Why Jews will never accept Jesus

tbeachhead

Active member
Rotfl... it's your desperation showing with your appeal to a Jewish concept. I'll give you credit for the try đŸ˜‰
Thanks...and I will always give you credit for your wisdom.

Being a god, he would have known, could have refused, and requested water. Sour wine was the common drink of Roman soldiers.
Being God He could have called legions of angels, and stopped the deal...but there was Death to defeat, and life to restore, and relationship to seal forever. The promise had been made to Abraham when He walked between the carcasses...He could not back off. He became a curse that you should inherit the fullness according to the promise, and by this act, the wall that separated us was broken and the blessings of Abraham extended to the generations of Adam. This is how suzerainty treaties work.
Roman soldiers would be naive of what was occurring and of Jewish law. He broke his vow. This a very desperate cry on your part. ;)
It's clear that there's some desperation here. Not to worry. Drink is "pino". He took it in the face. It does not say he drank. And the Romans didn't give a whoop. They did this for a living, and, according to what I've read, when they cared, they gave the drink in advance to dull the pain. He never drank from this cup, because he was taking the cup of the wrath of God that He received in the garden.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
So you saw a vision but not reality. Sounds like you had a biased experience based on visual indoctrination.
I saw a vision. What makes that not a reality? What Isaiah saw is very real. What Ezekiel saw is very real...and he watched the Spirit leave the temple in one of the most tragic, woeful scenes in the entire Tanakh. That, too, was real. Too real.
Ok. Visions are not reality.
Disagree...you're very western in your thought...That's not a compliment.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Thanks...and I will always give you credit for your wisdom.
Ok.

Being God He could have called legions of angels, and stopped the deal...but there was Death to defeat, and life to restore, and relationship to seal forever.
An assumption with zero evidence that a created man is the God, the Creator. In fact it's a contradiction.

Jesus never said he was God, but the contrary. Your comment above regarding calling the legions of angels was the Father providing that, not he himself. Quite a difference.

The promise had been made to Abraham when He walked between the carcasses...He could not back off.
Again, you mention things that have nothing to do with Jesus.

He became a curse that you should inherit the fullness according to the promise, and by this act, the wall that separated us was broken and the blessings of Abraham extended to the generations of Adam.
And yet Deuteronomy 32:6 says God has no sin so He doesn't take on sin, curses as you say.

This is how suzerainty treaties work.
Explain.

It's clear that there's some desperation here. Not to worry. Drink is "pino". He took it in the face. It does not say he drank.
There's no other understanding for it. One takes possession of a drink in the mouth.

And the Romans didn't give a whoop.
Of course not. But Jesus didn't make a request for water, as he wasn't knowledgeable of all things as God is.

They did this for a living, and, according to what I've read, when they cared, they gave the drink in advance to dull the pain. He never drank from this cup, because he was taking the cup of the wrath of God that He received in the garden.
He drank it. He couldn't take it by hand.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I saw a vision. What makes that not a reality? What Isaiah saw is very real. What Ezekiel saw is very real...and he watched the Spirit leave the temple in one of the most tragic, woeful scenes in the entire Tanakh. That, too, was real. Too real.
Unfortunately, you haven't studied or understood the Hebrew root damah used in Isaiah 40:18,25;46:5. God has no likeness to the physical, blood, or adam/man. We know that prophets, with the exception of Moses saw visions and riddles, but Moses saw clearly that God has no physical form, Deut 4:9,12,35.

Dreams, day dreams, visual imagination, etc., are not reality.

Disagree...you're very western in your thought...That's not a compliment.
On the contrary, but you really don't understand the above. BTW, don't worry BTH. Like I said before, nothing you've shared has provided any new insight. Nor do I hold your thoughts in high regard.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You're correct...buy buttressing your own error: lambano is not the same word as pino, which actually does mean to drink. Judas received the "sop" and left. Nothing says he ate or drank it. Interestingly enough...when you read the eyewitness accounts, Jesus used the verb pino, "I will not drink...", and then passed the Cup of Redemption...apparently without even drinking. Like I said.
None of this makes sense in the context of a Pesach seder. Jesus would have drunk the cups. Again, taking possession of a drink can only mean one thing, he drank it at the cross since he had no hands freely available.

