Questions For Christians: The Trinity

[HaShev]

If you imply the NT plagiarizing Zoroaster first and last speach as meaning this is Jesus in Isaiah then you have some serious logic and reasoning flaws in your brain.
Especially since earlier in Isaiah, just a few chapters back, Jesus is that Idol 48 is blasting about. Being a Babylonian deities mask (for Baal) just makes it even worse.

Warning: Makes a graven image that they be their own witness to: Isiah44;9
Carpenter creates a wood idol: Isaiah44;13
And the residue thereof he maketh a god-Even his graven image that ;He falleth down unto it and worshippeth it. and prayeth unto it and saith Deliver me; for this art my GOD- Isiah44;17

Therefore The displeased Master in
Isaiah 48 can't be the Image he refuses
to " let myself be defamed" through
and "I will not yield my glory to another."

Reread the chapter in context in the Tanakh not the NT and get commentary help if need be. Stop being a dupe.
John Apochryphon admits they borrowed from Zoroaster, which is where The NT gets the first and last claim speach from.

Use common sense;
Your Isaiah 48 question requires:
he who can tell you how he got the HaShevet (staff) to get water from the rock
and tell you How he is both first and last.
Jesus and the church can't & don't answer these questions therefore Jesus nor his church have no authority claim to that which does and refuses to share:
"glory to another".
Have you heard of the first commandment? Well?

 

[guno]

A Jewish response ,I have posted in other threads before

 

[HaShev]

Christians do not see the layers in the scripture to notice the emulations.
1)the historical event
2)the repeat emulated events
3)the spiritual emulation, underlining story.

1) WHEN Moses quenches their literal thirst he strikes the tip of the rock with his HaShevet and out fliws the stream of water that flows through the hollow rock. Something an educated man of that region would know about or would be lead to know.
2)repeat history & helpful idea or message- emulation for the people:
When modern day Egypt was chasing after Israel threatening war, Israel's defensive idea was to keep them at bay by way of threatening to hit the dam and let the water flood out if they try anything and this concept kept peace and security.

3)The underlining message of the story is quite obvious when you know the
HaShevet is used to strike the Rock (king of the Tyre) or king of The rock(Rome) and out pours the water (spirituality or teachings) that quenches their thirst.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, Then maybe you should reconsider. See Isaiah 53

Who is wounded for what exactly? Who is this arm of Adonai?

Isaiah 53 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)


1 Who believes our report?
To whom is the arm of Adonai revealed?
2 For before him he grew up like a young plant,
like a root out of dry ground.
He was not well-formed or especially handsome;
we saw him, but his appearance did not attract us.
3 People despised and avoided him,
a man of pains, well acquainted with illness.
Like someone from whom people turn their faces,
he was despised; we did not value him.

4 In fact, it was our diseases he bore,
our pains from which he suffered;
yet we regarded him as punished,
stricken and afflicted by God.
5 But he was wounded because of our crimes,
crushed because of our sins;
the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him,
and by his bruises* we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, went astray;
we turned, each one, to his own way;
yet Adonai laid on him
the guilt of all of us.

7 Though mistreated, he was submissive —
he did not open his mouth.
Like a lamb led to be slaughtered,
like a sheep silent before its shearers,
he did not open his mouth.
8 After forcible arrest and sentencing,
he was taken away;
and none of his generation protested
his being cut off from the land of the living
for the crimes of my people,
who deserved the punishment themselves.
9 He was given a grave among the wicked;
in his death he was with a rich man.

Although he had done no violence
and had said nothing deceptive,
10 yet it pleased Adonai to crush him with illness,
to see if he would present himself as a guilt offering.
If he does, he will see his offspring;
and he will prolong his days;
and at his hand Adonai’s desire
will be accomplished.
11 After this ordeal, he will see satisfaction.
“By his knowing [pain and sacrifice],
my righteous servant makes many righteous;
it is for their sins that he suffers.
12 Therefore I will assign him a share with the great,
he will divide the spoil with the mighty,
for having exposed himself to death
and being counted among the sinners,
while actually bearing the sin of many
and interceding for the offenders.”

