Trinity claims that the Jews believed that a Son is equal to his Father

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, perhaps you will enlighten the forum with a more detailed way of saying that you 'believe' that no Jew has ever entertained the idea of a second power in heaven... Well, good luck with that... Also, perhaps you will also help Soapy, um, find what he's looking for.

The better way to show something is show what "I know" we Torath Mosheh Jews have historically held by. That is why I do a videos with information directly from Torath Mosheh Jewish sources going back thousands of years to prove it - as well as proving that I can read them for myself and given the support for what I present. If someone else has information directly from a proven Torath Mosheh source going back that far they ar more than welcome to present it, and prove to the forum it is ancient, authentic, and authoratative as a Torath Mosheh Jewish source.

BTW - You may have missed that I discussed what Avodah Zara, where it came from, and how it influenced non-Torah based Jews in the past. All of that was covered in the video. One of the concepts of Avodah Zara is the idea of a second powers and the concept of heaven you described. Jews in took on that form of Avodah Zara from the nations normally have dissappeared from the historical landscape within 1 to 2 generations.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, perhaps you will enlighten the forum....

You may not have noticed them but here a few threads where I have eligthened the forum on what Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews have received and historically held by. Based on the responses I think I am doing okay in that area so far.

How Torah based Jews Understand the Hebrew Tanakh's View of the Creator

Why Torah based Jews would be unconvinced

There is no Judaism vs. Christianity - There is Judaism and there is Christianity

Simple Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus and Christianity

Tools for Determining the Truth

Davidic King/Mashiahh according to Torath Mosheh Sources

 

[Ehav4Ever]

"According to Deuteronomy 21:15–17, a father was obliged to acknowledge his firstborn son as his principal heir, and to grant him a double portion of his estate as inheritance."

You have to understand that the inheritance that a Jewish first born son receives from his father is not simply a reception of possessions. According to the Torah what is really being received is the ability to be the new leader in Torah teaching and instruction for the family when the father passes away. I.e. the possessions have the goal of giving the first born son the ability to be the Torah based leader of the family that the father, or should have been.

Because of the fact that it is a transfer of Torah leadership in the family this is the reason that the process is a mitzvah (Torah based command) for a father to do so and simply a suggestion. This is also the reason that the wife has no mitzvah to do something in the same way. Jewish children can inherit from our mothers but not in the say way as from our fathers and not for the same reasons.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Maybe not now. Back then there was a regal looking chair for the rabbi's son.

When I lived in New York I used to pray at a Moroccan syangogue where one of the guys there had a 6 or 7 year old son named Eddi, but everyone called him Rabbi Eddi. The reason why they called him Rabbi Eddi was because he liked to pretend that he was the rabbi of the synagogue.

They had a special cup for little Rabbi Eddi and a special coat for him to play along. He was essentially imitating things he had seen in the community and because it was cute everyone played along with it. It is part of the process of raising up a future generation of Jewish leaders, men and women, who grew up practicing their future roles in the Torath based Jewish communities.

That is why in some places there are even toys that are focused on this process of living, learning, and growing into future Torah roles such as the following.

 

[rosends]

OK...Interestingly, as I understand it, the firstborn of the mother is not considered as the firstborn of the father.

That depends for what law. For some laws firstborn is of the father. For some, it refers to of the mother.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Not directly connected to the OP, but as promised. Thanks for the inspiration for this.

 

[1213]

Being "one in us" means that the group who are in Christ are one, one group joined as one because we share the same Spirit.
Being "one with us" means that we are not only one with the group but also with Christ and God. iows there is an equality of position between Christians and Christ and God.
The truth however is that the equality is between the believers.

Ok, in that case I think being one does not make Jesus God. I can agree with the idea that God's spirit is in Jesus, which is why he is one with God.

 

[Brian2]

Ok, in that case I think being one does not make Jesus God. I can agree with the idea that God's spirit is in Jesus, which is why he is one with God.

Jesus and the Father are one (thing) The "one" is neuter and implies a thing.
The disciples who are in Christ (who is in the Father) are one (thing) also, with each other. They are one body and Jesus and His Father are one God.
With the disciples the Spirit is joined with their spirits.
With Jesus and His Father the Spirit of God IS the Spirit of Christ.
There is one Spirit and the Father and Son share that one Spirit.

 

[KW]

In order to attempt to class Jesus Christ as being God, trinity teaching claims that the Jews are correct in claiming that Jesus, being the son of God, means that Jesus is equal to God, and therefore is God.

I cannot understand that [il]logic and also can find nothing in Jewish tradition that makes any such claim of a Son being equal to his Father.

Furthermore, trinity claims that Jesus was not ‘born’ from the Father… which further confuses the issue (pardon the pun!) since then Jesus being ‘son’ of God therefore has no meaning in terms of equality with the Father.

Can anyone give any enlightenment on where there is evidence of a Jewish tradition of a son being equal to his Father … and how Jesus, who was not a ‘birthed’ son of God could be part of this tradition.

Son is a human word that attempts to describe the relationship of the Logos to the Father.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you for bringing that up. "According to Deuteronomy 21:15–17, a father was obliged to acknowledge his firstborn son as his principal heir, and to grant him a double portion of his estate as inheritance." (Jewishvirtuallibrary.org under "firstborn.")