I do know that you have claimed that the eyewitness accounts of the foibles of each group was misrepresented...and two thousand years later you have the better view. It's not a very strong claim, given the credibility of the eyewitness accounts.
We know the differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and can see errors in ideology being attributed to the wrong groups. Again, with Gamaliel and Pharisees being lenient towards Jesus and the Nazarenes, it's hard to believe the accounts.

There may be some things that have been covered up over time.
Now look who's playing God...You're not sitting in the right seat for this...first of all, you have to justify abrogating the Law...and not rebuilding the temple.
You just used the argument of pikuach nefesh for Jesus for breaking his vows. This normally applies in matters of life or death on the Sabbath but can be applied to rebuilding the temple in our times. But, since we know that Daniel's generation received atonement without the temple, your argument is mute.

That's the first thing that happened when the decree went out to return.
Jesus explained the deeper meaning. Did you miss it? It's not what goes in that defiles, but what comes out. Out of the heart the mouth speaks, to justify or defile. Did you miss that? The food laws are good for the health, and no one denies the wholesomeness of Kosher. And the law addresses the condition of the heart.
The kosher laws were given for a reason, and health isn't a reason given. But, neither Jesus or Paul has a reason to abrogate. That's the position of a false prophet, regardless of any miracles made by them.

As an aside, the epistle of Barnabas, one of the apocryphal writings contemporary with the NT, was written to explain this. I wonder if you've read it. I found it well reasoned, but...I'm goy.
I haven't read it.

This is actually funny..."Removed" under the nose of the posted Roman guard? The soldiers are dead men. Nopers. The body was risen in the morning...The misguided conspirators had no choice but to bribe.
Too much evidence to the contrary to sustain your claim. You're desperate again.
No, again with the evidence of Talpiot, its easy to see that events didn't happen as depicted. Nor the tombs bursting, etc.

Reasonable question...and my answer won't satisfy. I met them in 1985...and I remember the encounter much better than the details. You would have to accept that I am skeptical by nature...I just don't remember well enough.
So, you can understand why I don't accept this story. And again, even false prophets do miracles. Do you know how to identify a true prophet?

Actually, that's pretty clear. You've had experiences.
Nope...You're clinging to rags.
God's commandments aren't rags. It's clear he broke his vows. And he wasn't perfectly sinless.

What's clear is your willingness to cling to misconception when they've been refuted.
No, Hebrews 5:7 is clear he isn't praying for anyone but himself.

The language is very clear. Your guess is entirely out of the context of a very consistent narrative.Fortunately no claim to the contrary makes truth go away.
You haven't shown him praying for anyone else.

What's funny to me is the "Spoken word from the Father" that personified dirt and fashioned into a Man...was not a person.
Why is that funny? My word doesn't return void. A word isn't a person. Thing, yes, but not a person.

Your word is you...You're having difficulty with the nature of the God Who is perfectly united with His Word as to be inseparable.
No, my word is formed by me, and when spoken is not me. My word is not a person. Apply that to God.
 
Last edited:

Rachel Redux

Active member
I will not bow to an idol of flesh.
If the one you believe to be Messiah showed up today, would you bow the knee? When Yeshua returns to rule the kingdom his father gave him, you'll bow to him.
John 3: 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
If the one you believe to be Messiah showed up today, would you bow the knee? When Yeshua returns to rule the kingdom his father gave him, you'll bow to him.
John 3: 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.
Bowing is not the issue as King David was bowed to as well as others. Worshipping a man as God would be the issue. Why bow to Jesus when he himself bowed, worshipped another with both of his natures?
 

tbeachhead

Active member
Ok. An assumption with zero evidence that a created man is the God, the Creator. In fact it's a contradiction.
This is the kind of "Jewish" argument you're forced to use. No one has ever suggested that "a created man" is the God the Creator. We allow that the Word created, and we know what, historically, you must deny, that the Word was made flesh...and we watch it happen in the testimony of Luke. Light became Man, and as he walked the earth, he obeyed the laws of nature and the faith of God established for all time through Abraham.