 

[emilynghiem]

Quote:YESHUA refers to SALVATION

Fact:there is no AD era christ named Yeshua, the only AD christ at that supposed time was Theudas by the Jordan.
Fact; Yeshu is a 100BC sorcerer charlatan.
Fact: if they were refering to a Hebrew Yeshua they would have kept the name as he was called by his peers and Heritage.
SINCE they call him HESUS (Jesus) THEN HE is the Esus (tri god) or IeSous(the swine=forbidden to partake of).

Which brings us to Y=H in PROPER transliteration. This is why the book of Yohoshua(Joshua) is called Hosea.
Y'Shua=H'Shua or H'Shva
A at the prefix end of a name denotes
"of God".
HaSheva means Redeemer-restorer
HaShev means return-restore-place back-redeem add the "A" prefix at the end and it means the restorer is returning the Essence Of God(Essence of Shalem). By Bringing the Mikdash, by judging our mistakes and paths taken, by teaching, returning the Sanhedrin, Kohanim, restoring Olam to it's proper purpose and place to be Shalem, restoring Peace, restoring order thus "stability" (Shalem).

You however are using the forbidden first fallen messiah image of a man to imposter the HaSheva. That makes you a thief and a liar and thus a Satanist (thwarting/ adversary)

Dear HaShev
Excellent!
So you are saying Y'SHUA is correct not YESHUA as I was using.
And you explained that HASHEV
comes from Y'SHUA.

So you just explained the link between the meanings of RESTORATION and SALVATION.

Excellent, thank you for this clarification and correction!

As for calling someone a liar, there has to be intent to lie or someone has to be lying to oneself intended or not.

I had no idea at all that YESHUA was not the correct Hebrew until you pointed out it should be Y'SHUA.

Thus I was not intentionally lying.

If you are saying I am self deceived and lying to myself without knowing it, then how am I supposed to know unless someone like you corrects me?

So it is still better that you address and correct msgs like mine, thank you for taking the time and effort to post corrections instead of ignoring posts.

This is very helpful HaShev

Thank you

I believe in Restorative Justice and you are saying the correct term is Y'SHUA and HASHEV. Very good, at least we agree that is what believers should be seeking. Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

Christians do not see the layers in the scripture to notice the emulations.
1)the historical event
2)the repeat emulated events
3)the spiritual emulation, underlining story.

1) WHEN Moses quenches their literal thirst he strikes the tip of the rock with his HaShevet and out fliws the stream of water that flows through the hollow rock. Something an educated man of that region would know about or would be lead to know.
2)repeat history & helpful idea or message- emulation for the people:
When modern day Egypt was chasing after Israel threatening war, Israel's defensive idea was to keep them at bay by way of threatening to hit the dam and let the water flood out if they try anything and this concept kept peace and security.

3)The underlining message of the story is quite obvious when you know the
HaShevet is used to strike the Rock (king of the Tyre) or king of The rock(Rome) and out pours the water (spirituality or teachings) that quenches their thirst.

Dear HaShev and LittleNipper
Can we agree on the unifying goal of Restoration? Restorative Justice that rights wrongs, redeems and heals relationships, and brings peace by establishing agreement by love of truth which conquers fear and division?

Can we agree that the sum of the laws and prophets is based on:
* loving God with all our heart mind and soul
*loving our neighbor as ourselves
* loving one another in the spirit of Restorative Justice which Christians call Christ Jesus as the mediator or message between God and man (see John 13:34 where believers are given a new commandment that fulfills and joins the other two great commandments, the love of God with the love of Man, thus completing the Trinity relationship between God and Man through Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice also called Y'SHUA or HASHEV if I am understanding correctly )

I think HaShev is saying Y'SHUA is the authentic name and not Jesus that is not pure or correct but loses the meaning.

To communicate with HaShev can we agree to call the final message or the one mediator as Y'SHUA, will this help us stick to the meanings we can agree on?

Thank you, I'd like us to establish what is God's truth we agree on, as the purpose and process of what is meant by HASHEV.

