Did Dr. Brown Answer? You Decide!

This entry was posted in Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

239 Responses to Did Dr. Brown Answer? You Decide!

  1. edward says:

    torah:
    god said he is not a man or the son of man

    pagans:
    we found no image of god in the jewish temple

    christians:
    teach that the “loving” god punished the jews because they didn’t believe god is a dying man

  2. KAVI says:

    Edward,
    Your quote from Torah is incomplete,

    “G-d is not a man, that He should lie;
    Neither the son of man, that He should repent:

    When He hath said, will He not do it?
    Or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?”

    Believers of “The Way” are in full agreement with this text– When G-d makes a promise, He neither lies nor changes His mind [even if it takes a very long time to fulfill the promise].
    ____________________________

    Your comment also reminded me of Mottel Baleston.

    Mottel is a Jewish man who has a youtube video entitled, “How I Came To Faith In Messiah, Messianic Jewish Testimony.” [you can look it up–it’s only about 5-minutes long]

    When Mottel became a believer in “the Way”, he continued to love and respect his Father [who he affectionately calls “Pop”].

    I do not see Mottel hating his Dad [or anyone] who does not believe as he does– would your particular Faith allow you to do the same?

    • edward says:

      “Believers of “The Way” are in full agreement with this text– When G-d makes a promise, He neither lies nor changes His mind [even if it takes a very long time to fulfill the promise].”

      . one would ask,
      “from where is god deriving his abilities to not lie

      and to not change his mind?”

      where is this perfection coming from and why is god saying he is unique and unlike human being who is of the same genus as other human beings and not unique?

      pagans :
      we saw not form of god in the jewish temples

      christians:
      teach that the “loving” god punished the jews because they didn’t believe god is a dying man

      1. do you agree that the jews were punished because they punished god and did not believe god died because of their sins

      • KAVI says:

        Edward,
        There is a place where you ask,
        Question: “1. do you agree that the jews were punished because they punished god and did not believe god died because of their sins”

        Answer: “No”, I do not believe the Jews who crucified L-rd G-d Yeshua were punished for doing so. During His crucifixion, L-rd Yeshua says, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” [Luke 23]

        Note> Your question reminded me of another video of a Jewish man, Rich Freeman. He is someone who grew up in an antisemitic [“Christ Killer”] neighborhood and wanted nothing to do with Jesus.

        You might find entertaining [or annoying] Rich Freeman’s short, 6-minute video–

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwSdCEMs4cQ

        • edward says:

          “During His crucifixion, L-rd Yeshua says, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” [Luke 23]”

          1. did the father forgive them for crucifying another version of himself?
          2. in matthews version they clearly know what they are doing and both matthew and mark quote the psalms and in the psalm after “why have you forsaken me?” the psalmist goes on to attack his attackers, so logically jesus is verbally attacking his killers even while he is dying.

          look at lukes gospel and see for yourself how it blames the jews and paints a good picture of the gentiles.

          • KAVI says:

            Edward,
            Let’s look at your second question first [and I’ll separately respond to your other question later– though I’ll hint at it now].
            __________________________

            There are many people [including learned Rabbis] who do not believe Psalm 22 to be Messianic– and I think perhaps there’s even a writer on this site that goes by the name of “cflat7” who wrote a lengthy paper to express such an opinion on http://www.thejewishhome.org

            But, for the sake of discussion, let’s say Psalm 22 is Messianic [whether in parts or in whole].
            __________________________

            From the start, we would agree Yeshua only spoke one tiny portion of Psalm 22,
            “My G-d, My G-d, why have you forsaken me?”

            And as such, any conjecture beyond that statement is subject to rumor and speculation.

            Technically, we should stop here and end the conversation– but, theoretically and for the sake of argument, let’s continue.
            ___________________________

            By analogy,
            If someone brutally murdered your parents and children and somehow you found the ability to forgive them, would your forgiveness stop them from being a “murderer”? Would your forgiveness legally stop them being convicted and from being called a “murderer”?

            Would you find the Psalmist sinful?

            Isn’t G-d truthful?

            **Can G-d truthfully call a “spade a spade” and also not be sinful for doing so?**

            G-d called Israel a nation of WHORES.

            YET, we also find G-d is able to forgive Israel if they turn to the better “everlasting covenant” [Ezekiel 16]

            So, in Ezekiel 16 we see G-d can call a “spade a spade” and still offer a way to forgive.

            Likewise, assuming Psalm 22 is Messianic, G-d can call a “spade a spade” and still find a way to forgive those who tormented, mocked, and assisted in executing His Beloved Son Yeshua [Who is the Temunah of the Ancient of Days].

            “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” are L-rd Yeshua’s powerful, loving words of forgiveness.
            __________________________

          • edward says:

            quote:
            From the start, we would agree Yeshua only spoke one tiny portion of Psalm 22,
            “My G-d, My G-d, why have you forsaken me?”

            And as such, any conjecture beyond that statement is subject to rumor and speculation.
            end quote

            that marks crucifixion narrative is dependant on psalm 22 is not conjecture.

            quote:
            The substructure for the crucifixion in chapter 15 is, as all recognisable , Psalm 22, from which derive all the major details, including the implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24//Psalm 22:16b), the dividing of his garments and casting lots for them (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18), the “wagging heads” of the mockers (Mark 15:20//Psalm 22:7), and of course the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1). Matthew adds another quote, He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now if he desires him” (Matthew 7:43//Psalm 22:8)…
            end quote

            if we assume “prophecy fullfilled” then,
            it seems that crucified jesus was mocking the jews even when he was dying

            “G-d called Israel a nation of WHORES.”

            for not believing that he is a dying man?

            “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” are L-rd Yeshua’s powerful, loving words of forgiveness.”

            quote from the gospel of mark :
            33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land[e] until three in the afternoon. 34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[f] 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah.” 36 And someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 37 Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.

            no forgiveness here.
            where can you derive anything from the gospel of luke in the quote from mark?
            same for matthew and john.

            you still did not seem to answer my question

            did the father punish the jews for not believing that god was a dying man?

          • KAVI says:

            Edward,
            I tried to answer your questions regarding Psalm 22 on a theoretical level.

            But you did not answer any of my questions– so I will ask again, but a bit more directly.
            _____________________________

            In Psalm 22, can you explain why you think David mocks anyone?

            If you believe so– are you saying David is sinning?

            Is G-d sinning when He calls Israel a nation of “whores”?

            Can G-d forgive even if He uses such harsh language against His people?

            If you answer these questions, wouldn’t your own be answered?

            ___________________________

            PS> I will respond to your other thoughts in due time.

          • edward says:

            “In Psalm 22, can you explain why you think David mocks anyone?
            If you believe so– are you saying David is sinning?”

            so there is no insult or mockery in calling oppressors bulls, lions and dogs ?
            where in psalm 22 is david seeking forgiveness for the dogs, bulls and lions?

            where is your evidence that yeshuwa sought forgiveness for the bulls, lions and dogs according to the gospel of mark ?

          • edward says:

            and you have a prayer against the enemies in psalm 109
            you tell me how you know your god sought forgiveness for his enemies when what we have are writers who couldn’t agree what his last words were ?

          • KAVI says:

            Edward,
            May I ask what branch of Judaism you have adopted?

            **It seems you found David sinful in Psalm 22.

            **It now looks like you wish to find David sinful in Psalm 109?

            **And are you saying G-d was sinful when calling Israel “whores” in Ezekiel 16?

            Please clarify.
            _______________________

        • edward says:

          “And as such, any conjecture beyond that statement is subject to rumor and speculation.”

          it is alright for the writer of luke to put words into jesus’ mouth “father forgive them…” but when i say jesus was mocking his killers on the cross you call it “speculation”

          isn’t it the christians who smash all the gospel accounts together and say jesus was suffering from multi personality disorder ?

          one minute he asks why his god forsook him the next….

          so if you guys can speculate and assume that mark left out “father forgive them….”, then i can speculate and say that jesus questioned his father and then proceeded to to mock the onlookers even though mark does not mention it.

      • edward says:

        Answer: “No”, I do not believe the Jews who crucified L-rd G-d Yeshua were punished for doing so. During His crucifixion, L-rd Yeshua says, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” [Luke 23]”

        the religious authorities who knew the torah said that jesus committed blasphemy.
        supposing that blasphemy implies claiming to be god, what does the torah say about blasphemers?

        your god jesus says about the jewish rejectors:

        jesus tells a parable in which god is portrayed as burning the city and killing its inhabitants (22:8)

        we are not told in luke that the father forgave “christ killers”

        my point is

        if the father knew that their is no image of him/no picture of him and in the jewish temple their is no body of a man /christian idol hanging off cross, why have jews use his law to kill him and then curse and punish for not accepting god existing as a human being ?

        this is an evil and deceptive god, right?

      • edward says:

        “Answer: “No”, I do not believe the Jews who crucified L-rd G-d Yeshua were punished for doing so. During His crucifixion, L-rd Yeshua says, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” [Luke 23]”

        “during his crucifixion” ? i will ask again

        DID god PUNISH the jews for not BELIEVING that god was a DYING man?
        did god punish the jews for not believing that god came back to life?

    • edward says:

      i may be overthinking this but i see that your beliefs are not making sense

      you say that god can become WEAK

      god in numbers say he is not WEAK like a human being because human weakness is that it changes it mind

      but humans don’t only lie and change their minds they have a number of other weakness

      you ALLOW all weakness for god , but you need to make sure he is not allowed to change his mind and lie

      what is this?

  3. Eleazar says:

    ““G-d is not a man, that He should lie;
    Neither the son of man, that He should repent:

    When He hath said, will He not do it?
    Or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?”

    How does that change anything? Does the second part mean that indeed, God IS a man, in contradiction to the first part? How?

    • KAVI says:

      Eleazar,
      This Scripture is an example of Hebrew parallel poetry where we are unable to separate the thoughts into distinct parts. Here, the couplets reinforce and emphasize one another to form a single unit of thought.

      I am not enough of a scholar to describe it better– but if it helps, the online “Jewish Encyclopedia” has an article entitled “Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry.”
      ___________________

      In context, Balak wanted Balaam to curse Israel and offered him massive fortune to achieve that result. But, unlike men, G-d can neither deceive His people with prophetic lies nor be bribed to relent from His promise to bring Israel into the Promised Land.

      Rashi comments regarding Number 23:19,
      “God is not a man that He should lie:” He has already promised them to bring them to and give them possession of the land of the seven nations, and you expect to kill them in the desert?- [See Mid. Tanchuma Mass’ei 7, Num. Rabbah 23:8]

      “Would He say”…: Heb. הַהוּא. This is in the form of a question. And the Targum [Onkelos] renders,“who later relent.” They reconsider and change their minds.

      Note: To verify, please visit the chabad website where you will find Rashi’s comments are copied verbatim.

  4. Eleazar says:

    Not even sure why you posted all that. it doesn’t change anything. Once again, does that change the fact that the plain meaning says God is not a man? No it doesn’t. So quote all the Rashi you want. In the end the Tanakh plainly says God is not a man, period, regardless of which of man’s human/mortal tendencies is being discussed.

    Look, if I were to say “Man is not a dog that he gnaws on bones”, do you then point to the second part and say “The text is saying man does not gnaw on bones”? So because the point is that man does not gnaw on bones somehow nullify the first part that says man is not a dog? Are you saying “Hey, since this is only about gnawing on bones, man can still be a dog!”

    Have you any common sense whatsoever?

    • KAVI says:

      Eleazar,
      I am sorry– it looks like I misunderstood your questions.

      If you saying that G-d cannot be a man– I agree, L-rd Yeshua was not created like Adam– He was more than a mere man.

      If you are saying that G-d cannot be a son of man– I also agree, L-rd Yeshua was not birthed like the sons of Adam.

      These concepts can be referenced from the first three chapters of Genesis and elsewhere in the Tanakh.

      • KAVI says:

        Hmmm. . . it’s late at night and I’m tired– but I looked over my previous note and the word “procreate” would be more far more clear than the word “birth”😦

        So, if you could grant me a kindness to re-write a better version,
        ____________________________

        [] I agree that G-d cannot be “just” a man– L-rd Yeshua was not created like Adam.

        [] I agree that G-d cannot be a son of man– L-rd Yeshua was not procreated like the sons of Adam.

        [] L-rd Yeshua is neither like Adam nor his sons– rather, L-rd Yeshua is uniquely G-d and yet man.

        Note> Although Numbers 23 does not truly reference the L-rd Yeshua’s essential being, verse 19 does present an opportunity to examine the more direct concepts found in the first three chapters of Genesis and elsewhere in the Tanakh.

        • Brother Kavi, when you put “L-rd” in front of Yeshua, do you mean Yeshua Is the lord (master) or LORD (Adonai, HaShem)? There are two different pronounciations
          of “Adonai” in Tanakh: one to indicate human master, and the other to indicate only HaShem. you know that, right? And when the New Testament says Yeshua is the lord, it means not Hashem, but means “Master.”

          • KAVI says:

            Gean Guk Jeon,
            When I write “L-rd Yeshua”, the purpose is to convey that Yeshua is G-d’s Son [that is, the Temunah of the Ancient of Days.]

            L-rd Yeshua is the one that supped with Abraham and spoke with Moses spoke “face to face”.

            PS> I do not believe in Modalism or Sabellianism.

            Hope this helps!

          • Thanks Kavi. The “lordship” has been given by God to Yeshua after he was resurrected by God. (Acts2:36, Matthew 28:18, Philippians 2:11) so that God would be glorified and Yeshua would exercise the authority. I think it is not right to say that Lord Yeshua is the same one who spoke with Moshe. Rather Hashem spoke with Moshe through His Word-the Logos-the preincarnated being of Yeshua.
            Please let us remember the Renewed Covenant (New Testament) never say Yeshua is God or Yeshua is L-rd, but it always says Yeshua is son, wisdom, word, image, power of God. and Yeshua became lord-master-who became charge of all things except LORD!! —
            1 Corinthians15:27-28 “for HE (L-rd) has put all things under his (Yeshua) feet. But when HE says all things are put under him, it is manifest that HE is excepted, who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself subject unto HIM that put all things under him, that GOD may be all in all.”

      • edward says:

        “If you saying that G-d cannot be a man– I agree, L-rd Yeshua was not created like Adam– He was more than a mere man.

        If you are saying that G-d cannot be a son of man– I also agree, L-rd Yeshua was not birthed like the sons of Adam.”

        if your god became a mere man then he is only able to lie and change his mind?
        so then is your “lord” different than god who became mere man?

        • Eleazar says:

          These are the “two tracks” that trinitarians jump between. They say Jesus was “all man and all God”, yet if you point to the fact that God said He is not a man, they will diminish Jesus’ humanity in favor of His divinity and say Jesus was not a “mere” man. What other kind of man is there that is still “all man”? If Jesus was “more than a mere man” then he was not a man at all, but some other species.

          Man is defined by both his abilities and his limitations. God has no human limitations; Jesus did. Man has no divine omniscience, God does. Man is finite, God is infinite. A living thing cannot be “entirely infinite and entirely finite” at the same time.

          • edward says:

            about 2 months ago i had made inquiry on this issue

            the reply was:

            Response:
            Excellent questions.
            In order for Jesus to be “fully human” Jesus must learn and grow in knowledge.
            For the baby Jesus to know all there is to know about astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, antomy, algebra, calculus, geometry, statistics, probability, logic, sociology, psychology, philosophy, theology, history, music, art, horticulture, medicine, law, engineering, and also know all there is to know about blackjack, poker, gin rummy, go fish, cribbage, basketball, baseball, football, soccer, volleyball, tennis, bowling, darts, checkers, chess, dominoes, backgammon, monopoly, battleship, mastermind, jenga, mancala, bingo, and all about every language including english, french, german, spanish, italian, japanese, chinese, greek, hebrew, latin, etc., then baby Jesus would be a FREAK and not anything like an ordinary human being. Thus, Jesus, must learn and grow in knowledge.
            But God is omniscient and cannot gain any more knowledge, so God cannot grow in knowledge. But Jesus “is God”, so Jesus MUST be omniscient, but then that means Jesus cannot gain any more knowledge, so Jesus cannot grow in knowledge. But then the baby Jesus must have been a freak, a creature totally different from any other ordinary human baby. So, Jesus was not “fully human”.
            An omniscient person cannot be fully human. So, either Jesus was God and was omniscient, and was NOT fully human, or else Jesus was fully human and was NOT omniscient, and thus was NOT God.

          • edward says:

            What can an omniscient G-d “learn by experience”?
            [] In a body, He experienced fatigue, hunger, thirst, etc.
            [] In a body, He experienced and overcame the temptations common to mankind.
            [] In a body, He became subject to the Law and overcame disobedience.
            [] In a body, He experienced death at the hands of His beloved creations.

            All these things L-rd Yeshua learned to overcome by experience and, as a result, is able to take on the role of a kinsmen redeemer [a concept not foreign to the Tanakh].
            __________________________

            you need to appreciate this human body more than the invisible god because you see your god going through improvements. many christians say, “god left his powers and came to earth as a human”

            this is indicating that their attachment is with the weak human body.
            you are saying that the almighty dethroned himself of his powers and became finite. christian relationship and feeling of ease in heart is with this human being who hangs of crosses.

            since you can have the almighty going from point a to point b , why not think of any other mortal and Divinize it ?

        • KAVI says:

          Edward,
          I did not realize you made a similar inquiry 2-months ago– so, without knowing what the questions may have been, I hope the following may be of some assistance.
          ______________________________

          The concept that G-d could take on human flesh is not impossible.

