but from Maimonides Greek philosophy. Don't it scare you that what you believe is not grounded in the Tanakh but in this non Jewish Greek philosophy invented by Gentiles? Don't you see that what you are following was invented by Gentiles who didn't believe in the Tanakh and that Maimonides just bought it? And again, God was not reduced in the body of Yeshua, He was still presente everywhere and seated on His throne in Heaven.
And no, the idea of the Word of God being a person comes from the Targum and not from Philo. Philo just expressed this idea that was already found in the Targum. I have already shown you many passages in the Targum that speak about the Memrah (Word of God) and how it describes the Memrah as a person and God Himself.
What I said that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are "from the same substance" is not in the New Testament. This is just an inference from the description of God in the Tanakh and in the Brit Chadasha. Can you give me an example where the word hypostasis is used to define the Trinity in the New Testament?
"The Christian Scriptures had to be written in Greek to accurately capture and convey the polytheistic nature of the ideas found within its pages. Why didn't God just reveal it in Hebrew?!"
You argument makes no sense at all. I recommend that you read the Brit Chadasha in Hebrew, as I am doing, so that you can see there in Hebrew words what it says in Koine Greek. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek because it was the "English", universal language of that time, and Yeshua commanded his shlichim to reach the whole word with the Gospel. If the New Testament were written in Hebrew only Jews who spoke Hebrew would understand it, and not the whole world.
"there is no added value here because God forgives sins without this!!! If God can do whatever He wants, as you say when you defend the Trinity, He can forgive us without incarnating."
Sorry, but this argument makes no sense either. If God can do anything and forgive us without the incarnation, He could also had forgiven our ancestors without sacrifices, even though that, He commanded sacrifices to be offered to atone for their sins. Why did He do that if He could have forgiven them without doing anything? Why would God prophesy in Isaiah 53:5 that our chastisement will be upon the Messiah and that by His wounds we will be healed if He could forgive us through other means? According to you God can do anything, He doesn't need to do any of that. Nevertheless, He chose to do it this way, right?
Yeshua is the Word of God who came in a human body and dwelt among us. Could you imagine seeing God in a human body and living with Him this way? Don't you think that living with God this way would reveal God to you in a way that you never experienced before? You would have such intimacy with God as you have never had before. You would know God as never before. That's how Yeshua revealed God to the world. It does not mean that we couldn't know God before that, but that in and through Yeshua we got to know God in such a way that we never experienced before.
"Really? Are you saying that a spark of God is not a part of God?"
What exactly were you referring to? I said that we resemble God's properties in some reduced, finite, manner, which is what it means to be a part of God, i.e. made in His image.
"You know very well that… according to kabbalah God is in everything.
Yes, God is in everything, I agree with that.
"It is interesting your arguments against the Word of God coming in a human body."
God is in everything, but He is not everything - there is a difference.
"… but you didn't quote the Tanakh even once to say that it is impossible to happen."
Don’t assume that something is not true just because the Tanakh doesn't say "It's not true". My reason for believing it's not true is just as bad as yours for believing that it is true. The Tanakh says nowhere explicitly that there is a Trinity, which is a real issue for Christian theology. That's the reason that keeps Christians up at night scouring the Tanakh for any hint they can find of the Trinity.
"Don't it scare you that what you believe is not grounded in the Tanakh but in this non Jewish Greek philosophy invented by Gentiles?"
No, because Maimonides is just one Jewish thinker out of many. You seem to forget that.
"And no, the idea of the Word of God being a person comes from the Targum and not from Philo. Philo just expressed this idea that was already found in the Targum."
I mentioned Philo in terms of "the Apologists sought to explain Christian doctrine in Philonic categories," not in terms of Jewish thought.
"I have already shown you many passages in the Targum that speak about the Memrah…"
And I've already shown you that your understanding of the Targum is as skewed as your view of the Tanakh is.
“This (hypostasis) is just an inference from the description of God in the Tanakh and in the Brit Chadasha. Can you give me an example where the word hypostasis is used to define the Trinity in the New Testament?"
No, because I haven't read the Christian Scriptures in Greek. What I do know is that the inference itself is bad enough, and it is an inference that 99% of Christians agree with.
"The Christian Scriptures had to be written in Greek to accurately capture and convey the polytheistic nature of the ideas found within its pages. Why didn't God just reveal it in Hebrew?!"
"You argument makes no sense at all. I recommend that you read the Brit Chadasha in Hebrew, as I am doing, so that you can see there in Hebrew words what it says in Koine Greek."