 

[LittleNipper]

Everyone might find this a helpful explanation from a Jewish perspective --- though Messianic.

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective
Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Sh'ma) is but one such passage. Isaiah 6:8 is another: "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" However, the first "proof" passage on God as more than one appears in the first chapter of the Hebrew Scriptures: "And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26).3

Rabbis who believed that each word of the Hebrew Scriptures, each letter, is God's revelation had to admit that God spoke to himself and referred to himself in the plural. How can that be, when we know there is only one God?

Much in Genesis 1:26 seems to confirm the idea that there is one God whose oneness is complex. The idea of God's nature being triune (three in one) is mind-boggling. Contemplation of the infinite is always confusing to finite beings. Nevertheless, certain illustrations can help people grapple with the issue of a complex unity. C. S. Lewis, a talented philologist, writer and debater put it this way:

We must remind ourselves that Christian theology does not believe God to be a person. It believes Him to be such that in Him a trinity of persons is consistent with a unity of Deity. In that sense it believes Him to be something very different from a person, just as a cube, in which six squares are consistent with unity of the body, is different from a square. (Flatlanders, attempting to imagine a cube, would either imagine the six squares coinciding, and thus destroy their distinctness, or else imagine them set out side by side, and thus destroy the unity. Our difficulties about the Trinity are of much the same kind.)4

Christians consider themselves monotheists, while Jewish tradition maintains that believers in a triunity of God reject monotheism. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures do imply some kind of plurality in the Divinity. Why else would Jewish sages offer various alternatives to explain those implications, particularly in Genesis 1:26? Evaluate the following methods our forebears used to deal with the text.

1. Change the text or translate it differently
According to Jewish tradition, scholars who worked on the Septuagint5 translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for King Ptolemy were embarrassed by the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26. They took the liberty of changing the text from "let us" to "let me."6 Such "liberty" violates the sacredness of Scripture.

Other rabbinical commentators also took liberties with the text. The medieval rabbi Ibn Ezra described those commentators as "absurd" for attempting to translate the active "let us make" (na'a'seh) into a passive "there is made" (niphal). These commentators added that the phrase "in our image, after our likeness" was not said by God, but added as a postscript by Moses.7

2. The text describes God speaking to creation
Medieval commentators David Kimchi and Moses Maimonides accepted the talmudic interpretation of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi. Rabbi Levi explained that God was speaking to creation.

AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN, ETC. With whom did He take counsel? R. Joshua b. Levi said: He took counsel with the works of heaven and earth, like a king who had two advisers without whose knowledge he did nothing whatsoever.8

Levi knew that the plural implied that God was speaking to someone and concluded that the Lord was seeking advice and approval from other beings.

According to Rabbi Nachmanides, the plural reference denotes God speaking to the earth because "man's body would come from the earth and his spirit (soul) from God."9 But the separation of a person into distinct parts owes more to the Greek influence of Aristotle's philosophy than to a careful and accurate reading of the text. The biblical view of humankind indicates that physical, spiritual and psychic aspects are held together in a composite and indivisible unity. Rabbi Abarbanel explained that God was capable of making all the lesser works of creation but needed assistance when it came to human beings. That position denies God's omnipotence.

3. God is addressing the angels around his throne
Rashi explains that God chose to demonstrate humility by consulting his inferiors:

The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they [the rabbis] learned from here: because man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore he took counsel with them.…Although they did not assist Him in forming him [the man] and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel [i.e., to argue in favor of their own views], yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, "I shall make man," we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself.10

According to Rashi, if God had used the singular ("I" and "my") we could not have known he was addressing the angels. True—we would never have guessed that God was addressing angels, since there is no mention of angels in the text. But even with the plural, there is still no mention of angels in the text!

The text does not support the concept of God consulting angels in creation, and Rashi's argument became a source of confusion and disagreement among various rabbis.

4. God was speaking to the souls of the righteous unborn
One Jewish tradition states that the souls of the righteous existed before God created the world (and were present at Mount Sinai for the receiving of the law). Those who believe this tradition link Genesis 1:26 with the phrase "there they dwelt with the king in his work" from 1 Chronicles 4:23.