Jesus never said he was God, but the contrary. Your comment above regarding calling the legions of angels was the Father providing that, not he himself. Quite a difference.
Jesus proved Who He was. Never the contrary. What I stated was a choice Jesus made, and acknowledged He had. He had all authority, both of Adam and of the Father. That was the gist of his final statement in Matthew 28. "All authority...in HEAVEN AND on earth." Kind of undoes your claim: He stated the authority He wielded.
Again, you mention things that have nothing to do with Jesus.
That's nonsense. Look it up. When God alone walked between the carcasses there were two, not one that passed between. Abraham was represented by proxy. You should know this better than I. Two suzerains must walk between, for the curse to be held valid, and when they walk, they claim the curse of the slaughter they walk between, if they do not uphold their side of the vow. God had vowed the land from the Euphrates to the Nile...and He could not uphold His end, while Israel remained unfaithful...Jesus had to redeem all of Israel for the land to be yours. And in that curse, the promise was extended.

You missed something that is hidden in plain sight.
And yet Deuteronomy 32:6 says God has no sin so He doesn't take on sin, curses as you say.
Look at the Lamb. It stands in proxy, and it's blood is shed.
See above.
There's no other understanding for it. One takes possession of a drink in the mouth.
Since I'm offering a viable understanding...there is another and a better one. Pino means drink. He did not drink. He thirsted.
Of course not. But Jesus didn't make a request for water, as he wasn't knowledgeable of all things as God is.
Jesus said, "I thirst." That looks like a statement. Where did He ask for a drink?
He drank it. He couldn't take it by hand.
This is ping pong. Pino is drink.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
Unfortunately, you haven't studied or understood the Hebrew root damah used in Isaiah 40:18,25;46:5. God has no likeness to the physical, blood, or adam/man. We know that prophets, with the exception of Moses saw visions and riddles, but Moses saw clearly that God has no physical form, Deut 4:9,12,35.
I have...God created an image...and he is us...and His breath animates us. And you have been forced to run from the implications, because the Word cannot be made flesh to dwell as we for a time. You have limited God, and in so doing, you have limited redemption to a thing of your imagination without price...yet you are priceless and called.

[Dreams, day dreams, visual imagination, etc., are not reality.
Again. You are so limited, you cannot respond to the statement I made: Did Ezekiel see the Spirit leave...while he was in exile? I suggest you need to study reality better. Real visions can be real.
On the contrary, but you really don't understand the above. BTW, don't worry BTH. Like I said before, nothing you've shared has provided any new insight. Nor do I hold your thoughts in high regard.
You're stuck to old insights, very western and pragmatic...Some of them are worth getting further acquainted with. Go with Abraham to watch a smoking pot and a flaming brazier walk between the halved animals. Get straight on that one, and see the promise of redemption that it imposes.
 

Open Heart

Active member
If the one you believe to be Messiah showed up today, would you bow the knee? When Yeshua returns to rule the kingdom his father gave him, you'll bow to him.
John 3: 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.
Jewish rulers understand that Jews bow only to God.

Glad to see you back.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
None of this makes sense in the context of a Pesach seder. Jesus would have drunk the cups. Again, taking possession of a drink can only mean one thing, he drank it at the cross since he had no hands freely available.
And yet he passed on the cup without drinking. And although it CAN only mean one thing for you, because you'd have to accept your own error or learn something new...yours is not the best read. And I've shown you that.
We know the differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and can see errors in ideology being attributed to the wrong groups. Again, with Gamaliel and Pharisees being lenient towards Jesus and the Nazarenes, it's hard to believe the accounts.
Sources can err. Even ancient sources had an angle they were required to defend.
You just used the argument of pikuach nefesh for Jesus for breaking his vows. This normally applies in matters of life or death on the Sabbath but can be applied to rebuilding the temple in our times. But, since we know that Daniel's generation received atonement without the temple, your argument is mute.
I think you mean moot...Daniel knew what his atonement came from...and when the temple was restored, as soon as they returned to the Land, so, too, were the requirements of the Law...
The kosher laws were given for a reason, and health isn't a reason given. But, neither Jesus or Paul has a reason to abrogate. That's the position of a false prophet, regardless of any miracles made by them.
See above...Jesus clarified, and fulfilled. What goes in does not defile a man.
I haven't read it.
Consider this a recommendation if you ever do. I'd be interested to know your response. I lay no claim to inspiration...but human interest can be intriguing sometimes.
No, again with the evidence of Talpiot, its easy to see that events didn't happen as depicted. Nor the tombs bursting, etc.
You're still grasping at the shortest straws...It will never work.
So, you can understand why I don't accept this story. And again, even false prophets do miracles. Do you know how to identify a true prophet?
You bet...do you? (Who do you know who would answer in the negative. The evidence produces itself in the end, doesn't it? The folks you are believing have taught the same error for centuries. You'd say the same for me. It still makes for fascinating discourse. And comparison.)