          [] A person can worship G-d without worshipping the tabernacle.
          [] A person can worship G-d without worshipping the temple.

          Likewise, a person can worship G-d, L-rd Yeshua, without worshipping the physical body He temporarily tabernacled within.
          _________________________

          What can an omniscient G-d “learn by experience”?
          [] In a body, He experienced fatigue, hunger, thirst, etc.
          [] In a body, He experienced and overcame the temptations common to mankind.
          [] In a body, He became subject to the Law and overcame disobedience.
          [] In a body, He experienced death at the hands of His beloved creations.

          All these things L-rd Yeshua learned to overcome by experience and, as a result, is able to take on the role of a kinsmen redeemer [a concept not foreign to the Tanakh].
          __________________________

          The Redeemer was promised by G-d ever since mankind fell into sin in Gan Eden– the Law of Moses never changed G-d’s original promise [for G-d does not lie nor repent of His promises].

          • edward says:

            “The concept that G-d could take on human flesh is not impossible.

            [] A person can worship G-d without worshipping the tabernacle.
            [] A person can worship G-d without worshipping the temple.

            Likewise, a person can worship G-d, L-rd Yeshua, without worshipping the physical body He temporarily tabernacled within.”

            this is similar to saying that one can worship vishnu without worshipping the physical idol.

            are you saying now that jesus the god remained complete separate from the human being?

            i thought both natures were united in one body and the divine son was fully experiencing humanity?

            “What can an omniscient G-d “learn by experience”?
            [] In a body, He experienced fatigue, hunger, thirst, etc.
            [] In a body, He experienced and overcame the temptations common to mankind.
            [] In a body, He became subject to the Law and overcame disobedience.
            [] In a body, He experienced death at the hands of His beloved creations.

            All these things L-rd Yeshua learned to overcome by experience and, as a result, is able to take on the role of a kinsmen redeemer [a concept not foreign to the Tanakh].”

            so now you are saying that god experienced your list above. then why not worship the body because it is god who is EXPERIENCING what you listed above?

            “__________________________

            The Redeemer was promised by G-d ever since mankind fell into sin in Gan Eden– the Law of Moses never changed G-d’s original promise [for G-d does not lie nor repent of His promises].”

            you mean god promised himself ?

          • edward says:

            “The Redeemer was promised by G-d ever since mankind fell into sin in Gan Eden– the Law of Moses never changed G-d’s original promise [for G-d does not lie nor repent of His promises].”

            was god promising himself?
            was empty god promising himself
            was god promising a human body?
            was god promising sacrifice of a costume which wasn’t really god?

          • CP says:

            @Edward and Kavi

            Hope you don’t mind a interjection.

            I think most everyone misses the fact that this issue is a mystery because Yeshua said; ‘no one knows the son except the Father’.

            Therefore the real contradiction are those who claim to follow Jesus but don’t believe his words. Who claim they have it figured out, yet when pressed, ultimately claim it is a mystery which cannot be understood.
            ???
            “Just sayin”

          • edward says:

            “What can an omniscient G-d “learn by experience”?
            [] In a body, He experienced fatigue, hunger, thirst, etc.
            [] In a body, He experienced and overcame the temptations common to mankind.
            [] In a body, He became subject to the Law and overcame disobedience.
            [] In a body, He experienced death at the hands of His beloved creations.”

            “in a body”

            already you create a need for a god
            he needs a body to experience “mrsgren”

            http://basicbiology.net/biology-101/mrs-gren/

            and you say the divine is united with “mrsgren”

            what do we call a god united with human flesh?

            what is worse is that you christians don’t even believe it is a costume but god as a conscious person who thinks, learns and has feelings.

            this begs the question

            why not worship the body?

          • KAVI says:

            Edward,
            To assist in answering, we should probably quote your comment,
            “god in numbers say he is not WEAK like a human being because human weakness is that it changes it mind”
            “but humans don’t only lie and change their minds they have a number of other weakness”
            “you ALLOW all weakness for god , but you need to make sure he is not allowed to change his mind and lie”
            _____________________
            [a] Numbers 23 – Base
            — The text of Numbers 23 does not refer to G-d’s weakness– the word “weak” doesn’t appear in verse 19
            — The text does say that G-d does not sin like mankind [i.e., deceive and renege on promises]
            — Rashi likewise says that verse 19 deals only with G-d’s promise to lead Israel into the Land

            The text goes no further than G-d stating that He does not sin like mankind– anything beyond that statement would be “adding” to the Scripture.

            ______________________
            [b] Numbers 23 – Extension
            — Although Numbers 23 is not about whether G-d can “be” a man, we still can apply its concepts of sin by asking– “Did L-rd Yeshua sin like man?”

            Answer: If you believe L-rd Yeshua is G-d according to what Moses and the Prophets teach, the answer is “no”– and otherwise, “yes”.

            _____________________________
            [c] Can G-d take on human flesh?

            Answer: “Yes”, Because there is no sin in doing so. For example, Adam/Chava were sinless at their creation.

            ___________________________
            [d] Can G-d “diminish” Himself?

            Answer: “Yes”, G-d often does because it is not sinful to do so.

            >> [Psalm 113] “Who is like the L-RD our G-d,
            Who is enthroned on high,
            Who humbles Himself to behold
            The things that are in heaven and in the earth?”

            >> [Psalm 8] “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
            What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?”

            >> Why does G-d lower Himself to grieve over mankind’s debauched sinful state? “And it repented the L-RD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.” [Genesis 6]

            >> Why does G-d allow Himself to suffer intense emotional pain over Israel’s treacherous disobedience to Him?
            [Hosea 11] “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I surrender thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? My heart is turned within Me, My compassions are kindled together.”

            >> Why does a Sovereign G-d humble Himself to dwell in a Tabernacle among sinful mankind? And do we truly know “how” He dwelt therein?
            [2 Samuel 7] “For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle.”

            After all His humiliation at the hands of mankind, why couldn’t the Ancient of Days further humble Himself and send His Word, L-rd G-d Yeshua, to likewise humble Himself by pitching a “tent”/tabernacle in an earthly body and dwelling among sinful men?

            After all His suffering in Heaven, why couldn’t L-rd Yeshua descend from His Heavenly Throne and suffer even to the point of allowing mankind to torment and temporarily put to death His bodily “tent”/tabernacle?

            Why does G-d diminish Himself with such great humiliation and suffering at the evil hands of mankind?
            — To keep His Genesis promise of a Redeemer to mankind
            — To keep His Genesis promise that His Redeemer must inevitably suffer to overcome sin
            — And to show the great depths of His mercy and grace– The price of redemption cost G-d a great deal to redeem and make holy the souls of debauched, sinful men and women

          • edward says:

            “The text goes no further than G-d stating that He does not sin like mankind– anything beyond that statement would be “adding” to the Scripture.”

            so it allows human worshippers like you to add

            1. ability to sin when “lord yeshua” was being tempted. so got was thinking like human beings
            2. experience human feelings
            3. diminish himself by becoming a diminished god
            4. humbled
            5.grieves when things go wrong
            6. REPENTS
            7. dwells in finite places just like all other pagan gods and has to become finite
            8. gets HUMILIated
            9. knows human have worshipped human beings in the past so decides to
            “pitching a ‘tent’/tabernacle in an earthly body”
            10. “suffered ” in heaven and then decides to punish himself in the depths of hell even when his self was separated from his “tent”
            11. in past required one to obey the laws and rituals now you just need to carry the tool/instrument which nailed him
            12. god is so powerful and fully in control of heavens and earth yet
            “G-d diminish Himself with such great humiliation and suffering at the evil hands of mankind”

            notice how christians can go beyond what the text says?

      • LarryB says:

        Kari
        “If you are saying that G-d cannot be a son of man– I also agree, L-rd Yeshua was not birthed like the sons of Adam.”
        Humor me then, how was he birthed, if not in the usual way. From what I can find the word born, born is used many times. Nothing unusual here that I can find.

        • KAVI says:

          LarryB,
          Yes, it looks like you saw my first post rather than the one immediately after where I used the word “procreated” rather than “birthed”.

          My better post read,
          [] I agree that G-d cannot be “just” a man– L-rd Yeshua was not created like Adam.
          [] I agree that G-d cannot be a son of man– L-rd Yeshua was not procreated like the sons of Adam.
          [] L-rd Yeshua is neither like Adam nor his sons– rather, L-rd Yeshua is uniquely G-d and yet man.

          Sometimes blogging when you super tired at 1:00am is not the best idea😦

          • LarryB says:

            Kavi…
            You believe he is not a son of man yet he calls himself “son of man”, how many times?
            If I was new to religion and you were a preacher and I heard you talk like that, I would run.

          • KAVI says:

            LarryB,
            Your right in a way– the concept that G-d could tabernacle in a human body can be completely offensive to those who are looking for a “mere” human redeemer rather than the One spoken of by Moses and the Prophets.

            The “Son of Man” was not procreated like “sons of men”

            _______________________________

          • LarryB says:

            Kavi
            You avoid the contradiction, and your reliance on buzz words is your weakness. The J man calling himself the son of man does not offend me at the least but it is a problem for you.

      • LarryB says:

        Kavi..
        “If you are saying that G-d cannot be a son of man– I also agree, L-rd Yeshua was not birthed like the sons of Adam.”
        Humor me then, how was he birthed, if not in the usual way. From what I can find the word born, born is used many times. Nothing unusual here that I can find.
        Reply
        Sorry for the double post

        • LarryB says:

          I give up, it won’t go where it’s supposed to

          • edward says:

            “he was not birthed like the sons of adam”

            there are gods in pagan religions who were not birthed at all
            some gods just appeared as fully grown men out of nowhere.

            christian belief is based on very flimsy thought

    • Brother Eleazar, i always become attentive to your amazing about God – man logic. However, I wish you could build your logics from the New Testament. Where does it say that Jesus is God? or God-man? I know the Tanakh says “God is my Yeshua”

      • LarryB says:

        Gean Guk Jeon
        ” God is my Yeshua”. I must of missed that one. Where is it? And please for once don’t go changing the text to fit your belief.

          • LarryB says:

            Gean Guk
            “God is my Yesuah”. You point to Isaiah 12:2

            Hers is Isaiah 12:2 from chabad
            2Here is the God of my salvation, I shall trust and not fear; for the strength and praise of the Eternal the Lord was my salvation.”

            Let’s back track, where is the first time the word lord is used in the Torah, And where is the first time is the word Yeshua used for the first time? How many years between the words, lord and Yesuah, are they used for the first time?

          • Brother Larry. i am a little suspicious of the translation of chabad. More literal translation of the Hebrew is, i think, El Yeshuati= God is my yeshua. And i am sorry i am not a quickly understanding person, so what is your question on the second part of your comments?

          • CP says:

            @LarryB

            Hope you don’t mind me jumping in here, but the word “lord” never appears in Torah. It does appear in English translations of the Torah and the meaning is totally dependant on context or tradition. It can mean master or sir, it can mean god or God, or it be a substitution for Hashem.

            To be frank, “lord” doesn’t mean much when compared to “Yeshuah” because the latter is a combination of the Tetragrammaton and the Hebrew word for salvation while the former is more of a title.

            Btw, Yes! my great grandmother is from Rzeszow Poland, her last name was Bryznk.

          • LarryB says:

            CP
            “the word “lord” never appears in Torah.” ?
            Every version of the bible I own has the word lord.
            I am so angry I am about to explode.

          • CP says:

            LarryB,

            Look for the pressure relief valve, don’t explode!

            Genesis 15:2 is the first use of the word “Lord”.
            Genesis 18:13 is the first use of the word “lord”

            The other “LORD” s are substitutions due to the tradition of protecting Ha shem

            Larry, all I’m saying is in English translations the word lord gets its meaning from the context.

          • LarryB says:

            CP
            Does the Torah use the word lord or not? First you say it does, now you say it does not. I’m ready to burn my bibles.

          • CP says:

            LarryB,

            Put the matches away,
            However when you realize “LORD” is a latter substitution and invention by translators for the Name of God, you may still want to burn your translation!
            Honestly, I wouldn’t burn your bible but it does cause a lot of misunderstanding, however it does protect The Name, so I’m kinda 50/50 on the tradition.

          • Brother CP, the word “Adonai”, doesnt it have meaning more than title or protecting substitution? Like HE OWNS the whole universe? thanks for your intuition and keen observation.

          • LarryB says:

            CP
            The two Genesis you posted, what name is in the Torah where someone put lord?
            Why would chabad do the same thing?

          • LarryB says:

            Gean Guk
            First you said “the tanka says God is my Yesuah”
            Then you said.
            “More literal translation of the Hebrew is, i think, El Yeshuati= God is my yeshua. ”
            Please give me the word for word quote from your bible, and which bible you are quoting.
            That way I can check your answer.

          • LarryB says:

            CP
            So, you are a fellow pollock. That explains a lot. You know, those polish jokes are there for a reason.🙂

          • CP says:

            @LarryB & Gean Guk Jeon,

            Since not all translations of the Tanach handle the NAME of God the same and not knowing what translations you are using. The best thing for me to do is direct you to your individual Bibles. In the front should be a preface or forward explaining how your individual Bible/Tanach translates God’s NAME.

            For example a typical method is:
            lord = sir or master
            Lord = Adonai
            LORD = Hashem

      • edward says:

        “That being the case, why is the agent interchangeable with G-d in so many verses?”

        hello gean
        are you from china?
        do you know any non-christians in china who do not know about incarnations and trinity?

        if yes, can you show them the verses about “angel of the lord” and see if they can see trinity or god as god but as his representative?

        i would love to know study on this

        • brother Edward. I am a Korean. ^^ I believe that We as the people of God must believe every single jot and stroke in the Bible were all inspired by God who has intention on all letters and grammars at they are on the text. Old Covenant (Tanakh) says God is my yeshua, whereas in the Renewed Covenant (New Testament), yeshua never said he was God. Christianity and Judaism worship same ONE TRUE GOD whose name is יהוה

  5. CP says:

    R’B

    Great job on the video, I enjoyed it very much, thank you.

    You did ask the viewers some questions I assume were not rhetorical. As a viewer I would like to answer some as time permits.

    You’re prerequisite was to disregard the interpretations of Christian theologians and Rabbis, so along those lines I will do my best.

    Your first question about Zechariah 6:
    (The temple builder vs vicarious atonement).

    * obviously “vicarious atonement” is not mentioned and I agree, the messiah is foretold as one who builds the Temple. However as a Jew during those times I would naturally equate a new Temple as a new or restored means to atonement through sacrifice. Therefore atonement is indirectly addressed in this passage.

    Question #2
    Genesis 18, Exodus 24 and Numbers 12.

    *These are exceptional passages to us today. I don’t know if they would be to a Hebrew back in the day. Since they didn’t yet have a highly developed view of God they would expect Him to take form when He deemed it appropriate. Although they were disciplined for assigning God a form, that’s not the same thing as God doing it, but once someone adds a hedge around it, it becomes the same thing in the minds of men. This side of olam haba we will never know exactly what God did in these instances where he was supposedly “seen” but it does crack the door open to others claiming they saw God. Those (ancient & modern) systematic theology minded need to find a way to reconcile this with ‘no one has ever seen God’. This is the freshly tilled ground in which the God-man is planted.

    Question #3 & #4
    (Levitical sacrifices pointing to something) & (Leviticus 16)

    * I know of nowhere in the Tanach where it says they point to something. But it begs the question; What if there is no Israel, no Jerusalem, no Temple, no priest, no sacrifice? Sure there is repentance and turning toward Jerusalem, but I think one would still ponder; Will God provide a interim solution?
    Which I think God did 40 years earlier in the unrighteous death of a Completed Tzaddik anointed for this purpose.

  6. LarryB says:

    A great article About Dr Brown, the video of his buddy Benny Hinn is priceless.
    http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/03/02/charismatic-gullibility-dr-michael-brown-and-discernment/
    This is what can happen when you add your theology to gods words.

  7. CP says:

    After spending some time reading through the above discourse between Dr Brown and R’b Blumenthal, after watching the included Dr Brown video on Isaiah 53 and R’b Blumenthal’s video response, I must say the Dr Brown video on Isaiah 53 was fair showing multiple accepted interpretations of Isaiah 53. The comparision and contrasting on the multiple accepted views of Isaiah 53, in my opinion is what makes the ‘individual servant’ interpretation so devastating to the other interpretations. At the very least, it qualifies it as acceptable Judaic/Rabbanic midrash.

    After watching the video, sure, someone can say they think it refers to National Israel, but what they CAN’T say is; ‘there is no possiblity it refers to a Individual such as a Messiah’.

    And I think R’b Blumenthal should at least admit that much, even if he holds the National Israel view.

    In other words: At the very least; Dr Brown has proved his view as a valid competing view. At this juncture R’b Blunenthal doesn’t have to prove his view, he has to prove why Dr Brown’s view is unsustainable.

    I don’t think this can be done

      • CP says:

        @eflat,

        A total of 85 PDF pages!!! Isn’t that kind of a red flag when it takes 85 pages to refute something fairly simple? I’ll definitely take a look, but it’s going to take a bit to work through all of it!

        Thank you for the Jewish home link, lots of different topics to explore!