R. Joshua of Siknin said in Rabbi Levi's name: "[W]ith the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, sat the souls of the righteous with whom He took counsel before the creation of the world."12

A later commentator rebutted the suggestion that God had partners in creation. He insisted that since no other beings are mentioned in the passage, it is not valid to invent them; in fact, it is best to maintain the solitude of God in creation: "Why was man created last? So that the heretics might not say there was a companion [i.e., Jesus] with Him in the work."13

5. God was keeping his own counsel
Some Jewish scholars believe that the mystery of Genesis 1:26 can be solved grammatically. They suggest a "plural of deliberation," whereby the plural expresses God's pondering within himself, concentrating his thoughts and meditating over his decision.

Rabbi Ammi said: "He took counsel with His own heart. It may be compared to a king who had a palace built by an architect, but when he saw it, it did not please him: with whom is he to be indignant? Surely with the architect! Similarly, 'And it grieved Him at His heart.'" (Genesis 6:6)13
Several passages in Scripture describe a person deliberating by "consulting" some part of himself. In Psalm 42:6, the psalmist addresses his soul: "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why moanest thou within me?" Yet unlikeGenesis 1:26, the psalmist uses the words "O my soul," and it is clear that he is deliberating within himself.

6. The royal "we"—plural of majesty
Just as Queen Victoria referred to herself in the plural ("We are not amused"), some say that God, as a majestic being, referred to himself the same way. This is a popular contemporary explanation. It does not raise the question of other beings. It rules out the possibility of God having a plural nature. It seems to be based on good linguistic evidence and analysis.

The Hertz Commentary on Genesis sees this explanation as one of two possibilities and points out that the first person plural is used for royalty in the Book of Ezra.14 "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me" (Ezra 4:18) is the sole example of a "plural of majesty" construction in Scripture. It also happens to be one of the few portions of Scripture in Aramaic, a language similar to Hebrew.

It would be poor scholarship to build a case for a grammatical construction in Hebrew on the grounds of this Aramaic text. Even so, the Ezra passage does not necessarily contain a singular royal subject linked to a plural verb-form. If the plural of majesty were a regular Hebrew idiom, why is the singular "me" in the same line?

Rabbinical commentators and linguists recognize that the Hebrew language provides no real basis for such an explanation.15 Ibn Ezra quotes the Gaon,…who suggests that the plural of Genesis 1:26 is the plural of majesty. He refuted that view in favor of God having consulted the angels.16 However, we have already mentioned the difficulties of using angels to solve the mystery.

7. There are different aspects within God's being
Some rabbis acknowledge different aspects within God's nature. There is no consensus as to what these aspects are or how to distinguish one from another. For example, the Zohar describes God as being both male and female.17

8. The Word: wisdom or messenger of God
Another way to explain Genesis 1:26 is to use the Memra, or "Word" of God. The Targum Neofiti (an early Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew text) translates verse 27: "And the Memra of the Lord created the man in his (own) likeness."18

The Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy 33:27 translates the Hebrew "underneath are the everlasting arms" as "And by His 'Memra' was the world created."

Like the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31, the Word is often personified and assigned divine attributes, implying divine status.19 Memra is used to describe God Himself, especially when he is revealing himself to human beings. Rabbinical thought also links the Memra to the Messiah. The New Covenant portion of the Bible reveals a similar understanding of the role of the Word in creation.

The Book of Genesis records that God's dynamic act of creation was through his spoken word: "And God said, Let there be light…," etc.20 The New Covenant Gospel of John begins this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.21

Jewish believers in Jesus believe in the Word of creation in Genesis. Therefore he is not only the Messiah, but God in human form.