The Hebrew translation is a modern invention! Why weren't the Christian Scriptures revealed in Hebrew?
"If the New Testament were written in Hebrew only Jews who spoke Hebrew would understand it, and not the whole world."
So you're saying that as long as the Tanakh is in Hebrew, the Gentiles cannot understand it, gain from it, or achieve salvation from it? That is certainly an oversight on God's part. Perhaps you can tell Him how to better manage His world. The Gentiles learned about God through interaction with the Jews, that's part of the plan.
"If God can do anything and forgive us without the incarnation, He could also had forgiven our ancestors without sacrifices…?"
He did on several occasions, and I've shown you which verses already. See also Ezekiel 18:23 and Isaiah 55:7 for forgiveness and repentance described with no mention of blood whatsoever.
"Yeshua is the Word of God who came in a human body and dwelt among us."
This is idolatry, sorry, and I'll have nothing to do with it. Why are you trying to seduce me into idolatry? You should be ashamed of yourself.
I also want to make a short and simple point regarding the idea that the "Brit Chadasha" is written on the hearts, in contrast to the purely legal "old covenant":
Jeremiah 31:32 says, "For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people."
Deuteronomy 30:14 says, "Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it."
Deuteronomy 29:8 makes it clear that the above verse refers to a covenant, "And you shall observe the words of this covenant and fulfill them, in order that you will succeed in all that you do."
Because in both instances the covenant was written on their heart, the only difference is that the Jews abandoned it the first time, but will not the second time, "And no longer shall one teach his neighbor..." (Jeremiah 31:33)
Shalom Yaniv.
You said "Yes, God is in everything, I agree with that."
So why can't you agree that the Word of God incarnated in a human body and dwelt among us?
"Don’t assume that something is not true just because the Tanakh doesn't say "It's not true."
So, you say that the Word of God cannot incarnate in a human body and you can't ground that in a single verse of the Tanakh, instead you need to try to ground that in Greek philosophy, and I'm the one committing avodah zarah? I, on the other hand, showed you many passages in the Tanakh where God appeared in human form, you however prefer to give more credit to Maimonides' Greek philosophy than to the word of God in the Tanakh.
The triune nature of God is present in the Tanakh and is even more revealed in the Brit Chadasha. If Yeshua is the Messiah, as He proved to be, then it is certain that He would bring deeper revelations about God to our Jewish people and to the world, as He indeed did, without contradicting anything in the Tanakh, but rather confirming it and throwing more light into it.
"And I've already shown you that your understanding of the Targum is as skewed as your view of the Tanakh is."
Sorry, but you didn't show anything. This is just not true.
"So you're saying that as long as the Tanakh is in Hebrew, the Gentiles cannot understand it, gain from it, or achieve salvation from it?"
When the Tanakh was written, koine Greek was not the universal language of the world, nor was it supposed to reach the Gentiles but the Jewish people. Nevertheless, in the second century before Yeshua, even the Tanakh was translated into koine Greek, so that the Gentiles could read it, and this was God already preparing the Gentiles to receive His Messiah Yeshua.
Sorry Yaniv, but I disagree with you that before the Brit Chadasha the law of God was inscribed in the hearts of our Jewish people, for if this were so He would not need to say that in the New Covenant He will inscribe His laws in their hearts, for they would already be inscribed there, unless you believe that there will be a new law in this New Covenant.
Regarding Deuteronomy 30:4, the words of God being in their hearts can mean that they were in their memory, just that.
Shavua tov!
Part 1:
Hello Daniel,
The reason I can't agree that the Word of God incarnated into a human body is as follows: God's being in everything is different than saying that God incarnated as a human being. God is "in me" just as He is "in Jesus". You're not saying that God is in Jesus, but that Jesus is God - that's very different! God is technically in tables, too, but that doesn't mean that God incarnated as a table, does it? And it doesn't mean that I can worship a specific table.
"...you say that the Word of God cannot incarnate in a human body and you can't ground that in a single verse of the Tanakh, instead you need to try to ground that in Greek philosophy..."
No, no no, Daniel, don't set up a straw man. This has nothing to do with Greek philosophy, but rather with a simple proposition, that you cannot assume that something is true only on the grounds that the Torah doesn't say "It's not true." For example, the Christian Scriptures do not say explicitly anywhere that "God is not four Persons," which would be a bad reason to believe that God is four Persons. Do you see that that's what you've done? By definition, the amount of things not said in both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures (and all texts, for that matter) far outnumbers the things that are said. Does that make sense?