Not sure what this has to do with the topic. A son is not a rabbi simply because his father is. The only reason a rabbi's son would have a seat up front like that would be if he by his own talents and efforts came to have his own job in the synagogue, such as being the president of the board, or a cantor, or being assistant rabbi.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 , by the way, I was looking a few things up. I am not that conversant with the intricacies of the various factions, but interestingly enough, and I realize it may be off the subject, but I came across this about Menachem Mendel Schneersohn. He married his first cousin Chaya Mushka Schneersohn, daughter of Rabbi Dovber Schneuri. (wikipedia) I didn't think it was taught to be proper to marry one's first cousin. Maybe I"m wrong or there are special exceptions.

I know of no probihibition of marrying your cousin. Also Rebbe Shneerson was an incredibly devout Jew, and I don't see him violating a law like that. You might want to read this: Forbidden Sexual Relations

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to understand that the inheritance that a Jewish first born son receives from his father is not simply a reception of possessions. According to the Torah what is really being received is the ability to be the new leader in Torah teaching and instruction for the family when the father passes away. I.e. the possessions have the goal of giving the first born son the ability to be the Torah based leader of the family that the father, or should have been.

Because of the fact that it is a transfer of Torah leadership in the family this is the reason that the process is a mitzvah (Torah based command) for a father to do so and simply a suggestion. This is also the reason that the wife has no mitzvah to do something in the same way. Jewish children can inherit from our mothers but not in the say way as from our fathers and not for the same reasons.

The point is that the firstborn son is in a special place in God's eyes, giving the mandate to the Israelites. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know of no probihibition of marrying your cousin. Also Rebbe Shneerson was an incredibly devout Jew, and I don't see him violating a law like that. You might want to read this: Forbidden Sexual Relations

sorry, I thought it was forbidden. Apparently I was wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not sure what this has to do with the topic. A son is not a rabbi simply because his father is. The only reason a rabbi's son would have a seat up front like that would be if he by his own talents and efforts came to have his own job in the synagogue, such as being the president of the board, or a cantor, or being assistant rabbi.

Not sure if I mentioned it. Yes, the firstborn son has a special place in the law arrangement. Yes I did to @Ehav4Ever . Thanks.

 

[David Davidovich]

The better way to show something is show what "I know" we Torath Mosheh Jews have historically held by. That is why I do a videos with information directly from Torath Mosheh Jewish sources going back thousands of years to prove it - as well as proving that I can read them for myself and given the support for what I present. If someone else has information directly from a proven Torath Mosheh source going back that far they ar more than welcome to present it, and prove to the forum it is ancient, authentic, and authoratative as a Torath Mosheh Jewish source.

BTW - You may have missed that I discussed what Avodah Zara, where it came from, and how it influenced non-Torah based Jews in the past. All of that was covered in the video.

I will get around to looking at that video.

One of the concepts of Avodah Zara is the idea of a second powers and the concept of heaven you described. Jews in took on that form of Avodah Zara from the nations normally have dissappeared from the historical landscape within 1 to 2 generations.

I see. But you are admitting that they did exist at one time, and if they did exist, then that would have meant that in one form or another, they left their make on the world.

 

[David Davidovich]

You may not have noticed them but here a few threads where I have eligthened the forum on what Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews have received and historically held by. Based on the responses I think I am doing okay in that area so far.

How Torah based Jews Understand the Hebrew Tanakh's View of the Creator

Why Torah based Jews would be unconvinced

There is no Judaism vs. Christianity - There is Judaism and there is Christianity

Simple Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus and Christianity

Tools for Determining the Truth

Davidic King/Mashiahh according to Torath Mosheh Sources

When I have time, I'll get around to looking at those, however, I did want to ask you if you ever heard of religious scholar, Alan F. Segal, and Jewish theologian, Benjamin D. Sommer? Also, I will be posting more about them.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to understand that the inheritance that a Jewish first born son receives from his father is not simply a reception of possessions. According to the Torah what is really being received is the ability to be the new leader in Torah teaching and instruction for the family when the father passes away. I.e. the possessions have the goal of giving the first born son the ability to be the Torah based leader of the family that the father, or should have been.

Because of the fact that it is a transfer of Torah leadership in the family this is the reason that the process is a mitzvah (Torah based command) for a father to do so and simply a suggestion. This is also the reason that the wife has no mitzvah to do something in the same way. Jewish children can inherit from our mothers but not in the say way as from our fathers and not for the same reasons.

Let's say all that is true, Ehav. It still puts the firstborn male of a father in a high position.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The point is that the firstborn son is in a special place in God's eyes, giving the mandate to the Israelites. Thank you.

That is not how it is worded in the Hebrew Torah. What I wrote is what is there. Torah based leadership of the family and the community is what it means.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Let's say all that is true, Ehav. It still puts the firstborn male of a father in a high position.

That is not the way we would word it. It means that he is supposed to be responsible for Torah based leadership. For us that would be a bad thing for him to think that this responsiblity puts him in a "high position." If he sees it as a responsiblity to lead and carry on the Torah of his forefathers he will interact with his family and his community completely different than if he sees it as a high position.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

When I have time, I'll get around to looking at those, however, I did want to ask you if you ever heard of religious scholar, Alan F. Segal, and Jewish theologian, Benjamin D. Sommer? Also, I will be posting more about them.