Why the Rabbis Won't Regard the Plurality of God with Credibility
Some rabbis agreed that the Genesis 1:26 passage gives weight to the case for God's plurality. Their position has not shaped the current position or practice of Jewish religious leaders:

Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman said in Rabbi Jonathan's name: "When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID; LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?' (for maintaining a plurality of deity). 'Write,' replied He; 'whoever wishes to err may err.'"22

Some rabbis believe that to take the Scriptures at face value is to err. And yes, some out of concern to protect those who are deemed susceptible to such error, have set aside normative interpretations of the Scriptures. Rashi provided a clear example of this with the "suffering servant" passages of Isaiah 52 and 53.

The contemporary interpretation of Israel as the suffering servant was held by few of the early Jewish authorities. Nearly all believed it pointed to an individual and personal Messiah who would suffer and die for Israel's sin. But Rashi popularized the "national view" in the Middle Ages to refute the obvious messianic interpretation. Neither grammar, context nor logic supports this view, yet it is considered superior to the previously held (Jewish) view.

Similarly, in discussion of the Genesis 1 passage, various cases are presented in order to refute Jewish belief in Y'shua. Rabbis understood that a passage wherein God speaks and acts in the plural is significant evidence of diversity within his nature. They also knew that the New Covenant describes Y'shua as the eternal Word of God, the instrument of creation and the fullness of God in human form. They realized that people might make a connection between the two and designed their interpretations for the sake of countering "the heretics."23

Rabbi Simlai said: "Wherever you find a point supporting the heretics, you find the refutation at its side. They [the heretics] asked him again: 'What is meant by, AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN?' 'Read what follows,' replied he: 'not, "And gods created [Hebrew: wa-yibre'u—the plural of the verb] man" is written here, but "And God created [Hebrew: wa-yibra—in the singular]"' (Genesis 1:27). When they [the heretics] went out his disciples said to him: 'Them you have dismissed with a mere makeshift, but how will you answer us?"24

Rabbi Simlai dealt with Jewish believers in Jesus by sidestepping the question. His own disciples recognized that he had done so and expressed the need for a more satisfying reply.

Some of the ancients admitted that certain Scriptures seemed to pose a threat to their understanding of God. They sought ways to direct others away from disturbing conclusions, and, in the case of Rashi, they openly explained that they made choices based on the need to refute Christians.

A Warning and a Challenge
Reverence for the text prevented the ancient rabbis from ignoring or altering the text. Nevertheless, for all their creative solutions to the mystery of this passage, they could not agree on an answer that would satisfy them all.

Today, however, Jewish thinkers are in danger of simply excising from Scripture and from history clues that the rabbis were hard pressed to explain. Such clues point to ideas most Jewish people wish to avoid.

How many contemporary rabbis will say that some of their interpretations and translations are strongly weighted to help people avoid "unacceptable" beliefs? How many would admit that their answers to these complex issues might direct people away from the Bible?

Sherlock Holmes once observed that when you have eliminated all possible explanations, the only remaining solution is the truth, no matter how impossible it seems.

1. Zohar II:43b (vol. 3, p. 134 in the Soncino Press edition).
2. John 10:30.
3. Jewish Publication Society of America (Philadelphia, 1917). All quotations from Hebrew Scriptures are from this translation, unless otherwise stated.
4. Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root, eds., The Quotable Lewis (Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL, 1989), p. 587.
5. A Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures written some two hundred years before Y'shua.
6. As stated in "The Image of God in Man," D.J.A. Clines, Tyndale Bulletin (1968), p. 62, referring to J. Jervell, "Imago Dei…," Gottingen (1960), p. 75.
7. Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis (Bereshit), H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver, trans. (New York: Menorah Publishing Co., 1988), p. 43.
8. Genesis Rabbah VIII.3 (Soncino Midrash Rabbah, p. 56).
9. Referred to in Soncino Chumash (Soncino Press: London, 1956), p. 6.
10. Pentateuch with the commentary of Rashi, Silberman edition, Jerusalem 5733, pp. 6-7.
11. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.7, p. 59.
12. Tosephta on Sanhedrin 8:7.
13. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.3, p. 57.
14. J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1940), p. 11.
15. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (A. E. Cowley, ed., Oxford, 1976) says on the "plural of majesty": "Jewish grammarians call such plurals…plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (cf. already 1 Macc.10:19, 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26, and 11:7,Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way.…It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew," p. 398.
16. Ibid., Soncino Chumash, p. 6.
17. Zohar 22a-b (vol. 1, pp. 91-93 in the Soncino Press edition).
18. Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Martin McNamara, tr. (The Aramaic Bible, vol. 1A; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 55.
19. Compare Colossians 1:5, Hebrews 1:3, Revelation 3:14 with Proverbs 30:2-6. By His Memra was the world created corresponds to John 1:10.
20. Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26.
21. John 1:1-4.
22. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.8, p. 59.
23. Hebrew minim literally "sectarians" but generally assumed to be a reference to Jewish Christians. See R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, (London, 1903), p. 361ff.
24. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.9, p. 60.