    • CP Can you please read the articles I wrote on Isaiah 53 starting with Contra Brown? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • CP says:

        Dear R’ Blumenthal,

        With the deepest sincerity and the utmost respect, you are an intelligent, educated and wise man.
        I know that you know full well where your arguments are weakest and where they are the strongest.
        I’ve read through much material on many sites and am so So SO tired of wading through reams of material only to find halfway through it a intellectually dishonest twist or private interpretation has been introduced.

        Can you please just point to where your argument is strongest and say “it is right here in this (these) verse(s)”

        It doesn’t have to be long, complicated or involved. I much prefer a simple straightforward answer.

        By now I’m sure you know my view:
        • Unitarian
        • Atonement of a the death of a completed Tzaddik
        • Fulfilling the concept Mashiach Ben Yoseph

        Is this view incompatible with Judaism?

        If not, excatly how and where according to Tanach?

        Thank for your consideration

        • CP
          What is Judaism? Judaism is acceptance of the testimony that God planted in His nation (Psalm 78:5) – not picking and choosing

          • CP says:

            R’B

            Respectfully, I’m not a Rabbi, but it appears the testimony Psalm 78:5 is speaking of starts in verse 12 and goes to verse 72.

            Having such a testimony from our fathers encourages us to keep Hashem’s Law.

          • CP The testimony is the national experience and the teaching imparted to Israel by Moses – and you don’t have to be a Rabbi to disagree with me – if you think I am wrong please say so

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Concerned Reader says:

        1. ability to sin when “lord yeshua” was being tempted. so got was thinking like human beings

        Does G-d not get tempted?

        “I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. “LORD,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people.

        In Exodus 32:9-12 Moses essentially has to convince Hashem not to burn with anger against his people to destroy them. Its as though Moses is speaking to a human person who is overly emotional, and has to say, “do you really want to have brought your people out just to kill them all?”

        2. experience human feelings

        See above.

        Vengeance, anger, swaying emotions and mood, G-d exhibits all of these features. Even if its understood by all interpreters (both Jewish and Christian) in a hyperbolic sense, the net effect of G-d appearing to be similar to an upset human being is the same.

        Recall that Abraham had to convince G-d to allow him to find some righteous people in Sodom. A man had to convince the creator himself to do the right thing by allowing for the possibility that someone righteous may be found.

        3. diminish himself by becoming a diminished god

        If by a diminished G-d you mean that G-d can occupy a space with his presence, the burning bush, the pillar of cloud, various agents who bear his authority, and the prophetic visions all demonstrate that G-d is able to express his will through finite phenomenon.

        Saadia Gaon was so opposed to anthropomorphism that he ended up creating his own notion that was not dissimilar from Philo’s logos.

        He called it the Kavod Nivra, “created glory.” Saadia simply couldn’t handle the plain meaning of the stories like the burning bush where it says plainly that G-d spoke through a corporeal natural phenomenon, so he created a kind of angelic spiritual intermediate creation to facilitate prophecy.

        Also, there were thinkers who disagreed with the view that G-d had to always be incorporeal.

        4. humbled Ever read the story of the Aknai oven where hashem’s ruling is overturned by the rabbis? A G-d who gave a Torah that says “it is not in heaven,” is a humble G-d.

        5.grieves when things go wrong

        Genesis 6:6
        וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם
        Hashem is dismayed that he made man on the earth.

        6. REPENTS G-d turns back negative decrees all the time, IE changes his mind not to punish.

        7. dwells in finite places just like all other pagan gods and has to become finite.

        First of all, Pagan is just a word used by monotheists to differentiate themselves artificially from other nations. Sacrificing animals is just as “pagan” in Judaism as it is in any of the other millions of faith systems that practice it.

        What is one thing we could all together agree is a Pagan practice? Ancestor worship perhaps? Every culture (including Jewish culture) honors the custom of going to the graves of righteous men to pray so they can be introspective about life. In Buddhism for example, Therevada Buddhists do not consider Buddha divine, or believe in a final judgement. This does not stop them from building graves and monuments to their great teachers. Jews do the same.

        The Torah by itself gives evidence of G-d acting through finite phenomena, and he has no issues with it. I call it the sock puppet phenomenon. IE Judges chapter 6 or the episode with the angel in the burning bush.

        Whether G-d actually becomes finite by nature is totally irrelevant, because its absolutely clear as crystal from scripture that G-d has no problem using a finite vessel to express his infinite will and to show his infinite power. He also has no problem requiring humans to have faith through another human being who is designated as his agent/vessel.

        Incarnation is just a Christian vernacular term that explains how the infinite G-d interacts with a finite world in terms of their theology. Even the Christians themselves draw a distinction between the divine and human nature, and say they are united, but not confused.

        9. knows human have worshipped human beings in the past so decides to
        “pitching a ‘tent’/tabernacle in an earthly body”

        What is a neshama Edward? Is it not hashem’s breath? The goal of creation (metaphorically according to the rabbis themselves,) is to make this world a dwelling place for Hashem.

        Here’s the overall point Edward. I realize that you are poking fun at Kavi, and at the Christians beliefs, but consider carefully that there is not one idea that they believe in that you cannot also find in the Aggadic Midrash, or in some second temple source, or in the Zohar. Its all there, in some form or other.

        Judaism does have a messianic figure who dies, whose death serves as a vehicle for repentance.

        Second temple works like the Parables of Enoch did speak of a heavenly messianic figure, (at least in terms of the soul of the messiah.) The Ebionites who believed Jesus was a complete man, still believed he had an angelic soul.

        I’m not trying to be intentionally harsh, but I’m saying that the line between these religions is not as clear cut when you take into account ALL the available evidence, and don’t limit yourself to what one group considers the authentic information, excluding all others.

        Christianity did not form in a Vacuum, and neither have the later messianic movements from within Judaism that came later.

        While I agree with you, and with rabbi B that the views of the Christians are not correct, I can see where it comes from without having to blame “pagans” for any of it. Jews are just as capable of believing crazy things from their own books and traditions without recourse to polytheists.

        • CP says:

          @Concerned Reader,

          Excellent!
          If your post was a ball in a pinball machine, it rang every bell and bonus point option!

          Btw, where do you get your info on the Ebionites? I’ve been able to find only scant information on them.

          Thanks for the great post, it was a joy to read that Othrodox Judaism is not as narrow as some purport.

        • edward says:

          you wrote :

          Here’s the overall point Edward. I realize that you are poking fun at Kavi, and at the Christians beliefs, but consider carefully that there is not one idea that they believe in that you cannot also find in the Aggadic Midrash, or in some second temple source, or in the Zohar. Its all there, in some form or other.

          i’m not even jewish.

          but you have demonstrated one thing. if your interpretation is correct, then gods of both the torah and nt seem to be human beings.
          thanks

          they could be carried and move about just like the pagan gods
          they go through human mood swings and change their minds

          but i am sure no jew who posts on this blog agrees with your interpretation.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            I’m not saying anyone is wrong or right, I was pointing out that you were claiming that Hashem does not act in accord with human qualities. Realities as they exist in the world and words as hashem has spoken them in scripture show that he is more than capable of manifesting human like behavior.

            What do you make of Abraham and Moses taking G-d to task for wanting to kill everyone outright for their disobedience? Why did Moses or Abraham have to explain to the almighty why he should spare the people? I’m not saying G-d is human, but that his behavior could be perceived as human like. Bronze age human like to be precise.

          • edward says:

            “What do you make of Abraham and Moses taking G-d to task for wanting to kill everyone outright for their disobedience? Why did Moses or Abraham have to explain to the almighty why he should spare the people? I’m not saying G-d is human, but that his behavior could be perceived as human like. Bronze age human like to be precise.”

            are you saying that god wants to do something then a human comes along and tells him to reconsider what he wants to do ?
            you call this “human like ” ?

          • edward says:

            “I was pointing out that you were claiming that Hashem does not act in accord with human qualities. ”

            sorry, i was going by jims interpretation which he gave

            earlier this year

            jim wrote :

            This verse is incredibly damaging to the idea that one would worship a man. God affirms through Balaam that He is in fact not a man. Moreover, the verse is strange in that if God is going to come to Earth and call Himself the “Son of Man,” it is quite strange for Him to declare that He is not a “Son of Man”.

            Of course, the Christian will emphasize that God says that He is not a man “that he should lie”. He will say that the verse must not be taken out of context. God is not declaring absolutely that He cannot be a human being. He is talking about His trustworthiness. Obviously, I agree with that the whole statement must be taken. But it does not solve the problem for the Christian.

            In fact, if the Christian considered the matter at all, he would understand that the passage is even more damaging to his theology than he realized. The problem is not just that God mentions that He is not a human being. It is not even that He specifically denies being a son of man, a phrase that the Church would employ later to refer to their man-god. The distinction He is making between humanity and Himself tells reveals why one can invest Him with perfect trust and why that could never be achieved by a human being.

            The question is why should God compare Himself to humanity at all. He could have just said that he does not lie and that He does not change His mind. But He does not leave it at that. He contrasts Himself to human beings, which appears completely
            superfluous.

            The answer is that if someone tells you that you can trust them, that does not prove anything. A liar does not announce himself up front to be a liar. He will tell you that you can believe him. So, if God says that you can believe Him, you will still wonder if it is true. How can one testify to his own honesty? The mind can conceive of the possibility that God might not be trustworthy, and if He is not, His claim does not mean anything.
            God establishes that He is trustworthy by appealing to knowledge of His perfection. Here I do not mean moral perfection, but His completeness. God is without need; He is whole. He contrasts Himself to humanity, because human beings are not complete. They have needs. And so, a human being might lie to secure a loan that he might not otherwise receive or a job or even a date. Similarly, a man may change his mind when he discovers that a situation did not go according to his projections. He may withhold the payment he promised once he receives what he wanted. This is not so for God. God has no needs. Lying could never secure a good for Himself; He is perfect. He does not change His mind. He knows the future and He never has reason to regret the good He promised. He does not feel the cost to Himself, because there is none; He is perfect. He has no competing interest. He cannot elevate His needs above that of another being, because He has no needs; He is perfect.

            This being the case, no human being can make a claim to divinity. A human being is not perfect. He relies upon air to breath, water to drink, and food to eat. He needs protection against the elements. He may be injured. He may receive benefit. His interests may compete with that of others around him. He is limited. He is imperfect.

            No matter how great a human being may appear to be, he cannot be God. The differences between humanity and Hashem are so great that one must not imagine any similarity between them. God uses their differences to argue that His promises are inviolable. That argument hinges upon the chasm that exists between Man and the Almighty. That “God is not a man… nor a son of man” is essential to establishing one’s faith in the Creator. Rather than being taken out of context, its context firmly establishes why one must never worship a man as God. The contrast between the two is too great.

            end quote

        • edward says:

          “Even the Christians themselves draw a distinction between the divine and human nature, and say they are united, but not confused.”

          did you mean “fused”

          “fused” implies unity

          meaning the divine nature fully experience the human sight, hearing, taste , hunger etc etc

          otherwise if their is no fusion, there is separation and no unity

          if the divine mind did not think like the human mind , then their is separation

          if the divine being did not get effect by anything finite, then there is separation and then the question is

          “was god really here on earth ” ?

          it is the christians who say that “2 natures one person”

          so the human jesus could worship the same jesus

          both wills must be the same

        • CP says:

          @ Concerned Reader,

          Thanks for the link, I’ll be at the local book store tonight.

        • edward says:

          you accuse me of mocking . if i wanted to mock i could say that the god thor nailed jesus to the cross. i could say that the god thor has power and control over death and christians receive his punishment every time they die. that’s mocking

          you wrote :

          “I’m not saying G-d is human, but that his behavior could be perceived as human like..”

          sorry, but the christians believe god is 100 % human being. 100 %
          yhwh was a man with 100 % human nature , human thoughts, human feelings .
          christians say , “he was like us in every way”

  8. edward says:


    The text goes no further than G-d stating that He does not sin like mankind– anything beyond that statement would be “adding” to the Scripture.”

    makes no sense

    god “does not sin like mankind” but he is a human being ?

    so you are reading the text like

    “god is not LIKE a man who sins and changes his mind , you can trust him”

    so this means

    god is LIKE a man who does not sin and change his mind?

    aren’t human worshippers forced to admit that their are human beings who do not change their mind and lie?

  9. Concerned Reader says:

    Edward, I understand the point that Jim is making about G-d being absolutely beyond anything remotely human, 100%.

    The issue I have is that scripture itself is full of what I would term a “sock puppet” phenomenon where G-d HIMSELF makes some agent other than himself a focal point to people for belief, even when he clearly says elsewhere, “I only want you to focus on me.”
    (example. Exodus 19:9)

    Was Moses just a man? Absolutely! Was he also made a focus of religion as an agent of G-d? Again, yes absolutely. G-d said to Moses “I will make you as Elohim before Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your interpreter.” (Exodus 7:1) In Numbers 16 Korah and his rebellion are crushed and swallowed by the earth because they wouldn’t submit to the leadership of Moses.

    So, is Moses only a man? yes. However, he is also seen as THE righteous head of the generation who it is forbidden to disobey. Scripture even says the life of the one who disobeys his successor will be required. (Deuteronomy 18:19.)

    In other words, if I grant the premise that indeed Hashem is not a human being, (which I do) and even grant that he CANNOT EVER become human, (which I do,) scripture and the traditions themselves are STILL full of examples of G-d elevating creatures (heavenly or earthly,) to the status of his unimpeachable mouthpiece, elevated to the status of the locus of divine revelation, elevated to angelic status, temporary flesh puppet, etc.

    Was Adam G-d? No, absolutely not. However, according to both Jewish and Christian traditions, his wisdom stretched from earth to heaven, his countenance and level was higher than the highest angels, and he was made master of all the creation by G-d himself, at a time before he sinned, so that all creation was under his control.

    As you know, the gospels call Adam “Son of G-d” in Luke 3:38. So, When a Christian points to Daniel 7’s one like a son of man as evidence of a pre-exisiting redeemer, (even when its not the plain meaning,) I have to resize as an interpreter that this idea comes as one idea out of a plethora of pre existing Jewish stories of exalted righteous people that is not solely limited to scripture.

    It doesn’t matter (strictly speaking) if G-d says he is one and alone, and alone to be feared, etc. if we are constantly put into a situation by the Bible where we are told to place a focus in the moment on this or that person as the mouthpiece of G-d.

    Doctrines like the trinity and incarnation are the Christian response and reaction (which is acknowledged by them to be paradoxical mystery btw,) to problematic passages in the text of their Bible, in the same way that Judaism’s perspective on Metatron, the angelic Sar Ha Panim, is a reaction to problematic texts in their own Bible.

    The rabbis say “Metatron bears the name of Hashem as an agent, and we don’t worship him.”

    Ok, that’s 100% fine, but scripture also says you are not allowed to disobey this being’s commands. IE you cannot decline to follow the words of the agent. As scripture says, G-d and his name will be one. (Zechariah 14:9)

    Notice that even for the Trinitarian Christian there is a limit to his JC devotion because he believes in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 where their deity JC is clearly made subject and functionally subordinate to hashem at the end of the whole process.

    Jesus’ role as obedient to the father is contrasted by revelation 13 with a “lawless one” who wants only to be served as a god by the whole earth. (in the context of Revelation as a text, scholars believe the antichrist figure of that book was the Emperor Nero.)

    Isn’t it interesting that groups like Chabad and Breslov were able to build a Christ theology with zero notions of Christology? Isn’t it interesting that they ended up in the same boat as the Christians?

    What about the Muslims? They don’t believe Muhammad is divine in any way, yet they stil idolize him.

    While you are questioning the logistics of an illogical trinity theology, you are ignoring the elephant in the room that the theology is irrelevant to how the notion of a divine messiah actually gets off the ground.

    • CP says:

      @Concerned Reader,
      Great post, very very few see the elephant in the room. Unfortunately, it seems theology doesn’t come from the elephant, but rather from the three blind men.

      • Concerned Reader says:

        To me, its not even an issue about foreign theology at all. If you ever watch “the great trinity debate” with dr. Brown and James White vs. Anthony Buzzard and Joseph Good, what I’m saying becomes crystal clear.

        The trinitarian says “Jesus is the image of the invisible G-d,” and he means it within the context of Jesus as the Logos, second hypostasis, etc.

        A non trinitarian reads the same exact verse and says “this is saying that moshiach as an idea existed in hashem’s mind from the start, and Jesus was the mortal agent chosen by G-d to fill that role. The title G-d applies to Jesus only metaphorically exactly as it applied to Moses in the Torah.”

        The same text is being read in two ways that are polar opposites of each other theolgically, but yet the effect, (some agent figure who isnt the father being elevated to essential status,) occurs with both explanations.

        My position is that the non trinitarian model of a messiah as the chosen agent (who is called G-d metaphorically) can indeed be parsed from the Torah by itself without recourse to Christian scripture, theology, or tradition.

        When the mitnagdim opposed hassidic philosophy it was mainly because of the elevation of a rebbe as a charismatic figure who a follower should cleave to. Mitnagdim said. “Focus on halacha, not on a rebbe, or on intent and belief.” (Perfectly reasonable bublical assesment on tyeir part, may they be blessed.)

        The hassidim countered that their view of a rebbe was also supported (more like alluded to) in scripture. The thing is, both groups had legs to stand on.

        As ive said, its not at all about “is Jesus G-d or not,” or “is he messiah.” To me those questions are irrelevant.

        What is very relevant is that the Tanakh all by itself sees fit to take a being that clearly is identified as being an angel, and to call it “god” in 1st person, to have it treated as “god” by righteous people, to have it addressed in the context of prayer, etc.