God's commandments aren't rags. It's clear he broke his vows. And he wasn't perfectly sinless.
You're not clinging to his commandments. You're clinging to lost and fallacious arguments. It's clear he didn't break a vow, and that you're hung up on the misunderstanding of a word. When did you first get taught this? I'm guessing this argument satisfied you years ago. It's still specious. Jesus never broke a vow. Context makes that clear despite years of false claims to the contrary.
No, Hebrews 5:7 is clear he isn't praying for anyone but himself.
Where does it say he prayed for himself? He prayed for you. John 17...and in your case, the level of the volume is pretty high...very clear.
You haven't shown him praying for anyone else.
John 17...get an audible version, and crank the volume...get to the part where he says, "I'm not just praying for these alone...but...", and see your name! Turn the volume up to max on that verse. Realism is important here for understanding!
Why is that funny? My word doesn't return void. A word isn't a person. Thing, yes, but not a person.
Dirt isn't a person, until God breathes into it. When the Word became flesh, He was a person. As the Word, He dwells in you every bit as much as He dwells in me. That, at least, is very clear in these posts.
No, my word is formed by me, and when spoken is not me. My word is not a person. Apply that to God.
This does not lack depth...but let me put it as a teacher, and see if this helps: My word and its purpose is formed...if it's me, it lacks the value, but if it's inspired, it has all the value and impact of a seed. If my student hears, and holds onto the word that I've spoken, it can form in him and change his life...He can become a French teacher, fluent in French, or, in the case of prophecy, empowered...and that's the life of the SEED planted. Every Word of God is a seed. Jesus is the vine.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
This is the kind of "Jewish" argument you're forced to use. No one has ever suggested that "a created man" is the God the Creator.
You do when you say or John says the word is God.

We allow that the Word created, and we know what, historically, you must deny, that the Word was made flesh...
Yes, the spoken word created, not that a person named the Word created. That's a big difference.

and we watch it happen in the testimony of Luke. Light became Man, and as he walked the earth, he obeyed the laws of nature and the faith of God established for all time through Abraham.
The promises of God come to fruition, not that those promises are God Himself.

Jesus proved Who He was. Never the contrary. What I stated was a choice Jesus made, and acknowledged He had. He had all authority, both of Adam and of the Father. That was the gist of his final statement in Matthew 28. "All authority...in HEAVEN AND on earth." Kind of undoes your claim: He stated the authority He wielded.
This doesn't undo anything I've said. The opposite is true. He only had what the Father allowed him. That's not the God.

That's nonsense. Look it up. When God alone walked between the carcasses there were two, not one that passed between. Abraham was represented by proxy. You should know this better than I. Two suzerains must walk between, for the curse to be held valid, and when they walk, they claim the curse of the slaughter they walk between, if they do not uphold their side of the vow. God had vowed the land from the Euphrates to the Nile...and He could not uphold His end, while Israel remained unfaithful...Jesus had to redeem all of Israel for the land to be yours. And in that curse, the promise was extended.
You've made up that God walked between the carcasses. Read Genesis 15 again.

You missed something that is hidden in plain sight.
Look at the Lamb. It stands in proxy, and it's blood is shed.
See above.
We're not talking about animals of flesh, but a non-physical God, who based on the Hebrew root damah, is neither physical, has blood, nor an adam/man. Study the shoresh.

Again, God says Himself He doesn't take on sin, curses, etc. It's the plain sight.

Since I'm offering a viable understanding...there is another and a better one. Pino means drink. He did not drink. He thirsted.
Just like one can say I drank a drink, consumed a drink, etc., Jesus drank here. I understand you're in a corner and can't admit to his breaking of a vow.

Jesus said, "I thirst." That looks like a statement. Where did He ask for a drink?
By saying I thirst.

This is ping pong. Pino is drink.
https://biblehub.com/john/19-30.htm Even your own NT bibles admit he drank, tasted, TBH.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I have...God created an image...and he is us...and His breath animates us. And you have been forced to run from the implications, because the Word cannot be made flesh to dwell as we for a time. You have limited God, and in so doing, you have limited redemption to a thing of your imagination without price...yet you are priceless and called.
You can't reply directly to what I gave you. Why not?