Glossary of Names
Ibn Ezra
12th c. Spanish poet and biblical scholar.
David Kimchi
12th-13th c. Hebrew grammarian and Bible commentator.
Maimonides
Moses ben Maimon, 12th c. Spanish-born philosopher and codifier of Jewish law.
R. Joshua b. Levi
a 3rd c. amora.* Known as a peacemaker, he refused to attack Christian teaching.
Nachmanides
Moses ben Nachman, 13th c. Spanish biblical commentator and leader of Spanish Jewry in his day.
Abarbanel
15th-16th c. Spanish biblical commentator and philosopher.
Rashi
Rabbi Solomon b. Yitzchak, an 11th. c. French biblical and Talmudic scholar; his commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures remains standard to tis day.
Joshua of Siknin
a 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel.
Ammi
Ammi bar Nathan. A 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel, closely associated with R. Assi.
Jonathan
Jonathan b. Eleazer, a 3rd. c. amora* born in Babylonia but who lived in Eretz Israel.
Simlai
a 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel, the first to reduce 613 commandments to one (Habakkuk 2:4).

 

[HaShev]

1)now everyone knows why I iggied Emily for being disingenuous. What part of there was no AD era christ named Yeshua(Y'sh) does she not understand. She puts words into my posts like she does the Bible to confuse herself and deceive others whether intentional or not they have the same affect.

2)quote by littlenipper;
"Isaiah 53 "
what is wrong with Christians when they can't refute or answer simple questions they always feel they need to place Lucifer Jesus in the OT scripture? Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with this subject. It's not even messianic.
In context of Isaiah, Israel is that suffering servant mentioned 14 times plural past tense while Isaiah was a servant to the People and to God. Jesus did not have a disease, according to you guys he was mentally ill, but that is not a disease.

Isaiah 53:3 "Despised and rejected of men.",
look at Penelope's posts this is living tangible proof that Israel is fitting that label.
It cannot be a match to Jesus with the Christian Bible showing a man who was supposedly "praised by all"(Luke 2 :52, Luke 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25). So then according to Christian standards Israel must be referred to since Israel is Called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10, 52:13) In 53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" 52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?" In chapter 52, for example, ACCORDING TO History it's Israel "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken away" (v.5).
Context also talks of Israel being disfigured and unrecognizable whether the people in deathcamps or Israel boundries being disfigured and unrecognizable Israel best fits Isaiah 53.
In no way is Isaiah 53 messianic, so it doesn't matter except not to allow people lie and manipulate causing mankind to sabotage his progression towards Shalem, while also causing attrocities through that lie and charade. That's why your admission that you know better, but still continue the lie to feel better about yourself is pure selfish and evil.

 

[LittleNipper]

1)now everyone knows why I iggied Emily for being disingenuous. What part of there was no AD era christ named Yeshua(Y'sh) does she not understand. She puts words into my posts like she does the Bible to confuse herself and deceive others whether intentional or not they have the same affect.

2)quote by littlenipper;
"Isaiah 53 "
what is wrong with Christians when they can't refute or answer simple questions they always feel they need to place Lucifer Jesus in the OT scripture? Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with this subject. It's not even messianic.
In context of Isaiah, Israel is that suffering servant mentioned 14 times plural past tense while Isaiah was a servant to the People and to God. Jesus did not have a disease, according to you guys he was mentally ill, but that is not a disease.