        I’ve watched many Shiurim where the question is asked, “where does a text like the Zohar get this idea of the Tzaddik from? ”

        The answer (though we may not agree with it,) is from Nach, by way of allusion and derivation. I hear in Shiurim how Maimonides and Saadia Gaon would be so utterly dismayed by these doctrines, but then I see Maimonides himself encapsulate the whole essence of the tzaddik doctrine (unintentionally) when he talks about Moses’ state of prophecy, and the authority his words should have on people’s lives.

        Why is it that so many believe Rambam was a closet kabbalist? Could it be Because he may be using rational catagories and different terms, but the effect is the same?

        • edward says:

          “The trinitarian says “Jesus is the image of the invisible G-d,” and he means it within the context of Jesus as the Logos, second hypostasis, etc.”

          and the 4th person who is sophia/hokmah of yhwh is another separate conscious person

          or was jesus originally the female wisdom of yhwh?
          quote :
          In Greek circles there were religions that maintained that Sophia was indeed a divine being. She (the word Sophia in Greek is feminine, so the divine being is always imagined as female) is especially prominent in forms of Gnosticism. But Sophia also came to be thought of as a (subservient) divine being in Jewish circles as well. Speculation on Sophia begins with the Hebrew Bible, especially Proverbs 8. Read it and you’ll see: “Wisdom” is said to have been with God in the beginning when he created all things, and to have participated with God in the creation (since he made all things using his wisdom). In fact, she is said to be the master creator herself through whom God created and even God’s consort in the beginning. In some Jewish circles Sophia, then, came to be thought of as not simply something people have, but as a divine hypostasis that is in the world.
          end quote

          so you have son, sophia, father and the ghost.
          happy family of hypostatic unions

          quote:
          Regarding Sophia/Wisdom, it is beyond our comprehension as to how that works with the essence of GOD being a spirit. Makes me wonder about his other attributes of Love, Power and Justice whether they follow the same substance as Wisdom???
          end quote

          trinitarian paganism is really separate gods glued into one.

        • CP says:

          @ Concerned Reader,

          Yes, I’ve watched that debate and think we agree on all the above; “Because he (they) may be using rational categories and different terms but Ithe effect is the same.”

          Although I agree it is irrelevant if Jesus is God, Ben Elohim, angel, or man, however the question of relevancy as to if “Jesus is Messiah” is an point of departure between us.

          To me it doesn’t matter who Yeshua is, what matters is in the context of Messiah if what he did, said and is claimed he acomplished is ….true.

    • edward says:

      “In other words, if I grant the premise that indeed Hashem is not a human being, (which I do) and even grant that he CANNOT EVER become human, (which I do,) scripture and the traditions themselves are STILL full of examples of G-d elevating creatures (heavenly or earthly,) to the status of his unimpeachable mouthpiece, elevated to the status of the locus of divine revelation, elevated to angelic status, temporary flesh puppet, etc.”

      “temporary flesh puppet”

      let me remind you that christians say that their flesh puppet saw, heard and had control like god almighty. now i want to read a text where it says god made a human see and hear like he does.

      let me remind you that no where does jesus say he is “a spirit”

      let me remind you that the flesh puppet christians worship does not need to ask for permission to get access to any of the powers his dad has

      since your god can elevate creatures, does that mean their nature has changed?
      one who becomes powerful one minute and weak the other, then doesn’t that imply change?

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Edward, you are missing the point. You are theologizing and talking about gnosticism, and asking for a reconciliation of craxy doctrines with logic.

        Im saying that if I just look at Torah, i see an agent that is not G-d being treated as if it were G-d.

        Gnostic theories christian theories and kabbalistic theories about wisdom, logos, various hyposteses, holy spirits, etc. are all later branches of speculation about the phenomenon from the Torah.

        • edward says:

          “Im saying that if I just look at Torah, i see an agent that is not G-d being treated as if it were G-d.”

          fully/100% god and the agent is in shape and form?
          if that is the case then the torah refuted itself

          “And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars–all the heavenly array–do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.”

          • KAVI says:

            Edward,
            Where in the Tanakh or B’rit Chadashah/NT does one find your notion of percentages?

            Where in Tanakh or B’rit Chadashat/NT does it say L-rd Yeshua [or any living being] is a created planet or moon or star?

          • edward says:

            “Where in Tanakh or B’rit Chadashat/NT does it say L-rd Yeshua [or any living being] is a created planet or moon or star?”

            usually people worship these items because they perceived as great .

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Right, deuteronomy says dont serve the host, including presumably the captain of the host, this agent angel.

            That being the case, why is the agent interchangeable with G-d in so many verses?

            Why is the agent angel in the bush, yet its clear that G-d is speaking?

            Why does the angel that bears G-d’s name require Israel’s absolute obedience?

            I dispensed with uniquely Christian belief long ago, but I noticed that the recipe for it didnt go away.

            I dont need to consult Christian sources to see a Christology arise.

            Christianity could be erased tommorow, and the faith system could have another in its place.

    • edward says:

      “Was Adam G-d? No, absolutely not. However, according to both Jewish and Christian traditions, his wisdom stretched from earth to heaven, his countenance and level was higher than the highest angels, and he was made master of all the creation by G-d himself, at a time before he sinned, so that all creation was under his control.”

      not even the god man claimed to have full control of the heavens and the earth. having authority over something does not imply unlimited power over everything.
      quote:
      When God put humans in charge of the Earth, he gave humans AUTHORITY over the Earth, according to Genesis. But that does not mean that God gave humans unlimited POWER over the Earth. Animals sometimes injure or kill humans. Fires, floods, storms, volcanoes, and earthquakes sometimes injure or kill humans. Humans do not control the weather. Humans do not control geological forces. So, God giving authority over the Earth to humans does NOT imply that God made humans omnipotent or all-powerful, or even that God gave humans unlimited power over the forces of nature on the Earth

      can you find any place in the torah where god gave human beings power to control like he does?

      if you do find such a human being, then isn’t it worshipable?

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Adam named the animals. Torah says he called them…….and thats what it was.

        You are missing the point in making Edward. G-d says he doesnt share glory, but then he does exactly that. I know that Adam wasnt exercising unlimited power, neither is JC in the Christian Bible as 1 Corinthians says.

        • edward says:

          ” G-d says he doesnt share glory, but then he does exactly that”

          what this boils down to is that the torah is a contradictory book, right?

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Look Edward. Even if I state that the Torah doesnt contradict itself, G-d himself says that he purposely tests people.

            Who commanded that Nachash Necoshet should be built? Hashem.

            Who says not to create graven images? Hashem.

            It took from the time of Moses until king Josiah for someone to realize that staring at the brass serpent to be healed constituted idol worship.

            If my goal was to say “im 100% alone,” i wouldnt constantly have an agent sharing the spotlight.

            Im not saying this to be crass, I’m making a point that needs to be made.

            These stories in the Bible of agents of G-d have served as roots for mystical speculation in Judaism, Gmosticism, and in Christianity, and each of these movements bore simmilar fruit in terms of mystical messianic figures whether in antiquity or modern times.

            The Bible is a book, and even when it has a target audience and an ideal proper reading, it can still be understood in different ways without malicious intent because it is a book.

          • edward says:

            “Who commanded that Nachash Necoshet should be built? Hashem.
            Who says not to create graven images? Hashem.
            It took from the time of Moses until king Josiah for someone to realize that staring at the brass serpent to be healed constituted idol worship.
            If my goal was to say “im 100% alone,” i wouldnt constantly have an agent sharing the spotlight. ”

            more information on this

            Nachash Necoshet ”

            and

            It took from the time of Moses until king Josiah for someone to realize that staring at the brass serpent to be healed constituted idol worship.

            required .

          • CP says:

            Numbers 21:9
            So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

            2Kings 18:4
            He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.

          • edward says:

            hmmm interesting.

  10. Concerned Reader says:

    if “Jesus is Messiah” is an point of departure between us.

    CP,

    if you believe that Jesus taught the Torah of Moses, then that fealty is what matters according to Jesus’ own criteria of acceptance. In other words, if you believe Jesus taught Torah, someone who is observant of Torah (and yet doesn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah,) would be better off than a person who believes in his person, and is yet against Jewish people keeping their tradition.

    Jesus by his own criteria of what constitutes acceptance of him, makes his person irrelevant.

    Check out this text from the Clementine Recognitions.

    Chapter V.—Moses and Christ.

    “For so also it was given to the people of the Hebrews from the beginning, that they should love Moses, and believe his word; whence also it is written: ‘The people believed God, and Moses His servant.’724 What, therefore, was of peculiar gift from God toward the nation of the Hebrews, we see now to be given also to those who are called from among the Gentiles to the faith. But the method of works is put into the power and will of every one, and this is their own; but to have an affection towards a teacher of truth, this is a gift of the heavenly Father. But salvation is in this, that you do His will of whom you have conceived a love and affection through the gift of God; lest that saying of His
    136
    be addressed to you which He spoke, ‘Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not what I say?’725 It is therefore the peculiar gift bestowed by God upon the Hebrews, that they believe Moses; and the peculiar gift bestowed upon the Gentiles is that they love Jesus. For this also the Master intimated, when He said, ‘I will confess to Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast concealed these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes.’726 By which it is certainly declared, that the people of the Hebrews, who were instructed out of the law, did not know Him; but the people of the Gentiles have acknowledged Jesus, and venerate Him; on which account also they shall be saved, not only acknowledging Him, but also doing His will. But he who is of the Gentiles, and who has it of God to believe Moses, ought also to have it of his own purpose to love Jesus also. And again, the Hebrew, who has it of God to believe Moses, ought to have it also of his own purpose to believe in Jesus; so that each of them, having in himself something of the divine gift, and something of his own exertion, may be perfect by both. For concerning such an one our Lord spoke, as of a rich man, ‘Who brings forth from his treasures things new and old.’727

    • Concerned Reader says:

      If you put aside this agent/Christ mysticism CP, all that’s left is commandments, and the commandments have the potential to unite Jews and Christians, without requiring you to abandon your conviction.

      If you say to a person “Jesus needs to be kissed, his birthday celebrated, his image adored,” etc. a non Christian Jew who says “no thanks, I love the mitzvot more than homage for this man Jesus,” is not in the wrong at all. In fact, you could learn from him quite a lot.

      Rabbi B is defending the rights and duty of his people to G-d’s instructions, and he is not wrong for doing so. If love of Jesus eclipses your love of G-d’s instructions, then Judaism has a duty to say no to that devotion.

      So CP, its not personal if Jews say that Jesus wasn’t the messiah, because the only possible way a messiah can be relevant is in his contributions to the observance of the commandments.

  11. CP says:

    @Concerned Reader,

    From what I’ve just read it seems you’ve misunderstood and oversimplified my position.

    Simple is good, I like simple, it is easier to build on, therefore allow me to address the misunderstanding:

    I stand in agreement with the Jewish Orthodox view on the Jesus of contemporary Christianity. However it is my position the Jewish Orthodox view focuses primarily on the Christ of the church to the exclusion of the historical Yeshuah.

    It is paramount we identify which “Jesus” before we can discuss him. Otherwise we are comparing apples and oranges.

    • Concerned Reader says:

      The problem CP is that after 2,000 years of Christianity you can’t simply separate the two.

      • CP says:

        @Concerned Reader,

        I respectfully and enthusiastically disagree. I think the basics of early Christianity can be ferreted out to some degree.

        First we have the Tanach as a standard to judge by.
        Second we have accepted Rabbinic writings concerning the second Temple period.
        Third we have (although limited) information on the early Jewish Church, i.e. Ebionites & Nazarenes.
        Fourth we remove the doctrines of Paul.
        And last but not least we have the synoptic Gospels with a bit of textual criticism applied.

        What emerges is the historic Yeshua and his teachings.
        (The rest is commentary much of which is tainted by the over zealous willing to sacrifice the pure truth to promote their cause)

        • Dina says:

          If God wanted you to know the truth He wouldn’t have made it so difficult and also so impossible to ever really know, since it’s based mostly on speculation. The whole premise is speculative and your method is speculative.

          See Deuteronomy 30:11-14:

          For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?” Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.

  12. Yehuda says:

    Apparently Dr. Brown has logged his latest Youtube response in the ongoing exchange.

    Dr Brown’s opening counter-attack is interesting. He presents Rabbi B’s challenge about whether a pre-jesus Jew reading the Tanach would have expected anything like christianity. Dr. Brown then deploys his frequent approach of launching what he says is a side point and a small point that one wouldn’t have expected the myriad details of the oral law such as all the laws of the Sabbath either just by reading the Torah . Aside from this being irrelevant to the question – its a technique Dr. brown favors (usually when he doesn’t anticipate answering the real question directly – which he doesn’t here either.) in which he tries to poke little subliminal credibility holes while simultaneously quickly brushing it aside as if he didn’t even really mean to bring it up. (You gotta admire his chutzpah in claiming that he MO isn’t about debating tactics) But as it happens let’s actually think for a moment about whether or not one would read the bible expecting detailed oral laws about the Sabbath rather than just accept Dr. Brown’s hurried dismissal of the subject. (In general make a point of noting the inverse relationship between the relevance and merit of Dr. Brown’s points and the speed with which he hurriedly rattles them off. Another rhetorical technique. )

    Back to the Sabbath. I’ve always wanted to ask a christian this

    Say, you’re a reader of the Torah, but more importantly your not just a 21st century christian reader engaging in a thought exercise about the woefully inadequate Law . You are a 10th century BCE Jew living as part of God’s people in Israel – part of the faith community determined to live and die by the Torah, including what it says about the Sabbath which includes: That if you work on the Sabbath you will be put to death. Suppose I were that Jew and I had just, say, quickly taken out my knife and snipped a couple carrots out of my vegetable garden on the Sabbath because I was hungry for a quick snack. It took just a few seconds and I barely even broke my stride much less a sweat. A witnesses saw me and suddenly I was at the center of a capital Sabbath violation case. I would think that I would very much want to know the answers to the following questions:

    – Am I actually guilty of a capital crime? – Did I actually do forbidden work?
    – If not how about 3 carrots?
    – How about 4?
    – How about 3 bushels of carrots that I carried in a heavy sweat on my back for 100 yards to my storage shed? Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it.
    – Does my reason matter?
    – How about my degree of “intentionalness” or lack thereof?
    – How can the capital case be adjudicated? – In what sort of venue? – what are the standards of evidence?
    – Are eyewitnesses needed? How many? With what sort of eligibility criteria?
    – What about judges? How many? With what sort of eligibility criteria
    – Perhaps I’m overcomplicating the question…can anyone who feels I’ve violated simply violated the Sabbath commence stoning me?
    – Do you honestly believe that God would have put a broad class of capital crimes into effect – even as you believe temporarily – without a system for answering these and many more such questions?

    We’re talking about executing people, folks. And if you think the answers to these questions are important I invite you to point me to their answers squarely within the confines of the scripture.

    God would not have expected us to enforce these things without answers, would he?

    Just some ruminations.

    Y.

    • Dina says:

      So refreshing, Yehuda. It would be fun to see you take on Concerned Reader and CP, although I’m sure you have better things to do with your time.

  13. CP says:

    Yehuda,

    Thank you for the heads up on Dr Browns latest video response, I will watch it shortly.

    To answer the question you’ve always wanted to ask, the answer is simpler than your question leads us to believe. The answer I’m sure you already know is Moses appointed judges to handle answers of the difficult kind. Anything more difficult Moses handled himself. Anything extremely difficult Moses took to God.

    After the death of Moses, leaving the wilderness and taking possession of the land according to tribe, we have a time of Judges. Still simple, straight forward and in keeping with Moses. Then the first of a long line of “new” things happen….and things become not so simple.

    We get a king and another. We get a city of God, then a Temple. We get a divided Kingdom. We get Prophets rebuking corrupt monarchies and temple priests. We get the exile of the northern kingdom, then the southern kingdom is exiled and the Temple destroyed. New groups form in response to the exile. A remnant returns, legitimacy of leaders and priests are called into question. This is when you see the fullness of the Pharisee system emerge. There is again accusations of corruption, Greek and Roman dominance, legitimacy of appointed kings and judges, another exile and the second Temple is destroyed.

    Out of the dust only two sister sects emerge, Rabbinic Judaism and The Way (Early Christianity) Within 200 years one sect is taken over by Talmudism and the other by Paulineism.

    My point is; what used to be so simple is no longer easy. However it is my position if we take the best of the best i.e. the Torah, a common sense approach to the oral Torah and embrace the gift of the Holy Spirit as promised by Yeshua we are on as firm ground as can be had. Not that I dismiss modern day judges, they need to be respected, honored and listened to, but since it is you and only you who will be judged before God, it is not only up to modern day judges to decide for you, it is ultimately up to YOU.

    You may not think you agree with me, but I can prove you do. Let’s say your Rabbi teaches you under certain circumstances it is okay to steal from the Orphan and the Widow (God forbid). You know from Torah it is wrong. What do you do? Steal from the Orphan and Widow, then when before God pass the blame to your Rabbi?

  14. Yehuda says:

    CP,

    Dina is right I don’t really have time for this.

    But to cut to the point, you didn’t address the question. if a case of this sort had come to the the Judges, of say the era of David, David and/or his appointed Judges and priests would have had to make decisions on the questions I’ve raised. Which verse in the Torah did they look to to tell them the exact parameters of prohibited work on the Sabbath.

    Y.