Again. You are so limited, you cannot respond to the statement I made: Did Ezekiel see the Spirit leave...while he was in exile? I suggest you need to study reality better. Real visions can be real.
Prophets see visions and riddles.

You're stuck to old insights, very western and pragmatic...Some of them are worth getting further acquainted with. Go with Abraham to watch a smoking pot and a flaming brazier walk between the halved animals. Get straight on that one, and see the promise of redemption that it imposes.
Yep, Genesis 15 mentions no God walking between the parts. You keep making up stuff, and I can understand why.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
You do when you say or John says the word is God.
Where does John say He's a "created man". That's your "Jewish" argument.
Yes, the spoken word created, not that a person named the Word created. That's a big difference.
The issue is your limitation. You're telling me what God can and cannot do...and history stands in your way. God did exactly as He said He would do.

The Word of God is true. He is a buckler to those who put their faith/trust in Him. Do not add to His Word...lest you be reproved and proven a liar. The Word controls. The Word expands. The Word plucks up. The Word casts down. There is Nothing He cannot do...and your statement practically admits that, but you still suggest He cannot become flesh and dwell among us.
The promises of God come to fruition, not that those promises are God Himself.
They create...like hands create.
This doesn't undo anything I've said. The opposite is true. He only had what the Father allowed him. That's not the God.
Au contraire...you said, "Jesus never claimed to be God." I have not disagreed...He didn't need to. Eyewitness, having seen and understood, and being inspired by the Spirit Himself, went on to make that claim. He laid hold on all authority in heaven and on earth. You did not take that into your reckoning, and now you're discounting the fact.
You've made up that God walked between the carcasses. Read Genesis 15 again.
Two walked between the carcasses...and the treaty was between God and Abraham. Abraham had a proxy. I'm not making that up. Study the nature of the suzerainty treaty. It's in the culture itself. Jeremiah talks about it as well. Chapter 34: 17"Therefore this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed Me; you have not proclaimed freedom, each man for his brother and for his neighbor. So now I proclaim freedom for you, declares the LORD—freedom to fall by sword, by plague, and by famine! I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 18And those who have transgressed My covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before Me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two in order to pass between its pieces. 19The officials of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the pieces of the calf,…" I didn't make it up. It's in the nature of the covenant. Jesus was treated as the calf they cut in two.
We're not talking about animals of flesh, but a non-physical God, who based on the Hebrew root damah, is neither physical, has blood, nor an adam/man. Study the shoresh.
I'm good with the tanakh. I'm not big on explaining what God can't and won't do. I'd rather look at His acts and learn His ways.

Again, God says Himself He doesn't take on sin, curses, etc. It's the plain sight.
Except that pesky...Isaiah 52-53. He took our sorrows, and bore our iniquities...bruised for our transgressions...and the chastisement that promised me peace was laid on Him.
Just like one can say I drank a drink, consumed a drink, etc., Jesus drank here. I understand you're in a corner and can't admit to his breaking of a vow.
Keep grasping. It's old...but it still doesn't cover what is written.
By saying I thirst.
Where did he ask for a drink.

https://biblehub.com/john/19-30.htm Even your own NT bibles admit he drank, tasted, TBH.
Sigh...I hate the NIV and the Living NON "translation". They make the same mistake you're making, when the Greek is right in front of you. Lambano is like "get" in English. He got it in his face. When he got it he said, "Paid in full..." You're ignoring the gift and stumbling on the wrapper.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Where does John say He's a "created man". That's your "Jewish" argument.
No, Tanakh is clear all men are created, born. It's just basic reasoning here.

The issue is your limitation. You're telling me what God can and cannot do...and history stands in your way. God did exactly as He said He would do.
Okay, tell me if God can be killed, sin, be unjust, lie, make a mistake, etc. You need to get away from the thinking of kids where anything is possible.

The Word of God is true. He is a buckler to those who put their faith/trust in Him. Do not add to His Word...lest you be reproved and proven a liar. The Word controls. The Word expands. The Word plucks up. The Word casts down. There is Nothing He cannot do...and your statement practically admits that, but you still suggest He cannot become flesh and dwell among us.
I don't why you put "word" in caps like is means a person, which it doesn't. You're just rambling here.

They create...like hands create.
Yes, God's spoke word created.