Isaiah 53:3 "Despised and rejected of men.",
look at Penelope's posts this is living tangible proof that Israel is fitting that label.
It cannot be a match to Jesus with the Christian Bible showing a man who was supposedly "praised by all"(Luke 2 :52, Luke 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25). So then according to Christian standards Israel must be referred to since Israel is Called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10, 52:13) In 53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" 52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?" In chapter 52, for example, ACCORDING TO History it's Israel "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken away" (v.5).
Context also talks of Israel being disfigured and unrecognizable whether the people in deathcamps or Israel boundries being disfigured and unrecognizable Israel best fits Isaiah 53.
In no way is Isaiah 53 messianic, so it doesn't matter except not to allow people lie and manipulate causing mankind to sabotage his progression towards Shalem, while also causing attrocities through that lie and charade. That's why your admission that you know better, but still continue the lie to feel better about yourself is pure selfish and evil.

You do not sacrifice at the temple. You are not keeping the Commandments of GOD for 2000 years. Without the sacrifice of the Messiah there can be no remission of sin. And not only did the Sanhedrin call Jesus a devil, but you continue that tradition yourself. Even the brothers and sisters of Jesus seemed to have rejected for a time the "ramblings" of their stepbrother. James (stepbrother to Jesus) later was inspired of God to write a portion of scripture. He came to realize his error.

The fact remains that Barabbas would not have been released as the "scapegoat" had Jesus not been rejected. There is no progression towards God. Man is lost without God's redemption through the Lord Jesus our Messiah. And this is why the temple was destroyed and why blind Jews will one day rebuild it.

According to scripture GOD HIMSELF says that Israel would suffer because it rejected GOD. Read Ezekiel. It is all there. They rejected God in the Old Testament and there is predicted a rejection of the Messiah, which was fulfilled in the in the New Testament. Jesus predicted that Herod's Temple would be destroyed ---- not one stone left upon another.

The Jews are left with a retaining wall to weep at. But one day 144,000 of Jacob's children will reject the coming Anti-Messiah and realize their error of judgment in rebuilding the Temple and accepting the lies of the Anti-Messiah. They will come to embrace Jesus fully in the time of Jacob's trouble and be martyred.

This will usher in the Millennial Kingdom. And the Messiah will return to sit on the throne of David for a 1000 year reign --- the entire world under His LAW. And after that comes Armageddon and then Judgment Day.

 

[HaShev]

Show me a text where the Sanhedrin called Jesus the devil, when there was no Jewish figure named Jesus, it's not even a Hebrew name. Put the audio tape evidence on YouTube for us to hear the evidence.
Ezekiel on the other hand calls
the Christ Nazarene the son of perdition before he even existed.
Saul calls a maggi(Elymas) named Bar(son)Jesus the son of the Devil in Book of Acts, but without using the Satanic NT where does it show any Rabbi at that era mentioning this Jesus idol?

 

[hobelim]

Isaiah 53:3 "Despised and rejected of men.",
look at Penelope's posts this is living tangible proof that Israel is fitting that label.
It cannot be a match to Jesus with the Christian Bible showing a man who was supposedly "praised by all"(Luke 2 :52, Luke 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25). So then according to Christian standards Israel must be referred to since Israel is Called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10, 52:13) In 53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" 52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. W

You are right that Israel is called a servant of God many times but in the verses immediately preceding Isaiah 53, Isaiah 52:14, it says this:


Time was when many were aghast at you, my people, and so now many nations recoil at sight of him: for they see what they had never been told and things unheard before fill their thoughts.


Here, a clear distinction is made between Israel, my people, (plural) and the suffering servant, him, (singular) the guy, described in 53.

 

[LittleNipper]

Show me a text where the Sanhedrin called Jesus the devil, when there was no Jewish figure named Jesus, it's not even a Hebrew name. Put the audio tape evidence on YouTube for us to hear the evidence.
Ezekiel on the other hand calls
the Christ Nazarene the son of perdition before he even existed.
Saul calls a maggi(Elymas) named Bar(son)Jesus the son of the Devil in Book of Acts, but without using the Satanic NT where does it show any Rabbi at that era mentioning this Jesus idol?