    • bible819 says:

      Yehuda,

      CP’s entire statement agrees with the belief of “The Way” who are “as numerous as the sand on the seashore”. You can’t disregard it.

      As God distributed his Holy Spirit on Moses to the elders because they had no understanding of how to direct Israel. God distributed his Holy Spirit that was on Yeshua purchased by his “Life Blood” to give to all mankind.

      How do you receive Gods Holy Spirit?

      Moses needed help and then “God came down” to distribute God’s Spirit.

      Point being, The Torah gave you parameters. But the Spirit that was on Moses gave understanding and circumcised heart that the elders didn’t have.

      But> Caleb had the other aspect of the Spirit that kept Moses from entering the promise land.

      • edward says:

        bible, i guess u think you are going to go to heave
        when you speak to your god, how many persons are you going to speak to ? 3 ?
        sometimes the father and sometimes the son and sometimes the ghost?

        • bible819 says:

          Edward:

          Open your eyes.

          Has God has always used flesh to speak his Word?

          Did not God came down and distribute his spirit among the elders?

          Yes. No dispute.

          • edward says:

            who came down bible? was it the father or the child or the ghost? and do each persons have a spirit ? or do you believe ALL of god came down and shared himself?

          • edward says:

            “Has God has always used flesh to speak his Word?”

            but when god was bathed by john the baptist he heard the heavens open and heard another god who spoke verses from the psalms. people heard a two way conversation between two separate beings and the one in heaven wasn’t using flesh . do you see my confusion ?

          • bible819 says:

            You need the Spirit that Moses Shared with the elders. Like Moses, the burden is too heavy.

          • edward says:

            “You need the Spirit that Moses Shared with the elders. Like Moses, the burden is too heavy.”

            God willing you the spirit of yeshua will be cast out of you. God willing .

          • CP says:

            @bible819,

            Hey brother, you know I agree we need the Holy Spirit which Yeshua promised the Father would send to circumcise our hearts.

            HOWEVER……..
            Please be open to a suggestion and look into “Unitarianism”

            Please allow me to wet your appetite with the following:

            Yeshua = Messiah…..right?
            Messiah = Anointed by God to do a task….agreed?
            Anointed = Authorized & Empowered by God.

            So let me ask you; if Yeshua is God then why did he need to be Annointed?

            If he is already God why would he have to be Authorized and Empowered?

            I’m sorry bible819, but Messiah, purely by definition HAS to be less than God.

            Check out unitarianism, it agrees with the Tanach, the NT properly understood and best of all there is no “mystery”!!!

          • CP Thanks for this insight

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • bible819 says:

            CP,

            CP thanks for the response. I actual understand what you are asking.

            Answer me this. If Yeshua is in 100% agreement with the Father as in we call him the Word of God. And God’s Word is God. just as his Spirit. Remember the Father came down to distribute his Spirit to the elders. We wouldn’t say his Spirit is less than himself. As his Word is not less than himself.

            The only thing less of the Spirit of His Son which is 1 with the Father- would be the body that was Prepared for him(Sinful Flesh). But death couldn’t keep him dead because we was innocent. Now that he is Immortal with the raise flesh, which he is the only 1 who truly knows the Father. And the Father gave his Son his Name. For what Father doesn’t!!!

            Yes, he is subject to the Father in the order of Melchizedek ( The Intercessor).

            But what did the Father withhold from Yeshua to make him less?

            As in the Full embodiment of the Father in his Son the true image of God.

            How can you Say show us the Father?

          • edward says:

            “The only thing less of the Spirit of His Son which is 1 with the Father- would be the body that was Prepared for him(Sinful Flesh). But death couldn’t keep him dead because we was innocent. Now that he is Immortal with the raise flesh, which he is the only 1 who truly knows the Father. And the Father gave his Son his Name. For what Father doesn’t!!!”

            this is a very strange and pagan christian argument

            http://vridar.org/2015/10/24/the-disappearances-of-the-bodies-of-jesus-and-other-heroes/

            Aristeas

            Cleomedes

            and a number of other greek gods and saints who were not “kept dead” by death.

            in judaism elijah was alive while “son of god” was dying .

          • edward says:

            “Remember the Father came down to distribute his Spirit to the elders. We wouldn’t say his Spirit is less than himself. As his Word is not less than himself.”

            does god choose when to speak and when not to speak? does he have this choice?

            jesus or “the son” is being baptised and the father appears in the heavens and has a conversation with him.

            how many persons did john the baptist see?

          • CP says:

            bible819,
            You asked;
            “Answer me this. If Yeshua is in 100% agreement with the Father as in we call him the Word of God. And God’s Word is God. just as his Spirit. Remember the Father came down to distribute his Spirit to the elders. We wouldn’t say his Spirit is less than himself. As his Word is not less than himself.”

            > To answer;
            You said “We wouldn’t say [H]is Spirit is less than [H]imself”.
            Allow me to ask you if a glass of ocean water is less than the Pacific Ocean?

            You say “God’s Word is God”
            Perhaps in some Hellenistic philosophical way we might find agreement, but outside that framework; God is God and God’s Word is God’s Word, just that simple.

            Does it do disservice to God’s Word to say he is less than God?
            I think not, considering Yeshua himself said God is greater.

          • bible819 says:

            CP,

            Well put in both responses

            Praise be to his anointed, Yeshua, to the Glory of the Greater, God the Father.

            Happy Shabbat brother.

      • edward says:

        in your heaven, will you see each person of your god chatting to the other? will you join in chatting with them?

        • bible819 says:

          In the Kingdom of God, I will see Yeshua sitting on the right hand of God(Sinai).

          Indeed, Yshua took Israel to the Promise Land because Moses didn’t speak to that Rock and thus dishonored God. Faith!

          • edward says:

            father will be in the middle, jesus on his right hand and where will the holy spirit be? on the left hand of god?

  15. CP says:

    Yeshua,

    To answer your question; the priests and judges of David’s day would of used a combination of precedent cases, prayer and common sense. You want me to say they used the “Oral Torah” passed down to them from Moses. I will not deny there was some sort of Oral Tradition but we CAN be sure it wasn’t a set in stone codified Oral Torah as we have today. If it was; the Talmuds would not exist beyond the Mishnah.

    Therefore to answer what constitutes work on the Sabbath should be handled the same way now; precedent cases in the Tanach, prayer and common sense use of Oral Tradition. So in realty, I’m the one pushing the more traditional view. The newer view after the second Temple period is to use a codified collection of Rabbinic discourses considered to be equal with the Tanach.

    Don’t feel discouraged, the same thing has happened to Christianity with the advent of Paul’s epistles being codified and canonized by Christianity. The truth is there; both in Judaism and Christianity, although both hold different truths as different pieces of the same puzzle picture. Unfortunately these pieces are mixed in with puzzle pieces from a couple of other pictures; pictures of Talmudism (pseudo Judaism) and Paulinism (pseudo Christianity).

    In essence, one is putting together one puzzle picture of the truth with a box of pieces from three different puzzles.

  16. Yehuda says:

    Hi CP,

    BTW, my name is Yehuda not Yeshua [See. You guys just can’t type two sentences without that coming up, can you?🙂 ]

    You said:

    T”o answer your question; the priests and judges of David’s day would of used a combination of PRECEDENT CASES, prayer and common sense. You want me to say they used the “Oral Torah” passed down to them from Moses. I will not deny THERE WAS SOME SORT OF ORAL TRADITION but we CAN be sure it wasn’t a set in stone codified Oral Torah as we have today. If it was; the Talmuds would not exist beyond the Mishnah. Therefore to answer what constitutes work on the Sabbath should be handled the same way now; precedent cases in the Tanach, prayer and common sense use of Oral Tradition.” (most emphasis mine) ”

    To be quite honest that statement contains a fair amount of agreement between us (to paraphrase the old joke “now we’re merely haggling over price”) combined with some of your own speculative opinions. Orthodox tradition agrees that the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch did not exist in anything like their current standardized fullness in David’s time. Your position on this topic, frankly, sounds a lot more like conservative judaism than like christianity.

    Be well.

    Y

    • Concerned Reader says:

      BTW, my name is Yehuda not Yeshua [See. You guys just can’t type two sentences without that coming up, can you?🙂 ]

      Such a card Yehuda. lol

    • Concerned Reader says:

      I think its interesting that when we have discussions about oral traditions, nobody can argue (Jewish or Christian) that there were no oral traditions, we just have discussions about their scope and the extent of their authority over our lives.

      As I’ve said before, the Christian Messianic paradigm wouldn’t have existed at all period, if Jesus had been a Sadducee. There are just too many extra biblical interpretative allusions that the gospel authors (and Jesus) make to assume that they just used a written text without a tradition.

      • CP says:

        Concerned Reader,

        Would you mind expanding your statement a bit?

        “As I’ve said before, the Christian Messianic paradigm wouldn’t have existed at all period, if Jesus had been a Sadducee. There are just too many extra biblical interpretative allusions that the gospel authors (and Jesus) make to assume that they just used a written text without a tradition.”

        (I agree the authors pretty much used the written text, however I see many allusions to the Oral Torah made by Yeshua)

        • Concerned Reader says:

          CP, I meant that If Jesus had been born in an environment that rejected Pharisaic doctrines, the view of him as a messianic personage couldn’t have got off the ground.

          If you asked a Sadducee what made a Messiah, he would say, “A King of Israel who has Davidic descent according to his father’s lineage who rules an earthly monarchy in Israel.”

          If you asked him about the valley of dry bones as a possible allusion to resurrection, he would say ” that is entirely absurd. It is only a metaphor for national restoration.”

          Only if you asked a Pharisee “what is a messiah and what does he do?” or “what is the valley of dry bones?” could you ever get any answer involving resurrections, miracles, redemptive sufferings, spiritual messainism, holy spirits, etc.”

          Sadducee’s would have payed less than no attention to Jesus of Nazareth, because all of his teachings about various things would have had no meaning or relevance to them or their views of Torah.

          • CP says:

            Concerned Reader,

            Thanks, I misread your post.
            I hadn’t really considered it, but agree. Discounting the obvious errors in Christianity, your view makes the opinion of Yeshua as a type of messiah makes it a inter-family (Pharisaical) disagreement rather than a rejection of paganism.

            If Yeshua’s teachings are as Torah aligned as Pharisaical teachings would imply their rejection of Yeshua/Ebionitesis/Nazarenes are based on something else other than Torah interpretation, perhaps “authority”?

            I am just starting to study the Hamsoeans. Do you think perhaps Yeshua questioned the legitimacy of the Sadduces as the Pharisees did?

  17. CP says:

    Yehuda,

    “BTW, my name is Yehuda not Yeshua [See. You guys just can’t type two sentences without that coming up, can you? ] ”

    Hahhaha, that is funny! I actually know people like that. However in this case predictive text had overrode without my notice.

    I also makes me happy we have found some agreement. Most “you guys” disagree with everything after the word Yeshua, right?

    It’s been great talking with you, thanks and be blessed

  18. Yehuda says:

    “Most “you guys” disagree with everything after the word Yeshua, right?”

    I’m pretty sure Dr, Brown would.

    And thanks to you, and be blessed as well.

    • bible819 says:

      Most of who?

      There is only (1) Hebrew that is believed to be “God of the Earth” to the Glory of the Father.

      Praise God’s Salvation (Yeshua)!

      • edward says:

        hello bible

        yeshua said “our father in heaven”

        but if spirit inside of yeshua is same spirit father/parent has , then the prayer should have been “our father on earth…”
        why tell his disciples to pray to father in heaven when son on earth has same spirit as father in heaven?

  19. Concerned Reader says:

    Let me clarify again CP, because again you are missing what I’m saying.

    A person cannot believe Jesus is any kind of messiah or king at all based on the plain sense of reading the Hebrew Bible where a messiah is defined as someone who is a monarch.

    A person wouldn’t immediately see a doctrine about the resurrection of the dead if they just read the Hebrew Bible.

    A person wouldn’t see a suffering messiah based on the plain words on the pages of Isaiah in the Hebrew bible. Everything that belief in Jesus is based on is built entirely on inference and allusion, and not on plain sense readings.

    Jesus wasn’t just influenced by Pharisees, he had to have actually been raised as a type of Pharisee who believed in the authority of the Pharisees to accurately interpret the text of the Bible, if his own readings of scripture were to make any sense to people who heard him.

    I’m pretty sure Sadducee’s would have disliked Jesus immensely, and he would have embodied to them everything wrong with a Pharisaic approach to reading the Bible. To Sadducee’s all of Jesus’ mystical allusions and typologies would have been an afront to G-d and to the plain sense of the Torah of Moses.

    To Sadducees, all that mattered was the commandments and observing them. No oral traditions, mystical speculations, no chasing prophets, etc. Just the mitzvot.

    Jesus’ interpretations of the Bible wouldn’t make any sense to anyone who wasn’t a Pharisee 1st.

    Its definitely an in house argument that doesn’t need to involve paganism to explain it, but here is my point.

    You would like orthodox Jews of today to fairly consider Jesus as a messiah candidate, on the basis of many Midrashic concepts like resurrection, cleaving to a tzaddik, or an agent, and based on interpretations of various prophetic texts that you see as clear allusions to Jesus’ mission. Do you see the problem that none of those texts involve a clear directive from the Torah to say “Jesus is the messiah and you must follow him?” It isn’t in there!

    The reasons given for following Jesus are not given on the basis of the plain meaning of what a messiah is according to the Torah’s plain sense. To believers in Jesus, observance of the commandments is not seen as sufficient. THE TROUBLE IS the TANAKH says observance of mitzvot is sufficient.

    • Concerned Reader says:

      The Trouble for rabbis with Christianity (it seems to me) has always boiled down to a few things.

      1. The Rabbis teach that the plain reading of the Bible is the most important. The main purpose of the Bible is to teach us the commandments.

      2. The Rabbis teach that a legislative body was established by G-d to help people know how to live out the commandments.

      ONLY THE 1st TWO ITEMS LISTED ARE THE IMPORTANT PART

      3. At the same time, this legislative body tried to bring meaning to scripture for the masses, and tried to elucidate on the moral and theological concepts ONLY ALLUDED TO in scripture. This created a system of very subjective opinions, folklore and legends referred to as Aggadah. MOST EVERY MESSIANIC IDEA THAT CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON COMES FROM ONLY THE AGGADAH.

      4. Rabbis teach that since Aggadah is legends and folklore, NOBODY IS REQUIRED TO BELIEVE IN THOSE CONCEPTS IN ORDER TO PLEASE G-D.

      5. CHRISTIANS BASE THEIR WHOLE DOCTRINE ON AGGADIC CONCEPTS. TO CHRISTIANS HALACHA IS NOT ENOUGH.

      6. THIS IS WHY FOR JEWS CHRISTIAN BELIEF IS NOT BIBLICAL.

      • Concerned Reader says:

        I don’t know if you ever noticed CP, but YOU WILL NEVER FIND Samaritans for Jesus, or Karaites for Jesus. The only people who could believe in a Christian like messiah concept have to be exposed to Aggadic traditions.

      • Concerned Reader
        You are outdoing yourself – thanks for this insightful and concise statement

  20. Concerned Reader says:

    So CP, people always ask “Is Christianity Jewish?” The answer is a complicated yes, (as per the mythological DNA,) and an emphatic NO ABSOLUTELY NOT as per the practical requirements incumbent upon Jewish people according to the Jewish religion.

    The Ebionites and Nazarenes were a movement borne out of Jewish folklore, from the second temple period, not a movement borne out of the practical requirements of the faith.

    Jesus himself had to give his disciples the reading of the Bible that would “make them understand.” Is this a bad thing in and of itself? No. But it is folklore, so its ultimately Jesus’ opinion of what a verse or concept meant. Its not concerned with the question of how to best observe the commandments.

    If a person respects Jesus’ views of the commandments, he does not have to follow Jesus to do it, and that’s the issue. Even Ghandi saw Jesus as a profound teacher, while he was not fond of Christians or Christianity.

    The same things happened in chabad’s messianism. The rebbe would drop a hint, or he would explain a metaphysical concept according to his opinion, and some people ended up taking his elucidation and saying, “voila G-d can exist in a body, and that body is our rebbe king messiah” The problem is, again, that was the Rebbe’s mystical interpretation, IE it was an aggadah, not a practical point of law.

    I wish we could all be more frank and state”yes, Christianity is based on Jewish things, but only on the allegorical and mystical ones that no one is actually required to accept as true.” The only person I’ve ever heard of who actually came out and said that (in a certain way) was Abraham Abulafia, (and he was a man with his own messianic aspirations, so you need a grain of salt with his words to.)

  21. CP says:

    Concerned Reader,

    Whew you’re on quite a roll!!!
    Hahaha, enjoyed every bit of it!
    However I have a few points I’d like to address:

    I think you’ve blurred the lines some. If we are going to discuss “Christianity(s)” we need to pick just one at a time. So for the sake of discussion and clarity let’s stick with Ebionites or Nazarenes and avoid the whole Pauline/Constantine influence thing.

    Another thing is while I agree aggadah opens the door to many things, truth and error alike, one thing that needs to be considered; if Yeshua IS indeed the prophet Moses spoke of, aka the messiah, this is a game changer aggadah or not, and his interpretations become valid based solely on his identity. One might be tempted to say this requires the application of circular reasoning. It doesn’t, either he really is or isn’t messiah no matter if one thinks so or not. Therefore circular reasoning is related to the acceptance of his identity but has no bearing on his identity. I realize this doesn’t do us much good in trying to figure out who he is, but he never said this was the way. Rather he said to put his words into practice and then we would know.