I haven't scoured the entire Tanakh to find a verse that suits you, but reason that if indeed no such verse exists, not only does that not prove your contention, but that there may be a good reason for its absence. That reason may be that there was no need for God to disqualify such a proposition because nobody during the span of the Tanakh believed in a concept such as the Trinity. In fact, as you see, classic idolatry doesn't relate to God as different Persons, but rather only to the belief in several different gods. Similarly, the Tanakh as well does not explicitly disqualify pantheism, possibly because pantheism was not a known concept until relatively recently. God explicitly disqualifies ideas that were known (and rampant), such as classical polytheism and idolatry. The Trinity is an evolutionary stage of polytheism.
"...then it is certain that He would bring deeper revelations about God to our Jewish people and to the world..."
"Deeper" does not equal "contradictory," and you can't prove yourself to be something by fulfilling things that are not required in the first place. It's like looking to hire an employee that can write well and is good at marketing, and he tells you that he's an excellent golfer! He's looking for the wrong job! :)
Part 2:
"Sorry, but you didn't show anything (that your understanding of the Targum is as skewed as your view of the Tanakh is). This is just not true."
Of course we will disagree here, so I lay that point to rest.
"...even the Tanakh was translated into koine Greek, so that the Gentiles could read it..."
I understand, but this ignores that interaction with the Jews is what brings salvation to the Gentiles, not the ability to read the Tanakh in Hebrew. The Jews could speak the languages of the nations in which they lived, which is part of the reason for our countless exiles. Show me one place in the Tanakh indicating that the salvation of the Gentiles is based on their ability to read the Tanakh. The Muslims make this mistake, too, for the record. See the famous Isaiah 49, which refers to both Isaiah and Israel as "My servant," (the light to the nations) and not Jesus. Verse 10 indicates that the servant is Israel, saying "And foreigners shall build your walls". The foreigners shall build Jesus' walls? I thought Jesus was anti-wall and was into throwing stones down.
At the end of the day you're stuck with the fact that the majority of the world doesn't speak Greek anymore, but English, so the relevance of the revelation of the Christian Scriptures in Greek has expired. Should He keep updating His revelations ad infinitum?
Also, for example, when Jonah entered Nineveh, did he speak to the king in Hebrew or in Assyrian? Did Moses speak to the Pharoah in Hebrew or in Egyptian? The Torah doesn't say that the "Torah is a light to the nations," but rather that the "Jews are light to the nations". How? By teaching the Gentiles about God. This is clear. Take the famous account in the Talmud of the Gentile that approached Hillel and Shammai to convert to Judaism, which I'm pretty sure you know. This story highlights an interaction between a Gentile and Jew that led the Gentile to convert to Judaism. In that account Hillel expresses what it means for the Jews to be a light to the nations, i.e., to teach them. There is as well a famous account recorded in the Mishna Torah of a Muslim who interacted with Maimonides who converted to Judaism.
Also, for the record, if the salvation of the Gentiles is reliant on understanding the Tanakh, then they only need a Greek (or English, or whatever) translation of the Tanakh (and not the Christian Scriptures).
The translation of the Tanakh is also corrupt in some places so that it can be streamlined with the Christian Scriptures. Not to mention, the Christian Scriptures in some places also misquote the Tanakh, which is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog; some verses of the Tanakh are mistranslated to support Christian beliefs. What a mess!
Regarding what you said on July 3, 2023 at 5:12 PM, how do you understand "in your heart" to mean "in your memory"?
Shalom Yaniv! If God is in everything according to you, why can't He incarnate in a human body? What prevents Him from doing so? According to the Tanakh, God incarnated many times in a human body, as I showed you, and the Tanakh also says that the Messiah is God, as I showed you. Therefore, besides the fact that the Tanakh doesn't say that God cannot incarnate in a human body, it says that He will do it through the Messiah and that He did that many times in the Tanakh. Even if you wrongly say that the Tanakh doesn't explicitly says these things, you can understand that when the Messiah comes this will be more explicitly revealed, as it were with Yeshua.
In Isaiah 49:3-6, the Messiah receives the name of Israel, as Israel's representative leader, but by the verses 5 and 6 you can clearly see that this servant is not the Jewish people but the Messiah, because it says He would bring back to God Israel (Jacob), gather them to God and establish the tribes of Israel, besides being a light for the nations so that His salvation shall be until the end of the earth.
"And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength. And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth." Isaiah 49:5-6.