JOHN CHAPTER 10 VERSE 20------And the Jews said unto the people Jesus is of the Devil and is mad, why hear ye him?

JOHN CHAPTER 8 VERSES 48-49-----The Jews answered saying unto Jesus you are a Samaritan and have a Devil, and Jesus answered saying unto them I have not a Devil. But I honor my father and ye dishonor me.

JOHN CHAPTER 8 VERSE 52-----And the Jews said unto Jesus now we know that you are a Devil because Abraham is dead.

And in Mark Chaper 3
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.

23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables. “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

 

[HaShev]

Hobelim, singular in the Goyisha text or the Hebrew? Used once vs 13times and you choose selectively?
1) Still can't be the man served not serving.
2)Isaiah already calls another Moshiach.
3)Isaiah already calls Jesus the forbidden idol (44)and also the fallen one aka Lucifer(14).

Little Nipper: you used Satan's own text to argue over the topic of calling one the devil when Satan himself calls Jesus the son of the devil twice.- Acts & Rev 22:16
However you didn't prove your point you only shot yourself in the foot and killed your king, Check mate!
1)There is no historical acct of the
Sanhedrin saying that, even in your own self testimony text.
The commentary leadong people to believe that is done to demonize the ones Rome was stealing and impostering from.
Spmething rhey did with many cultures to claim themselves the new spiritual authority. You being a good little guppy bought the tactic hook line and sinker=thus called the Fosh they the fishers of men reel in.
*insert hitting your own forehead now in embarassment*

 

[dpr112yme]

A few days ago, I made a video where I asked a few questions about the concept of the Trinity:


These questions provide an opportunity for defenders of this belief to explain why EVERYONE ought to believe in the Trinity. Evangelical Christians have the opportunity to show how a belief in a Triune God is TRUE while other versions of God are FALSE. Please share your thoughts.

The answer to your question is very very simple. The reason why God gave the world Christians is because God desires No-One to perish. It's not a matter of who's right or who's wrong. It's a question of why Christians love the world peoples so much as to sit there and try to explain God to them when all the questioners want to do is argue and waste precious minutes when they know they are not asking the question in sincerity in the first place.

 

[dpr112yme]

Do you remember any accounts in the Holy Bible where the leader only wanted to ask questions all day without any sincere desire to be 'saved?' The Apostle Paul met with few of them as well as Jesus Himself when He was daily in the presence of the Pharisees and Sadducees and Sanhedrin. Not to mention every king of Israel who would NOT listen to the prophets God had sent.

 

[dpr112yme]

Did you know that every Sincere Christian is a Prophet of God Most High? Why, you ask? Very simple. Prophets are the mouth piece(s) of God. And as Christians, we are God's mouth piece(s) on Earth.

 

[dpr112yme]

Don't believe the 'hype' that ALL Prophets know what God is going to do in the future. Remember that in the days of Elijah, schools of Prophets were established that anyone may enter into and await God's instructions.

 

[dpr112yme]

Don't believe the 'hype' that ALL Prophets know what God is going to do in the future. Remember that in the days of Elijah, schools of Prophets were established that anyone may enter into and await God's instructions.

Some Prophets, God uses for different Prophetic things.

 

[dpr112yme]

Don't believe the 'hype' that ALL Prophets know what God is going to do in the future. Remember that in the days of Elijah, schools of Prophets were established that anyone may enter into and await God's instructions.

And even the Prophet Samuel was entrusted into the Prophet-hood to Eli by his mother.

 

[dpr112yme]

That is why the Apostle Paul emphasizes that Christians all have the same mind and heart, in the Spirit, being of ONE accord. When the Earth and the ways of the Earth is shouting danger danger, but Christians are shouting, 'safety safety,' then the True Prophets of God say, Danger Danger instead of Safety Safety. God speaks Truth not watered down 'flatteries.'