    If we stick with the historical Yeshua, (the synoptic gospels) we have a Rabbi expounding on the plain meaning of Scripture when discussing the mitzvot. Yet I fully agree it takes some interpretation when it comes to Messiah, because there is NO PLAIN READING. He comes on a donkey or on the clouds? He is a suffering servant or a King? He has to die or reign forever?

    Perhaps this is why the Sadducees kept to just the 5 Books of Moses?

  22. Concerned Reader says:

    “Another thing is while I agree aggadah opens the door to many things, truth and error alike, one thing that needs to be considered; if Yeshua IS indeed the prophet Moses spoke of, aka the messiah, this is a game changer aggadah or not, and his interpretations become valid based solely on his identity.”

    Hold on there CP. Nobodies ideas are valid just because of a title they may hold. Moses himself was only proved to be a true prophet at Mount Sinai after he completed the job of redemption from Egypt. People doubted him before he brought the people out of Egypt, he even doubted himself and his role as a redeemer at the burning bush. To question is a biblical staple.

    IE even in the case of Moses, there was room to question until the nation saw him speak to hashem on the mountain, and even after that, he wasn’t perfect.

    You can’t say that “its true aggadah or not” if he is “the guy.” That embodies the entire problematic issue that I just mentioned.

    Its true that you say that Jesus is only a man, but then you say, “if he is the messiah, that is THE question.” Nobody should listen to a prophet just because he does a miracle or a mighty work.

    FYI rabbi B this phenomenon (trusting the alleged prophet wholesale without questioning,) is why I consider Islam to be foreign service. IE you don’t have to pray to a guy to be venerating him way too much, just because of a title.

    CP, Torah is about the commandments, not about a righteous personality. I do think the Sadducee sect stuck with the 5 books for just that reason. As I said, interpretation is subjective. That’s one reason why the rabbis say that before we can know who Messiah is, he has to do certain non subjective things that are clearly outlined in the Bible, which Jesus has yet to do, as even the Christians acknowledge.

    • Concerned Reader says:

      I’m sure you think that there are several ringer prophecies that point elusively to Jesus.

      I’ll stick with one believed to be Jesus related and interconnected prophesy. (for the sake of discussion.)

      1. An anointed one had to come and be cut off before the second temple was destroyed.

      According to Christians, this refers to Jesus. Have you ever heard of the Mandeans? They thought the messianic idea like this applied to John the Baptist, (who was beheaded.) Rashi says this person from Daniel 9 could have referred to Agrippa. All these men died before the 2nd temple was destroyed, and had either literal or figurative anointing. IE its not an exclusive prophesy even if it could be applied to Jesus.

    • CP says:

      Those who questioned Moses were put to death by the sword, swallowed up by the earth or broke out in leprosy. It was Moses who said there would be another like him sent and those who ignored the words of the one sent would be held to account.

      You say; “Torah is about the commandments”. Although I disagree with this ‘perspective’, it is commanded to listen to the ones a God has placed in authority. This Messiah has fulfilled subjective things clearly outlined in the Bible right before the destruction of Israel for 2000 years, which btw he predicted in advance.

      Does this Messiah say to forget the Torah and go a different route? No! Even though he predicts the current system is going to be judged for corruption, he says keep Torah and even promises a Spirit will be sent to help keep Torah from the heart. His life lived becomes the example of how to fully submit to Torah and the will of God even unto death.

      What is there to reject?

  23. Concerned Reader says:

    Just out of curiosity CP I have some questions for you.

    1. What verses (I’ll take one) from the 1st five books proves the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead?

    2. We have evidence of the agent angel in the 1st five books. Is there a verse where he is given a name (like Gabriel or Michael?) that the people are commanded to know him by distinct from the father?

    3. How many heavens are there and how does one determine how many?

    • CP says:

      Just out of curiosity CP I have some questions for you.

      1. What verses (I’ll take one) from the 1st five books proves the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead?

      > Trick question? None, unless you count every time someone is “gathered to their people” or “cut off”.

      2. We have evidence of the agent angel in the 1st five books. Is there a verse where he is given a name (like Gabriel or Michael?) that the people are commanded to know him by distinct from the father?

      > Off the top of my head I can think of three, none where a personal name is given.

      3. How many heavens are there and how does one determine how many?

      > Torah = 2 Tanach = 3. “how does one determine how many?” Idk, read? I’m not sure what you are you getting at?

      • Concerned Reader says:

        1. regarding proofs for resurrection from Torah, You said NO VERSES COULD BE FOUND, and that answer is correct.

        It takes an interpreting of verses that say “gathered to his people” to ASSUME that this refers to resurrection somehow, ie its a subjective opinion based interpretation based on a couple Torah verses, not a command directly found or given in Torah. Therefore, to believe in a claimant to be messiah because he may have risen from the dead, is not a dependable barometer of truth.

        2.Exactly. There are No verses where a personal name is given to the agent angel whereby we know how to identify him, or who he is, to give him any degree of heed.

        This agent is not ever named as Yeshua, so when anyone tries to say it is Yeshua somehow, this is a person’s own subjective thought or belief that they are placing into the Bible.

        If scripture had actually said “this agent is Jesus of Nazareth,” then we might know he is the one. But it doesn’t.

        “Those who questioned Moses were put to death by the sword, swallowed up by the earth or broke out in leprosy. It was Moses who said there would be another like him sent and those who ignored the words of the one sent would be held to account.”

        Yes, CP those things did happen according to the Bible, but there is a crucial distinction.

        ALL OF THAT HAPPENED AFTER MOSES HAD DONE HIS JOB. Moses completed the redemption from Egyptian bondage, and ALL the Israelite’s of the nation all saw him speak directly to G-d. Only after this were strict punishments given, not before. IE there is no doctrine of Faith in Moses that required Israel to trust him unconditionally before he had actually fulfilled his ENTIRE job description.

        The Torah does not punish Israel for questioning or doubting Moses UNTIL AFTER he had completed his job and AFTER he had been seen by everyone in the nation speaking to G-d.

        The Christian scripture wants you to have faith in a man Jesus who EVERYONE ADMITS hasn’t finished the job of the redemption. People have been tortured and killed because they doubted that man. He hasn’t done a single thing that the Torah speaks about in a clear cut fashion.

        The demand that anyone have faith in a prophet who hasn’t completed his task is idolatrous.

        So, while I see the comparison to Moses you are making, it doesn’t actually work, because Moses had actually done his job first, and ONLY THEN required obedience after he had fully demonstrated that he was TRULY the redeemer. Moses even expressed his own sense of doubt.

        Jesus has not done that, and he never allowed anyone any room to doubt or question him.

        So, its unsafe to simply assume because of subjectively interpreted prophetic verses that he may have somehow been the messiah.

        3. The New Testament assumes there are many more heavens than two or three based on its own premises. As many as 7 are assumed to exist ie seven spirits of G-d.

        That is why I asked you those questions. It wasn’t to trip you up. The Christian Bible takes as doctrine and fact concepts which are only vaguely or possibly alluded to in the 1st five books. Demons, redemptive agents, ascensions, etc. None of that material is found plainly or simply stated in the text of the1st five books, ie none of that material actually forms the bedrock of Jewish faith. The Mitzvot are the bedrock of Jewish faith.

        Even in the case of Enoch, it says “Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.”

        There are so many different ways to interpret this verse. Did Enoch ascend alive and bodily? Did he physically die and then just his soul went up? Is this just a metaphor? All of those things are options as far as interpretations go, but to say anything here should serve as doctrine would be absurd.

        What there is to reject is simple.

        1. just because this man is alleged to have risen from death, does not mean you or anyone owe him obedience, especially since this concept has flimsy foundations in the Torah text by itself.

        2. The New Testament admits belief based on that stuff is shallow and doesn’t prove anything.

        3. If someone says “you cant do commandments or please G-d without Jesus” is adding to the Torah, because Jesus has not proved himself as Moses had done.

  24. CP says:

    Concerned Reader,

    Let’s be real; if I were a Hebrew slave in Egypt and a man came offering me freedom in the land promised to me through my ancestor Abraham and I ended up dying in the desert wandering in circles. Don’t you think I’d have some questions for Moses and God???

    In the regard of the “perceived” finishing of the job as you have posted I’d say Moses and Yeshua are more alike than different. Yet you accept Moses even though he never brought any (except 12) into the promise land.

    Yes, Islam espouses 7 heavens as do subjective interpretations of Tanach. I thought your posts were directed at a ‘plain reading of The first Five Books’.

    1) You are correct; just because someone rises from the dead does not mean you owe him obedience. However if someone pointing to God and the Torah claiming to have the way to eternal life dies as a martyr and rises from the dead. Then those who killed him are judged and a movement started by him eventually conquers those who conquered Israel. No offense, but only someone with a biased belief system wouldn’t at least sit up and pay attention.

    2) you are correct again; belief is not not based on signs and wonders, but they can be bread crumbs leading to something greater which needs to be judged on its own merit.

    3) On the surface we disagree on this, however at a deeper level I would think to find agreement. I’ve already addressed the Moses/Yeshua thing, so let’s address adding to Torah. I see Yeshua advocating repentance and Torah observance. How is this “adding” to Torah. I would think the evolving Oral Torah would be a better candidate for something that adds to Torah. (not that I disagree with an Oral Torah, it just seems to have gotten out of hand).

    Yeshua said he was the way, the truth and the life.
    The way = communion with God
    The truth = Torah observance
    The life = submitted to God’s will unto death.

    And this ^^^ is idolatry?

    • Concerned Reader says:

      “and a movement started by him eventually conquers those who conquered Israel.”

      You mean the Romans? Yes, Christendom conquered Rome, but Christendom also viciously persecuted Jacob and subjugated Jews for centuries as second class citizens and Christ killers. Hardly an aspect worthy of a redeemer’s movement. Lest we also forget the countless Christians who also died at Christendom’s hands? Were there good Christians? Sure. Does this mean the movement as a whole is beyond doubt? No.

      This is the issue CP. You want to parse the Jesus of replacement theology from the Torah observant founder Yeshua. You know that The Torah observant among Jesus’ disciples were wiped out by the 4th century? Are we supposed to ignore that Jesus is seen as G-d to the vast majority in his movement still to the modern day?

      Trying to get back to that Torah observance of Jesus is a worthy endeavor, (I also understand your interpretation of his way, truth, and life statement, as referring to his interpretation of the law) but it doesn’t mean we should accept Jesus’ movement as a success, or venerate his person in any way.

      A person does not need to “kiss the son,” to respect Jesus’ words or his perspective on the Torah.

      his movement hasn’t been a success by any stretch of the imagination when you really think about it. The quest for the Torah observant Jesus has only been going on for about 60 years out of a 2,000 year history of persecution.

      I am a gentile. I was baptized at age 7 in a non denominational protestant Church. Half of my family is Catholic, and I’ve had a descent exposure to eastern orthodoxy, and its approach to Christianity. There are positive aspects to each approach.

      You can see posts on this very blog where I defend a gentile Christian’s right to be a Christian, and I show that it is plausible for them to hold on to Christian ideas, (given the knowledge they presently have of the Bible and what they were exposed to.)

      I don’t consider them idol worshipers as non Jews because they (as a movement,) have had to make the best situation of a text that they didn’t know how to interpret as Jews may have interpreted it.

      HOWEVER, Jews themselves who have a Jewish upbringing know that the Torah tells them to keep the commandments (as Moses gave them) in all their generations. As much as a Jewish person may respect Jesus, he or she simply cant accept Jesus because that loyalty unfortunately (in nearly all circumstances) clouds loyalty to the Torah.

      Think about it. How much work have you had to do to separate the antinomian Jesus from the pro Jewish rabbi and his teachings? A lot of work I’d imagine, because I’ve undertaken that same task and expended similar effort in that quest for the historical Jesus.

      When we know that other Jewish movements have venerated their rabbis to the point of clouding their judgement, (even when they have a Jewish education) we (both Jews and Christians) would consider that a foolish decision on their part. Why is it different when the same thing happens to Jesus and we question it?

      The people who died under Moses died because of Idolatry with the calf.

      The way = communion with God
      The truth = Torah observance
      The life = submitted to God’s will unto death.

      To live by the standard written here does not require me to love, pray to, or sing, to Jesus, or to embrace his cross as a means of salvation.

      I respect Jesus as a teacher, and I don’t consider him to be unethical, but that fact doesn’t mean he was the messiah, any more than the Rebbe being a good teacher made him the messiah.

      • Dina says:

        Con, this is all good stuff, but I would phrase something differently.

        “I am the way, the truth, and the life” = megalomaniacal statement. Not a single Hebrew prophet made a statement of such breathtaking arrogance.

        “No one comes to the Father but through me” = idolatry. It is this second part of the verse that CP consistently ignores, pretending that “through me” means through the Torah.

        • CP says:

          Dina,

          At the time of the second Temple it was common knowledge that the age of prophets was over. Anyone claiming prophecy as the hebrew prophets of old (thus says the LORD) would be accused of heresy. However it was commonly acceptable to speak as a messiah, although very dangerous in the shadow of Rome.

          Dina, your statement begs the question; Do you come to the Father through your obedience to the commandments? If yes, then according to your logic you’ve made the commandments into an idol. Which in all reasonableness some people do, just as some turn Jesus into an idol. (I’m not accusing you of either, just pointing out where your logic leads)

          • KAVI says:

            CP,
            In view of the promised catastrophic dispersion found in Deuteronomy 28, are you suggesting that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was due to Israel’s national failure to obey “all” the commands of Torah and committing an “idolatry of Torah”?

          • CP says:

            KAVI,
            No, I’m really not suggesting anything except in view of God’s sovereignty it wasn’t a accident.
            However……..
            If I was to venture a guess, it would be that the hierarchy system as a whole, priest, judge and king had grown corrupt. This is not to say they all were corrupt, but rather the system was; exploiting the poor, using religion for their iown prestige, power and wealth, and misrepresenting God to the people they were supposed to be Shepherding.

            Failure to repent always results in the same; God calls out a remnant who will repent and disciplines or destroys the rest.

          • Dina says:

            CP, I’m responding to this statement of yours:

            “Dina, your statement begs the question; Do you come to the Father through your obedience to the commandments? If yes, then according to your logic you’ve made the commandments into an idol. Which in all reasonableness some people do, just as some turn Jesus into an idol. (I’m not accusing you of either, just pointing out where your logic leads).”

            Hashem taught us how to regard His words:

            And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your might. And the words that I command you today shall be upon your heart, and you shall teach them to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your home and when you go on your way and when you lie down and when you arise. And you shall tie them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be totafot between your eyes, and you shall write them upon the doorposts of your homes and your gates.

            Which I just rattled off by heart because I’ve been reciting this passage at least once a day since I have memory.

            I treat the commandments as God Himself has commanded me to do. I challenge you to find one passage in the entire Hebrew Bible that teaches us to regard a human being using this language.

            You see, idolatry is not what you subjectively decide it is. The Torah defines it for us. Regarding the commandments this way is not, therefore, idolatry, while regarding a human being this way most certainly is.

          • CP says:

            Dina,

            “I challenge you to find one passage in the entire Hebrew Bible that teaches us to regard a human being using this language.”

            Deut 18:18-19
            ‘I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.
            ‘And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.

          • Dina says:

            Sorry, CP, not the same language, not at all. There is no regard for this person except to obey him. The passage doesn’t say that we should put him in our hearts and teach him to our children and we should speak of him when we sit in our homes and when we go on our way and when we lie down and when we awake…

            Not even close.

            That’s why the Jewish adherence to and high regard of the commandments are not idolatrous while the Christian adherence to and high regard of Jesus are.

            Can you do better than that? Can you find a person in Tanach that we are commanded to put in our hearts, teach to our children, speak of when we go to bed and when we arise, and so on?

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            Actually I agree with you, to a point.

            We are to love Hashem with our whole heart mind and soul and love our neighbor as ourself.

            However…..

            If you’ve put the love of the commandments before Hashem you’ve created a idol.

            But I see you wanting to throw Jesus in the mix. If you are talking about the hellenized, paganized divinized Pauline Jesus, I agree with you

            But……

            If your talking about the Jewish Rabbi who called for repentance by turning back to Torah, who taught about a love for the commandments as you do, then I’m sorry, I fail to see your definition of idolatry has a leg to stand on. He DO the commandments. You want to make him say he asked for the glory that only belongs to God. You’ve got the wrong guy, you’ve let the Gentiles rob you of your guy, buy lying to you about who he was. You don’t know who he was, you just take the Christians word for it. Why would you do that?

          • Dina says:

            Forgive me, CP, but this is a deflection. Jesus is at the center of your religion. He is in your heart, his spirit guides you, he picks you up when you are down…I am using your own description. You then accused me of similarly venerating the commandments of God, so I showed you a passage that teaches us how to regard them. I challenged you to find a passage that uses similar language to regard a human being, and you could not find any. I humbly ask that you consider this well.

            As for your statement that putting the commandments ahead of love of God is idolatry, this is illogical and even bizarre to me. I obey God’s commandments because I love God. If I disobey Him, I am rebelling against Him. Why would I want to rebel against God? You can’t say you love God and disobey His commandments; that would be like saying you love your wife but disregard her wishes. Jews simply don’t view the commandments the way you think we do.