In Isaiah 49:8-9 it says that the Messiah will be a covenant to the Jewish people (therefore, Israel cannot be a covenant to Israel, but the Messiah can), and that He will set the prisoners free (something that the Messiah is supposed to do, and not Israel).
"So said the Lord, "In a time of favor I answered you, and on a day of salvation I helped you; and I will watch you, and give you as a covenant to the people, to establish a land, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages. To say to the prisoners, "Go out!" and to the darkness, "Show yourselves!" By the roads they shall graze, and by all rivers is their pasture." Isaiah 49:8-9.
You said regarding Isaiah 49: "Verse 10 indicates that the servant is Israel, saying "And foreigners shall build your walls". The foreigners shall build Jesus' walls? I thought Jesus was anti-wall and was into throwing stones down."
Isaiah 49:10 doesn't say that, but Isaiah 60:10.
You said "This story highlights an interaction between a Gentile and Jew that led the Gentile to convert to Judaism. In that account Hillel expresses what it means for the Jews to be a light to the nations, i.e., to teach them."
I know the story, but either way Hillel taught the Gentile in another language than Hebrew, for it says that Hillel taught him the Hebrew alphabet, so the Gentile didn't speak Hebrew or didn't know how to write in Hebrew. It is not possible for the Jewish people be a light to the nations teaching things to them in a language that they don't speak, that's why the Brit Chadasha was written in Koine Greek, so that all the nations could receive the teachings of the Jewish Messiah Yeshua in a language that they could understand. That's also why the Aramaic Targums were written in the synagogue, as well as the Septuagint was made by Jews.
I guess we just fundamentally disagree on how to read the text, which doesn't seem explicit to me.
We need to establish that in several places in Isaiah that God shifts between speech addressed at different people. I don't believe that as a rule that every instance of "servant" in Isaiah is Israel, which isn't supported by the text. Because I don't actually believe that, some of your points are correct, but I didn't make that contention in the first place.
You said that Isaiah 49:3-6 say that the Messiah receives the name of Israel, but you should realize that this is your interpretation. We can't treat the opinion of the Jewish commentators as if they're meaningless. Rashi says that this refers to Isaiah himself prophesying about the downfall of Babylon, which seems a legitimate approach as it benefited many people. You don't need to accept the Jewish approach, but you can't say that the Jews didn't actually believe that and that Rashi was trying to convince them otherwise.
The Malbim also says that this refers to the recipient of prophecy, and quotes Jeremiah 1:5 as a support, "When I had not yet formed you in the womb, I knew you, and when you had not yet emerged from the womb, I had appointed you; a prophet to the nations I made you."
While you can read verse 3 to say that God is referring to the recipient of this prophecy as "Israel," the text has no commas, and you can just as easily understand it to mean that God shifts His speech to Israel here, hence, "You are My servant, Israel," addressing Israel as in other chapters in Isaiah. I would say that this is a plainer reading than God referring to the Messiah as Israel. Also, why is God speaking to the Messiah when he isn't born yet? Why would that be embedded and scattered within the text?
In verse 4 apparently Jesus says, "Yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my deed is with my God." If Jesus is God, he cannot say that God is "my God." The standard explanation of the Trinity by most Evangelical Christians is that God is one Being and three Persons. Therefore they do not refer to other Persons as "their" God (in the possessive), but rather by their relationship to each other (Father, Son, Spirit). According to the Christian understanding of the Trinity this indicates that the speaker in verse 4 is not Jesus.
Verse 8 can be seen as addressed to the recipient of the prophecy and not Israel, correct, but the contents of this prophecy misalign with Jesus, whose coming does not usher in the establishment of the land or the inheritance of the desolate heritages. This is a reference to the Biblical (Tanakh) expectations of the coming of the Messiah.
You're right about my misquotation of Isaiah 49:10 instead of 60:10, but my question stands.
It's true that Hillel taught the Gentile in his own language, but that doesn't mean that the Torah needs to be written in other languages to be accessible to the nations - that seems to be something that God was not willing to do. Reason that some very central figures in the Torah probably spoke to Gentiles in their own languages even though the Torah is in Hebrew. For example, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses most likely spoke to the Gentiles they interacted with in their own languages, unless we assume that they understood Hebrew (which we shouldn't). We cannot use the language used to communicate between Jews and Gentiles as proof that the Torah needed to be revealed in a different language. It is the Gentiles that need to align themselves with the Torah and not the other way around.
Post a Comment