Au contraire...you said, "Jesus never claimed to be God." I have not disagreed...He didn't need to. Eyewitness, having seen and understood, and being inspired by the Spirit Himself, went on to make that claim. He laid hold on all authority in heaven and on earth. You did not take that into your reckoning, and now you're discounting the fact.
Why do you make assumptions when Jesus himself didn't make the claim. His claim was only to being messiah, nothing else.

Two walked between the carcasses...and the treaty was between God and Abraham. Abraham had a proxy. I'm not making that up. Study the nature of the suzerainty treaty.
I gave you Genesis 15. Show us where God walked between the parts. Study the actual verses.

It's in the culture itself. Jeremiah talks about it as well. Chapter 34: 17"Therefore this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed Me; you have not proclaimed freedom, each man for his brother and for his neighbor. So now I proclaim freedom for you, declares the LORD—freedom to fall by sword, by plague, and by famine! I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 18And those who have transgressed My covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before Me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two in order to pass between its pieces. 19The officials of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the pieces of the calf,…" I didn't make it up. It's in the nature of the covenant. Jesus was treated as the calf they cut in two.
Yep, doesn't say God passed. Why are you adding to scriptures.

I'm good with the tanakh. I'm not big on explaining what God can't and won't do. I'd rather look at His acts and learn His ways.
Yep, so tell us if God can do anything?

Except that pesky...Isaiah 52-53. He took our sorrows, and bore our iniquities...bruised for our transgressions...and the chastisement that promised me peace was laid on Him.
Pesky? it doesn't say God took on sins, or bled, etc. Why are you adding?

Keep grasping. It's old...but it still doesn't cover what is written.
Where did he ask for a drink
Didn't the link help you? You're own english translations and bibles say he drank, tasted. I don't see why your complaining ;)

Sigh...I hate the NIV and the Living NON "translation". They make the same mistake you're making, when the Greek is right in front of you. Lambano is like "get" in English. He got it in his face. When he got it he said, "Paid in full..." You're ignoring the gift and stumbling on the wrapper.
Maybe it's the other way around with bias translators doing what you are to avoid showing Jesus' shortcomings.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
And yet he passed on the cup without drinking. And although it CAN only mean one thing for you, because you'd have to accept your own error or learn something new...yours is not the best read. And I've shown you that.
No, you've shown the typical biased Christian response when even your own translations show he drank, tasted.

Sources can err. Even ancient sources had an angle they were required to defend.
Well, the NT erred alot.

I think you mean moot...Daniel knew what his atonement came from...and when the temple was restored, as soon as they returned to the Land, so, too, were the requirements of the Law...
Yep, from God. Atonement wasn't based on looking towards messiah as that is not said at all.

See above...Jesus clarified, and fulfilled. What goes in does not defile a man.
And yet the laws for the unclean animals were given and he and Paul taught otherwise. Such a shame.

Consider this a recommendation if you ever do. I'd be interested to know your response. I lay no claim to inspiration...but human interest can be intriguing sometimes.
Thanks, but I'm not interested.

You're still grasping at the shortest straws...It will never work.
No, you just don't like my arguments, which is understandable.

You bet...do you? (Who do you know who would answer in the negative. The evidence produces itself in the end, doesn't it? The folks you are believing have taught the same error for centuries. You'd say the same for me. It still makes for fascinating discourse. And comparison.)
Yep, so I concede no one is making ground. I never expected to convince and knew you'd not present anything new.

You're not clinging to his commandments. You're clinging to lost and fallacious arguments. It's clear he didn't break a vow, and that you're hung up on the misunderstanding of a word. When did you first get taught this? I'm guessing this argument satisfied you years ago. It's still specious. Jesus never broke a vow. Context makes that clear despite years of false claims to the contrary.
Context makes clear he did break his vow, just like he was defiled before his death and didn't cleanse in accordance to Numbers 19, so he was not perfect in the law.

Where does it say he prayed for himself?
Hebrews 5:7 does. The prayers of a sinner.

He prayed for you. John 17...and in your case, the level of the volume is pretty high...very clear.
He can pray all he wants. It means nothing.

John 17...get an audible version, and crank the volume...get to the part where he says, "I'm not just praying for these alone...but...", and see your name! Turn the volume up to max on that verse. Realism is important here for understanding!
Yep, which isn't Hebrews 5:7 so that try a bait and switch.

Dirt isn't a person, until God breathes into it. When the Word became flesh, He was a person. As the Word, He dwells in you every bit as much as He dwells in me. That, at least, is very clear in these posts.
God's words became creation. So?