          • KAVI says:

            CP,
            On the other hand, “IF” L-rd Yeshua is G-d’s Temunah, the Son of G-d, who temporarily tabernacled in a human body to accomplish the promised redemption of Genesis 3– there is no idolatry at all.

          • CP says:

            @KAVI,

            I tend to disagree;

            Temunah = form or likeness.

            We are not to venerate a form or likeness as God Himself.

            If internally you are able to distinguish the Spirit of God in Yeshua from the person Yeshua is not for me to judge, that is only something God will judge.

            IMHO, any worship due Yeshua is that worship due to the ultimate future king of Israel. i.e. Messiah.

          • CP says:

            @Dina,

            “Forgive me, CP, but this is a deflection. Jesus is at the center of your religion. He is in your heart, his spirit guides you, he picks you up when you are down…I am using your own description.”

            >Yes, Dina, I forgive you for embellishing and adding to my words. I’m sure you are just quoting what you thought you read or think you understand. No problem.
            But just so you know, it’s incorrect.
            ——————
            “You then accused me of similarly venerating the commandments of God,”

            > I accused you of nothing. I said if someone was to do this. A couple of posts prior I specifically stated that I do not accuse you of this! Why do you deter from a great discussion to emotional trigger words?
            —————–
            “so I showed you a passage that teaches us how to regard them. I challenged you to find a passage that uses similar language to regard a human being, and you could not find any. I humbly ask that you consider this well.”

            > Yes, I agreed with you but stated according to Torah love of God and neighbor is above the love of commandments. I also posted God saying through Moses you will be held to account for not listening to the Messiah (regardless of who…don’t get sidetracked we are talking about the principle). Will you not be held to account for breaking commandments? THAT is were I drew the similarity between the Messiah and the Commandments, not in the specific words you wished me to use.
            —————–
            As for your statement that putting the commandments ahead of love of God is idolatry, this is illogical and even bizarre to me. I obey God’s commandments because I love God. If I disobey Him, I am rebelling against Him. Why would I want to rebel against God? You can’t say you love God and disobey His commandments; that would be like saying you love your wife but disregard her wishes. Jews simply don’t view the commandments the way you think we do.

            > Good for you! Now if you can only apply that same principle to those who see in Yeshua a messiah from God, you would be able to distinguish between those who idolize him and those who believe according to Torah.

          • Dina says:

            CP, you are right to call me out on inaccurately quoting you, and I apologize for that. I should have been more precise. Putting aside my inaccurate citations, my arguments still stand, so if you don’t mind responding to those, I would appreciate it.

            I also recommend a careful read of Psalm 119, if you have the time.

        • Concerned Reader says:

          Dina, the issue I have with simply taking Jesus’ statement as an incitment to idolatry is that Jesus himself tells us what he meant by coming to G-d “through him,” and that involved following his ethic, not a mere confession of him as “lord.”

          He actually opposed simple confession of him based just on signs.

          That theooogical view of Jesus took time to develop fully.

          He says “you say you love me, but you do not DO what I say.”

          He says “many will say to me lord lord, and I will say, depart from me you who work iniquity.”

          Jesus even said, “do not believe in me if I do not the work of my father, but if you will not believe, believe on the EVIDENCE OF THE WORKS.”

          The fact that the New Testament also takes pains to vilify figures like the emperor Nero, and contains stern warnings against people accepting a Jesus look alike on the basis of miraculous signs, and also the fact that Paul of Tarsus felt disgust at being deified by some gentiles, shows me that if Jesus said those words, it wasnt with an intent to promote idolatry, but was speaking like the agent spoke in the Torah, as an agent who spoke Hashem’s words directly and interchangeably.

          We dont like it, but There is evidence in sources from the second temple period that at least some Jews thought the messiah would be an angelic being, (at least in terms of his soul or spuritual stature, that resembled that agent angel.)

          I dont know of many New Testament scholars who believe a high christology was early, so it seems from the evidence that some Jews at the time of Jesus had no issues speaking of a messiah in those kind of exalted terms, while also still firmly believing in monotheism.

          At the same time, Paul forbade his gentile converts from participating in any honors for Rome’s deities or festivals. That is something that not even rules for G-d fearers saw as obligitory, so it shows that Christians added a stringency so their converts wouldnt interact with the roman religion.

          The evidence tells me that Jesus speaking that way is not necissarily evidence that he wanted worship.

          • Dina says:

            Connie, both the New Testament Jesus and the historical Jesus were a human being. No human agent EVER spoke this way in the Tanach.

          • KAVI says:

            Dina,
            The B’rit Chadashah never says L-rd Yeshua was “just” a human being.

            The Temunah of G-d could easily tabernacle in human flesh just as easily as He could dwell in the Temple or and/or dwell and move about in the tent prior to building the temple structures.

            No one would suggest worshipping a Temple building– likewise, no one need worship the human body of L-rd Yeshua.

            ____________________________

          • CP says:

            @Dina,
            Spoke what way???

          • Dina says:

            The answer is obvious to those well versed in Scripture. Sorry for my terseness, I no longer have time to talk. Very busy week. Maybe I’ll be able to pick this up later in the week or next. All the best!

          • CP says:

            Dina,

            Have a good week, hoping you can get everything done!

            Btw,
            As to “Thus says the LORD”, anyone well versed in second a Temple Judiasm would know why that could no longer be said.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            “Thus says the LORD” was no longer acceptable vernacular after Malichi in second Temple Judaism.
            (If that is what you’re referring to)

            Have a good week, hope you get it all done!

          • Dina says:

            CP, I refer to the way Jesus spoke about himself. No prophet spoke about himself and demanded belief in himself the way Jesus did. Although now that you mention it, the lack of recorded conversations between God and Jesus (unlike the Hebrew prophets) should trouble you.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            I really am hesitant to give you ammunition, however many of your objections can be explained through textual criticism of the Gospels. From what I’ve studied, there was originally a “Q” source for Matthew, Mark and Luke. And a “signs” source for John.

            The theory is there were some old lists (pre-Paul) of parables, teachings and signs but no Gospel stories as we have now. Someone(s) took these lists and created the Gospels we have now. Unfortunately this happened AFTER the gentile Pauline church took over. This why much the vernacular “Jesus” uses is so different than what you’d expect from a Jewish Rabbi.
            However, some of the vernacular one would expect from Messiah, but that’s what I’m researching.

            In conclusion Dina; I hear you!

          • Dina says:

            I’m sorry, CP, you lost me. Can you explain what this is about?

            Thanks!

          • CP says:

            Dina,

            You object to the way “Jesus” spoke. I was just explaining most likely he didn’t speak as you read in the Gospels. Some words are his, but generally what you are reading are the words of the author which were written after the start of Pauline Christianity.
            For example, if you want to know a little about what Christianity believed before Paul, Google: Ebionites

          • Dina says:

            Thanks for clarifying. I know about the Ebionites already; unfortunately they didn’t leave behind any writings as far as I know, and what we know of them is mostly what Eusebius has recorded. I still think it’s a problem. What he really said we will never know; we have only the Christian scriptures to go by which are unreliable as you know.

            Please forgive me for saying this, but it seems obvious that you only say that maybe Jesus didn’t speak this way because you want that to be the case.

            However, there are things he said about himself that you do accept, such as the famous “I am the way…and no one comes to the Father but through me”; these types of statements were never made by any of the Hebrew prophets, including Moses, the greatest of them all.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            I know you object to ‘way, truth, life….’ statement.

            This is easy for me;
            1) If Yeshua meant for people to direct their love and worship from God to him, then he is not from God.
            2) If this has been edited to make Jesus appear divine, then it needs to be dissected for the true meaning.
            3) If Yeshua is indeed Messiah then his words can be understood in a way that is not blasphemy.

            Btw, I appreciate you, you keep me honest!

          • Dina says:

            My point was this was not the way the Hebrew prophets spoke. They did not speak about themselves. Count the number of times Jesus uses the personal pronoun and the number of times Moses uses the personal pronoun and compare the two. I think it will be instructive🙂.

            Thanks for the compliment!

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            You’re right and is a valid point. I have considered this because I agree it is troublesome.
            I feel this can be contributed either to editors or the fact no one was allowed to speak as a prophet after Malichi. Yeshua said repeatedly he wasn’t speaking his own words that it was the words God gave him to speak. So if Yeshua says come to me, does it mean “him” or does it mean to God and His words.

            Btw, these “words”: possibly edited, for sure translated from Aramic to Greek to English.
            I’m kinda at the point; forget the words, what is the overall teaching.

  25. Concerned Reader says:

    Let’s be real; if I were a Hebrew slave in Egypt and a man came offering me freedom in the land promised to me through my ancestor Abraham and I ended up dying in the desert wandering in circles. Don’t you think I’d have some questions for Moses and God???

    Sure you would. But, in the case of Moses, the time for questioning was when the redemption was in process. IE if that man questioned Moses while everyone was still in Egypt, still suffering, without having received the Torah, that questioning would be completely acceptable.

    The generation that died in the desert experienced redemption itself from actual bondage in Egypt, and responded with “Meh.”

    Jews who question Jesus are still in exile, and still persecuted for saying “I love the commandments more than a messiah.” If Jesus comes tomorrow and rebuilds the Temple and takes Jews to Israel and inaugurates the redemption, Jews would probably be stunned, but then, they would pack their bags. I’m sure we would all ask Jesus, “say man, what took you so long?”

  26. CP says:

    Concerned Reader;

    “………Christendom also viciously persecuted Jacob and subjugated Jews for centuries as second class citizens and Christ killers. Hardly an aspect worthy of a redeemer’s movement. Lest we also forget the countless Christians who also died at Christendom’s hands? Were there good Christians? Sure. Does this mean the movement as a whole is beyond doubt? No.”

    >“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
    “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
    “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
    (Matt 7)
    Ummm….. That last word “lawlessness” = Torahlessnes,

    ——————————
    This is the issue CP. You want to parse the Jesus of replacement theology from the Torah observant founder Yeshua. You know that The Torah observant among Jesus’ disciples were wiped out by the 4th century? Are we supposed to ignore that Jesus is seen as G-d to the vast majority in his movement still to the modern day?

    > Being there are currently 2.5 billion Christians and Yeshua said;
    “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.”
    Mathematics are not on their side.

    —————————
    I don’t consider them idol worshipers as non Jews because they (as a movement,) have had to make the best situation of a text that they didn’t know how to interpret as Jews may have interpreted it
    HOWEVER, Jews themselves who have a Jewish upbringing know that the Torah tells them to keep the commandments (as Moses gave them) in all their generations. As much as a Jewish person may respect Jesus, he or she simply cant accept Jesus because that loyalty unfortunately (in nearly all circumstances) clouds loyalty to the Torah.

    > I think I know what you meant, but please allow me to draw a distinction. Our loyalty ultimately belongs to God alone. I see both Christians make Jesus into an idol and Jews make Torah into an idol. As much as I respect Orthodox Judaism, putting the Torah before God (by some) is of grave concern for me when considering conversion.

    ——————————————
    Think about it. How much work have you had to do to separate the antinomian Jesus from the pro Jewish rabbi and his teachings? A lot of work I’d imagine, because I’ve undertaken that same task and expended similar effort in that quest for the historical Jesus.

    Yes, it’s been time consuming, sometimes exhausting, but always very rewarding!……and very very very lonely.

    ——————————————–
    When we know that other Jewish movements have venerated their rabbis to the point of clouding their judgement, (even when they have a Jewish education) we (both Jews and Christians) would consider that a foolish decision on their part. Why is it different when the same thing happens to Jesus and we question it?

    > For the most part don’t think it is foolishness to be yearning for Gods salvation and understand this desire sometimes clouds ones judgement. I think it says something about Yeshua even when he knew others were trying to trip him up with questions, he never told them not to question.

    ———————————————
    The people who died under Moses died because of Idolatry with the calf.

    > And they hadn’t even yet received the commandment not to do that sort of thing. Furthermore they declared the calf was not an idol but a representation of the God who brought them out of Egypt. Talk about starting out on the wrong foot! I find it interesting that the first set of Commandments were broken and Moses had to go up the mountain twice.

    ————————————–
    “I respect Jesus as a teacher, and I don’t consider him to be unethical, but that fact doesn’t mean he was the messiah, any more than the Rebbe being a good teacher made him the messiah.”

    > I agree, however if he was unethical and a poor teacher, this would surely disqualify him as a messiah. Throughout the ages there have been many ethical Rabbis who were good teachers, and some who even gave their lives. But as the saying goes; “Timing is everything”. Yeshua came at just the right time before the end of Israel for 2000 years, the right time to fulfill the Daniel prophecy, and in a way which fulfilled messianic concepts found in Isaiah 49, 53, & 61 and Psalms 89.
    Does this mean he is the ultimate fulfillment of Messiah son of David? No, not at this time, but in time we shall all see one way or the other. This still in no way disqualifies him from being the one or type of one Moses said we should listen to or be held to account. In fact I see nothing in him which would disqualify his teaching to being listened to, learned and lived.

  27. CP says:

    Concerned Reader,

    “The generation that died in the desert experienced redemption itself from actual bondage in Egypt, and responded with “Meh.”

    > some interesting things about Moses that “hint” at a two stage messiah concept; Moses led them out, but another led them into the promise land. It took two trips up the mountain to get things done and it was very very important the rock be struck once, not twice.

    “Jews who question Jesus are still in exile, and still persecuted for saying “I love the commandments more than a messiah.” If Jesus comes tomorrow and rebuilds the Temple and takes Jews to Israel and inaugurates the redemption, Jews would probably be stunned, but then, they would pack their bags. I’m sure we would all ask Jesus, “say man, what took you so long?”

    > this begs the question, aside from God himself, what would one love more; the commandments or salvation? Not that one should hate one and love the other, but since I’m not perfect at the commandments I really really appreciate God’s salvation, but acknowledge they are a synergistic pair.

    I think some, hopefully most would pack their bags, but the reality is Yeshua has always been the great divider.

    • Dina says:

      “I think some, hopefully most would pack their bags, but the reality is Yeshua has always been the great divider.”

      The prophets predict that the messiah will unite all of mankind in worship of the one true God of Israel, not divide.

      The prophets predicted that prior to the messiah’s coming, Elijah would come and unite the people.

      So by your own words, Jesus is disqualified.

      • CP says:

        Dina,
        You’re interpretation cannot possibly be correct, for how can God unite the wicked with the righteous?…….unless you espouse some sort of universalism, which I highly doubt.

    • Concerned Reader says:

      CP, hints are not a sound foundation.

  28. CP says:

    Concerned Reader,

    I agree hints are not a sure foundation but rather icing on the cake.
    Ones sure foundation is built by living the Words of God.

    • cflat7 says:

      Can it not be argued that hints are not icing, that they are not anything? …that they are nothing but what one imagines? Does Hashem say somewhere He will hide important truths and hint about them here and there (and not even mention them explicitly somewhere even once)?

      • Eleazar says:

        Exactly. Most Christians believe some of the most salvational and critical doctrines ( at least to them) are found in hints, types and shadows.

      • CP says:

        @eflat7;

        “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter
        It is the glory of kings to search out a matter”

        Proverbs 25:2

        • cflat7 says:

          Is it really concealed if hints are left here and there? And what matter is being concealed? Why would the matter about Jesus be concealed? What benefit would that provide?

          • CP says:

            @eflat7,

            As to why God conceals a matter, only HE knows
            However…….if I were to speculate;
            1) Perhaps God doesn’t want the adversary to know HIS complete plan.
            2) Perhaps God wants things done when, how when and by who HE wants. Not laying out HIS plans in plain sight prevents man from interfering.
            3) Yeshua said things were told beforehand so when they happened you would believe, (not so you would know ahead of time)
            4) There is a verse in Isaiah which speaks to things being hidden from the wicked yet given to those with a right heart.

            The bottom line; God conceals things which HE deems best concealed to be revealed when, to who and how HE wants them revealed.

          • cflat7 says:

            “The bottom line; God conceals things which HE deems best concealed to be revealed when, to who and how HE wants them revealed.”

            But CP you are only speculating that God concealed the truth about Jesus and that he left hints for you to discover. You have no valid way to confirm your hunch about this other than your belief that Jesus’ promised spirit is leading you to the truth about this.

          • CP says:

            @eflat,

            …….And the Tanach, Talmud, NT scriptures, History and the experiential give more than hints.

            I know it would be much easier to reject Yeshua if you can prove it is all based on smoke and mirrors. (the paganized Pauline version is). The problem is the real historical Yeshua isn’t, it is based on valid acceptable Midrash. I know you’d like for God to have supplied you with a photograph and itinerary for the Messiah. HE kinda did, the problem is HE supplied you with two contradictory photographs and itineraries which people, Jews, Christians and even athesists confuse.

          • cflat7 says:

            “I know you’d like for God to have supplied you with a photograph and itinerary for the Messiah. HE kinda did”

            I’d say God “did”, not “kinda did”. My understanding is that the Torah/Tanach supplies us with definite things to look for in the Messianic era and what the Messiah will acheive. Jesus didn’t acheive them when he was here. I’d argue that that is grounds for rejecting him as Messiah. I believe there are a number of articles on this blog that clearly cover all this. I have seen that you have not have successfully refuted those articles to my satisfaction, but you are here to convince yourself not to convince us.🙂

          • CP says:

            eflat7,
            You conveniently ignore contradictory messianic prophecy only focusing on one set which agree.

          • cflat7 says:

            “eflat7,
            You conveniently ignore contradictory messianic prophecy only focusing on one set which agree.”