This does not lack depth...but let me put it as a teacher, and see if this helps: My word and its purpose is formed...if it's me, it lacks the value, but if it's inspired, it has all the value and impact of a seed. If my student hears, and holds onto the word that I've spoken, it can form in him and change his life...He can become a French teacher, fluent in French, or, in the case of prophecy, empowered...and that's the life of the SEED planted. Every Word of God is a seed. Jesus is the vine.
Sounds beautiful but it doesn't help your argument.

Bye...
 

rossh

Active member
Hello Rossh,
Isa46:9-11 is one of my favorite descriptive verses.

In Romans 3:23- The grammar states that all sinned, at one point in time, the fall into sin and death
Jesus is the last Adam.
First Adam=sin/death
Last Adam= life/peace
We have to move from the first Adam...to the last Adam...from death to life.
great post,, how ever I am not sure what the " move " means. I am just using Yeshua's warning about being " saved ".. It is said, unless you confess in public with your mouth that Yeshua is Lord and Savior/Messiah you will not be saved...that is, saved form eternal punishment alongside Lucifer and his fallen angels..
 

rossh

Active member
Clearly...and when you read the Tenach, the Jews are not famous for their flawless understanding all the time.

Only the "unlearned" would see the plural and say, "That is plural..." And only the observant would see Genesis open and watch the Father, the Word and the Spirit create together, three and yet only One. And only John would reword Genesis 1 so clearly as to make the understanding possible even for the youngest child.
Every time I quote directly...and I'm not alone, either.
...ok...and? He SAW in His vision. I don't remember when Moses was even taken directly to where Isaiah SAW his vision. Your point is specious. I don't think you had a coherent conversation with Isaiah.
Unless it's inconvenient to do so. We've seen that. "The Word is not a person..." is something you have to say. It's still denial. You have no problem personifying dust and making it human...but you cannot see that the Word is What actually performed that act. Without the Word nothing was made that was made. Why is it beyond your understanding that the perfect outward expression of God is a person, one with Him?
I don't know...you could be right...Beyond "gods" how many times does Hebrew make plural singular. Being a linguist, I enjoy the grammar of the languages I delve into. But I'm an expert in French and English only, and conversant in Swedish. I won't boast beyond my own means.
Any description of God is inadequate...however, seeing the tripartite nature of man, and knowing I am a single and whole, it's easier to describe the "Trinity" on these terms. I do not like the word itself. But I acknowledge what I see...and the interaction of body and soul and spirit in the redemption of man is essential to understanding the extreme nature of Jesus' act of love.
Your claim. You cannot see the support...runs throughout both testaments.
You have limited God...and He did what was required: The Word we SEE at the beginning was made flesh, and dwelt among us. This was the struggle of the early Christians...to understand the nature of the incarnation. You've just taken up one side of the debate.
The NT, like your tenach, is an accurate historic document. That's why these are so daunting to secular historians. Fighting Truth is a vain battle.
Nope...Triune...Father, Word, spirit.
Nephesh in the blood. You're quibbling.
Not sure what you've proven by this...He passed before him, as the cloud descended, declaring the Word...as all Three made His presence known. Echad.
Not strong either...We're pressed into the temporal, and clothed with it. God transcends it...and as He is, we become.

Do you understand that God's call to Israel as His bride, and His overwhelming protection of Her is everything you're fighting against here? Why are you so averse to God loving Israel as a bride? He's pretty graphic in Micah as to His intent. Do you not see the fulfillment?
No...It's adultery to lie with another. It's not to believe God, and receive His word, and to have His word clothed with life.

That's called the obedience of faith. Not adultery.
The best historians say otherwise.
The Law is perfect. It perfects. That is truth. The Law exhorts. That is truth. And exhortation is an exhortation. That, too, is truth.
Agreed. Jesus was neither second nor third. Just the Word made flesh...a need for all time. ;)
Nope...But it says, "Love elohim"...Hope that helps. What works for you in Hebrew will have to work for you in any other language, until you see this.
great post and replies.. I heard this form a pastor. He explained. When God caused the early bible writers to write, especially about the future such as today they language had to carefully dictated. How can God explain to those prophets what a Harrier Jump Jet fighter plane is ? This is of course when God spoke of the wars way into the future. These last day incites had to be explained so we here today could understand and obviously so that the Prophets kept on writing...
 
Top