            So instead of seeing if those seeming contradictory messianic prophecies can be resolved, you look for and hang on to hints that conjectorily support the Christian view of them?

            It is a “c” in cFlat7 btw.

          • CP says:

            cflat7,
            You are being intellectually dishonest.
            I never said by belief was based on hints, in fact I have plainly said otherwise. I only was pointing out and discussing some hints which just happen to agree with acceptable historic Judaic midrash. You seeing this as an opportunity to pounce have created a strawman out of a discussion concerning hints that has nothing to do with interpretation of Scripture. Hopefully the fact that I agree with your self made strawman of basing theology on hints doesn’t dampen your sense of victory. I leave you alone to glory in your triumph.

          • CP says:

            @KAVI,

            If we were to count up all the different forms God has revealed Himself in……..
            ……..I think there’d be a lot more than three.

          • cflat7 says:

            “I leave you alone to glory in your triumph.”
            I wasn’t attempting to triumph, my intention was to challenge your assumptions and logic.

          • CP says:

            @eflat,
            I read your post with the wrong attitude, I apologize for my harsh response.

            My logic is this:
            >Contemporary Christianity is in error.
            >The error started as early as 10 years after Yeshua with Paul
            >The Gospels written after Paul’s epistles have been heavily edited to conform to Pauline doctrine.
            >There is a historical Yeshua which conforms to second Temple Judaism and Torah
            >This historical Yeshua fulfilled some messianic prophecies which can be classified as messiah son of Joseph prophecies.

            There are a number of scholars in search of of the historical Yeshua using textual criticism and extra biblical texts of the first and second century. What emerges is a throughly Jewish 1st century Rabbi, possibly a Pharisee with messianic aspirations.

            In the academic world this is not in question. What is in question (to some) is if indeed he was a type of messiah; annoited by God to do what he did.

          • cflat7 says:

            CP,
            Ah, okay… so the evidence for him being anoited by God would be in one of the Gospels? Is there a prediction of that (re being anointed and re what he did) in Tanach?

            As far as a type of Messiah re Joseph, I suppose that goes back to the other thread on this topic, i.e. is it possible that he be both of Joseph and of David. I don’t recall where that discussion ended up.

          • CP says:

            eflat7,

            The concept of messiah son of Joseph comes from the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbis speculated the conflicting images of Messiah shown in the Tanach. From this they surmised there was:
            1) One Messiah who comes twice.
            Or….
            2) Two Messiahs who come at different times.
            Or ….
            3) One or two Messiahs conditional on Israel’s repentance.

            I would guess the reason you reject Yeshua as a candidate is because you look at the Jesus of contemporary Christianity and say no way, as do I. However the historical Yeshua is not easily dismissed. The problem is everyone is judging by the one contemporary Christianity holds up as the true Jesus. The funny thing is Christians believe it and accept him and Jews believe them and reject him.

          • CP Messiah son of Joseph is based on Obadiah 1:18 and 21 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            In other words, Messiah son of Joseph, based on these two verses, will destroy Esau. Which Jesus did not do. Is that right, Rabbi B.?

          • Dina Yes – add in also Deuteronomy 33:17 – all of these describe a warrior 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • KAVI says:

            CP and cflat7,

            G-d testified of a triumphant and suffering redeemer in Genesis 3.

            “And I will put enmity
            between you and the woman,
            and between your offspring and hers;

            He will crush your head,
            and you will strike His heel”

            There is only one, single Mashiach that G-d intended to fulfill the role of Suffering and Conquering– both roles were needed to redeem mankind from sin.

            _________________________

          • CP says:

            KAVI,
            Are you saying you think Yeshua fulfilled both roles at the same time 2000 years ago?

          • KAVI says:

            CP,
            As to what is written in Genesis 3– yes,
            [] Yeshua died on the execution tree on behalf of mankind’s sin [suffering]
            [] Yeshua lived without sin and thereby overcame sin and the evil one– He rose from the dead as a testament to His victory [conquering]

            ___________________

          • CP says:

            KAVI,
            I’ll be straight to the point:
            Yeshua did not yet fulfill all the prophecies attributed to the Messiah in Tanach. If Yeshua does no more, one must “spiritualize” what he did do to kinda make it fit. This is why he must come again.

          • KAVI says:

            CP,
            Your assessment of that Yeshua HaMashiach did not fulfill enough of the prophecies is understandable– most folks on this blog and similar websites share your belief.

            On the other hand, there are those [including former Orthodox Rabbis] who have examined the “arguments” of Rabbinic Judaism against Yeshua as a Divine HaMashiach and found them lacking.

            The concept of “spiritualizing” prophecy can be levied against Orthodox Rabbis as well as Messianics– Who’s right? Well, that depends on one’s perspective of Truth. I suppose there are many people who love endless debates and never come to a satisfying conclusion.

            Certainly, some prophecies regarding Mashiach are reasonably debatable– I don’t have a problem with that situation because G-d continues to “conceal” matters– the critical point for each person is to determine whether G-d testified that true, practical redemption is through Faith in the Redeemer, L-rd Yeshua, or through another way [e.g., obedience to the Mosaic Law].

            For myself and others who believe in “The Way”, the testimony of G-d in Scripture points to L-rd Yeshua as HaMashiach.

            My understanding is that you came to this site to test your Faith and pursue Truth– in doing so, I would like to think you might hold open the option that redemption in a Divine L-rd Yeshua is something for further consideration.

          • CP says:

            KAVI,
            “…..the critical point for each person is to determine whether G-d testified that true, practical redemption is through Faith in the Redeemer, L-rd Yeshua, or through another way [e.g., obedience to the Mosaic Law].”

            I assume where we differ is you feel these two ^^^ things are mutually exclusive.

            Yeshua said many would come to him in that day claiming they did all kinds of great things for him yet he says to them ‘away from me you workers of lawlessness (without Torah).

            ^^^ Something to consider.

          • CP says:

            R’B
            I read Obadiah and struggled for a meaning. Then when you posted Deut 33 I had a thought.

            Do you think these verses can refer to a people united by a belief in a particular person? I’m sure you know what I’m getting at.

          • CP What is so difficult about the passage in Obadiah that you need to come up with some “explanation”?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • CP What God wants to conceal remains concealed and is not our business – Deuteronomy 29:28

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            How do you read Proverbs 25:2?

          • CP There is a contrast between a king and God – it is impossible to search out all of God’s glory or to fully understand it – that lack of comprehension on our part is reflective of the greatness of God – in contrast – a human king – we could encompass his greatness in our minds so he is honored when we see all of what he is

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • KAVI says:

            CP,
            What is “revealed” in Tanakh is that the L-rd Yeshua, the Son of Man, is the “Temunah” of G-d.

            I agree that no one is to worship a mere “Temunah”– However, what happens when “The Temunah” is One Being of G-d’s Echad, Tri-une existence.

            Scripture plainly says that Moses saw the Temunah [Form] of G-d and that Moses spoke face to face with G-d. [Numbers 12:6-8]

            Likewise, scripture testifies that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others visibly beheld G-d.

            The only way G-d designed mankind to see Him was through The One who eventually “revealed” Himself as the Son of Man– the L-rd Yeshua.
            __________________________

            We know that no one can see G-d [the Ancient of Days] and live– for many it’s not stretch of logic to lead a person to understand that G-d’s Being has been revealed in Torah as Tri-une in nature,
            [] The G-d whom mankind is not allowed to see His full Form
            [] The G-d whom mankind is allowed to see His Form
            [] The G-d whose Form is described like the hovering of a dove above the waters at the time of creation– Ruach HaKodesh

            Elohim said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”

            Only three– there is nothing else revealed in Tanach except this One, Echad G-D who somehow exists in Tri-unity.

          • edward says:

            “Scripture plainly says that Moses saw the Temunah [Form] of G-d and that Moses spoke face to face with G-d. [Numbers 12:6-8]”

            yes, ancient people believed that gods could come down as fully gods. or take on many forms.

            “Likewise, scripture testifies that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others visibly beheld G-d.”

            yes, ancient pagans believed gods could be visibly beheld. this nothing unique.

            “Elohim said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”

            yes, there were male and female gods in a group.

            i recently listened to a reply by tovia singer and he said the “im” implies powers of god, not persons.

          • KAVI says:

            Edward,
            Are you saying the teachings of Torah are pagan?

            The book of Genesis was written well before your modern concepts of paganism evolved.

            ____________

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            Thank you for your answers. I’ve been giving this some thought; that perhaps I should quit digging and just do, yet I cannot seen to loosen my grasp on the shovel.

            Your answer then begs the question;
            How do we know what is concealed and what is revealed?

            And a related question addressed in the Prophets;
            Are some things concealed to some and revealed to others?

  29. edward says:


    Dina, your statement begs the question; Do you come to the Father through your obedience to the commandments? If yes, then according to your logic you’ve made the commandments into an idol.”

    God gave commandment which came out of his mind
    maybe a prophet demonstrates how to do the commandments (maybe thats what you have in mind about your jesus?)

    one who does what came out of Gods mind is not doing idolatry, because if he is , then it is like saying that commandments and gods mind are two separate things .

    jesus is a separate thing. it is a created finite thing. a thing which needs food. water. it gets tired. it sleeps.

    even unitarian christians have pumped up jesus all the way to the status of the almighty

    they have made him an equal to god. some how his weekend “sacrifice ” and his works are the only thing gods likes , everyone else ,including the prophets are a disgrace.

    but this is a lie , because god is not biased or shows favouritism . if he does then he is a limited god .

    • Concerned Reader says:

      CP, you mentioned G-d possibly concealing plans to hide them from the advesary? The evil inclination is a creature. It is a creation of G-d. Why would G-d need to hide something? Is the adversary so witty that G-d needs to hide?

      You are basing your reasons on something reliant entirely on Christian assumptions and the Christian tradition, just focus on the 1st 5 books. G-d doesnt need to be worried about hiding plans from his own creation.

      You have stated before that you are weary of simply accepting Jewish oral traditions. Why then are you so quick to embrace Christian oral traditions which cant be found in the Torah except by vague hints?

      • CP says:

        @Concerned Reader,

        First allow me to reiterate, I do NOT know why God may conceal a matter. Scripture plainly says HE does and that should be the end of it.

        All I did was offer some speculations as to why God would conceal a matter. I do not assume them to be correct, only speculations.

        As for the adversary or evil inclination. They are two separate things. I believe the adversary’s first appearance in Scripture is Job and the evil inclination appears in Genesis. Whether the adversary is in rebellion or not is imaterial to our conversation. The reason for concealment if the adversary is in rebellion is obvious, therefore let’s consider a reason for concealment if the adversary is working as an agent of God. We need go no further than the conversation between God and the adversary in the Book of Job to see there was a difference of opinion. God said Job wouldn’t fold, apparently this bit of information had been concealed from the adversary.

        • bible819 says:

          CP,

          Have you considered Moses snake and the secret arts of the magicians in Egypt ect.

          Rod to snake vs rod to snake. God snake eats satans snakes though out numbered.

          Power given by God vs power given to the magicians by satan.

          God’s Prophet vs Prophet prophesying lies.

          Spirit tormenting Saul

          Saul prophesying before Samuel.

          Eyes Open! Why a spiritual Army? vs Who?

          7Then Elisha prayed and said, “O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the LORD opened the servant’s eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

          Conclusion:
          Yeshua exposed satan’s army!

  30. edward says:

    is it the works or the person?

    quote:
    You must even believe the right liturgical things concerning the Lordʼs Supper, because “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Speaking of right belief, the Gospel says it was composed “that ye may believe,” and starts off telling everyone what to believe about Jesus, and has the disciples call Jesus the messiah and much more the instant they meet him, and even has John the Baptist declare what one must believe about Jesus (a line found in no other Gospel), namely that Jesus is “The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” something one “must” believe per John
    end quote

    • Concerned Reader says:

      Edward said “i recently listened to a reply by Tovia singer and he said the “im” implies powers of god, not persons.”

      Edward, I think its funny that you would bring up that lecture from Rabbi Singer, because I saw it too, and have seen others. For those who don’t know, in one lecture, Rabbi Singer laments the Christian argument that Elohim and Echad “somehow” refer to a plurality of persons.

      Rabbi Singer shows simply how absurd this is, because one means one in Hebrew, just as in English, whether a single item or a bunch is referred to, one is one.

      However, rabbi Singer then proceeds to ask, “why isn’t the word Yachid used instead of Echad in the Shema?” His answer was to the effect that Echad, points to how all the various attributes no matter how different or mutually exclusive all come from the one G-d.

      While I was listening to this, I was completely floored that Rabbi singer did not appear to know where this proof among Christians (that Echad and Elohim mean a pluraity) originated.

      You will not find this proof among Christian authors until the middle ages. That is because, the proof that Elohim and Echad somehow refer to a plurality came from the Italian Kabbalists, not Christians, and it was later adapted and reimported by the Christians like Pico De Mirandolla. As I said, I was stunned that rabbi Singer didn’t realize that this is where that particularly nutty proof came from.

  31. edward says:


    Are you saying the teachings of Torah are pagan?

    The book of Genesis was written well before your modern concepts of paganism evolved.”

    kavi, why don’t i have the right to split the trinity but the bible does? why does the bible speak of a self aware conscious person called “father” who talks to another self aware conscious person called “the son” ? the bible has split trinity, so i am splitting it too and telling you that if you think tanak assumes trinity then tanak is close to pagan ideas no matter how much you dumb the partners.persons, group in one bus and call it “god”

    kavi, here is something about distant gods and close gods

    ::::::::::::::::close gods::::::::::::::::::::::

    In response, an anonymous poet wrote a hymn celebrating the actions and character of Demetrius, associating him with the great goddess of Greece, Demeter. Here is an extract of his hymn:

    The greatest among the gods have drawn close to our city…

    Both Demeter and Demetrius…

    Hail to you, O Son of the mighty god Poseidon and of Aphrodite.

    The other gods dwell so far away,

    or else they have no ears,

    or they do not exist, or do not care at all about us

    We see you in our midst,

    not a wooden or stone presence, but bodily

    And so we pray to you… bring about peace

    for you are the Lord (κύριος)

    Notice what is said of Demetrius. He is one of the “greatest gods,” the son of God” (specifically of the gods Poseidon and Aphrodite), one who is “near” his own people – not remote, off on Mount Olympus, the one who “brings peace,” who can be called “Lord.”

    These ascriptions to Demetrius should sound familiar to anyone who knows about early Christianity, where Jesus too was known as the incarnation of a divine being, the Son of God, the bringer of peace, the Lord, and God in the flesh. My ultimate point: Jesus was not the first to be called such things, or thought to be a kind of incarnation of the divine. He had predecessors.

    The gods in Greek and Roman thought were considered to be superhuman. Unlike, say, the (animal-shaped) gods of Egypt, the Greek and Roman gods were literally in human form. When they appeared here on earth to humans they were often “bigger than life,” but they could assume regular human form when they wanted to and they were human-shaped even when attending to their heavenly duties. In the Greek and Roman myths, they acted in human ways, they experienced the range of human emotions, they manifested human foibles, and so on.

    But they were different from humans in several ways. For one thing, they were far more powerful than mere mortals. They could accomplish things that no human could. None of them was infinitely powerful, but on the scale of power, they were off the charts. Moreover, they did not have a lifespan. They did come into existence at some point, but (with few exceptions) they would never go out of existence. They were immortal.

    end quote

    • Concerned Reader says:

      Edward, “Pagan” is a category assigned by people, its not an actual thing.

      “Pagan” is a word that monotheists place on polytheistic belief systems to differentiate themselves, even if the differences are very minimal or artificial in terms of actuality.

      For instance.

      In Buddhism we know that Buddhists take remains of the Buddha, and they build a Stupa. A stupa is a gravesite where the remains are stored. Many Buddhists go to Stupas to meditate and be introspective about life. THEY DO NOT PRAY TO BUDDHA because their faith system has no concept of deities to speak of. Now, we, (in the western world) would say, “that belief system is Pagan.”

      However, we know that visiting the graves of the righteous (to be introspective and think about life,) is a common biblical practice, and is not “pagan.”

      Do you see how “pagan” is just a category we impose? Is Circumcision pagan? Ancient Egyptian priests practiced it, as do the Aborigines, does that make the practice “pagan”?

      You should read Benjamin Sommer’s book “the bodies of god and the world of ancient Israel.”

      The Tanakh itself assumes that it is dealing with “pagans” from the start. We may even say the Tanakh is “pagans anonymous” a 12 step program for recovering polytheists.

      • Dina says:

        Con, according to traditional Judaism, the practices you described above are not pagan. Just because a pagan does something doesn’t make the act pagan.

        Idolatry is defined by the Torah, not by your subjective understanding. I mean this with respect. There was no distinction between paganism and non-paganism (although monotheism did exist) outside of the Torah.

  32. Dina says:

    CP, I’ve been meaning to ask you for a while: do you fast on Yom Kippur?

  33. Concerned Reader says:

    Con, according to traditional Judaism, the practices you described above are not pagan. Just because a pagan does something doesn’t make the act pagan.

    My point was, Buddhism would be considered Idolatry by the Torah, as would ancestor worship, even though common practices associated with those religious philosophies, (like praying at graves,) would be allowed by the Torah.

    • Dina says:

      Con, you can pray anywhere you want, it’s to whom you direct your prayer that’s the question. The particular practices you highlighted are not idolatrous.

    • Dina says:

      Also, I can’t remember how we got here. I think at this point I’m arguing just to argue🙂.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s