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

[Ehav4Ever]

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.

If you go back to the first video I posted I stated that there were Jews who did Avodah Zara. I also made it clear that when a Jew does Avodah Zara they are not holding by Torath Mosheh. Thus, they are not a "Torath Mosheh Jew" when they do Avodah Zara. The second video further explained what Torath Mosheh means to begin with.

By like token when you brought up Hellenistic Jews I also brought up that they existed and the moment they were "Hellenist" they were doing Avodah Zara and thus no longer Torath Mosheh Jews. I also stated that if go back and at some point Jews who start up groups of Avodah Zara normally disappear off the historical landscape with 2 to 3 generations of their start. This is what happened to the original Jewish Christians.

Yet, the concept of the "heavens" that is a part of the Western English speaking world's way of talking is not a Torath Mosheh concept and even in ancient Israeli the concept of (שמיים) is different.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Not one that would give him a special throne at the front of the synagogue. sorry.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I see the term "high position" could be misunderstood, although he gets a greater share of the inheritance. However, an interesting concept that I will pay attention to in my Bible reading.

 

[YoursTrue]

View attachment 62481

View attachment 62482

I remember when I was studying and learning in my adult years, I called the Jewish Theological Seminary for answers and help.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not one that would give him a special throne at the front of the synagogue. sorry.

OK, well it was a childhood memory, I saw a chair that looked to me like a throne, but I've seen throne-like chairs in other religious settings. I just remember being told it was for the rabbi's son. Maybe it was just that synagogue. Anyway yes, memories can be faulty.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not one that would give him a special throne at the front of the synagogue. sorry.

I realize that. Nothing about a special throne for a firstborn son of the father (not the mother, of course).

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Are you saying that the material division of the father's goods were not to be given to the firstborn son of the father in a greater quantity than the other sons? Which brings up an interesting consideration about Jacob and Esau. Also Abraham and his sons. I'll have to do more reading about this. Glad we're talking about it to further my understanding. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Are not a husband and wife considered as 'one' scripturally? At least in the Christian Greek scriptures.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I see the term "high position" could be misunderstood, although he gets a greater share of the inheritance. However, an interesting concept that I will pay attention to in my Bible reading.

The whole concept can be misunderstood is one is not doing so with the Hebrew text and what historically existed/been explained in ancient Torath Mosheh Jewish sources.

In Torath Mosheh communities giving a first born a bunch of stuff has no real meaning or value. What he does with it to lead in the family Torah is what shows up in the Hebrew text and culture.

I can understand that reading an English Bible with a non-native Middle Eastern/non-Jewish concept could lead to a completely different understanding.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Are you saying that the material division of the father's goods were not to be given to the firstborn son of the father in a greater quantity than the other sons? Which brings up an interesting consideration about Jacob and Esau. Also Abraham and his sons. I'll have to do more reading about this. Glad we're talking about it to further my understanding. Thanks.

I am saying that from the time of Avraham to the present the first born son gets a larger inheritance for a very specific reason. That reason was for him to become the new Torah based leader of the family when the father, who was the previous Torah based leader, passes away. Otherwise there is no real reason to give a first born more than the others. To a Torah based Jew, him being born first has no real value or improtance if it is just a transfer of stuff.

This was the point of the conflict between Esaw and Ya'aqov. At the end of the day Esaw got more physical stuff for him and his descendents than Ya'aqov because of where he was located. He also got that stuff a lot easier than Ya'aqov got his stuff. So if the whole episode was about physical stuff he shouldn't have been angry for that long. Once Ya'aqov for a few weeks Esaw should have been perfectly fine. There would have also been no reason for Rivqah to get involved if it was only stuff. The difference between the physical stuff at that point would have been like, "He got 400 goats and I got 350. He got 200 acres of land and I got 150 acres." Something like that is pretty much not noticible.

YET, the whole birthright was for sake of being the leader to do the work of Avraham ben-Terahh. I.e. to keep the Torah of his day which was the 7 Noachide laws, Brith Milah, and to bring about the future Torah based nation in the land of Israel.

This was why the blessing they both got are very similar, BUT, the difference is in the work of Hashem and what would be the result of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

The whole concept can be misunderstood is one is not doing so with the Hebrew text and what historically existed/been explained in ancient Torath Mosheh Jewish sources.

In Torath Mosheh communities giving a first born a bunch of stuff has no real meaning or value. What he does with it to lead in the family Torah is what shows up in the Hebrew text and culture.

I can understand that reading an English Bible with a non-native Middle Eastern/non-Jewish concept could lead to a completely different understanding.

The Law for Israel prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the first century had its rules and regulations for the entire nation. Of course, there were the Pharisees and the Saducees with their different takes. And frankly it's a sad commentary that what some might consider to be the right interpretation of the Torah is such a difficult thing. I will say that understanding and interpretation are obviously important.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am saying that from the time of Avraham to the present the first born son gets a larger inheritance for a very specific reason. That reason was for him to become the new Torah based leader of the family when the father, who was the previous Torah based leader, passes away. Otherwise there is no real reason to give a first born more than the others. To a Torah based Jew, him being born first has no real value or improtance if it is just a transfer of stuff.

This was the point of the conflict between Esaw and Ya'aqov. At the end of the day Esaw got more physical stuff for him and his descendents than Ya'aqov because of where he was located. He also got that stuff a lot easier than Ya'aqov got his stuff. So if the whole episode was about physical stuff he shouldn't have been angry for that long. Once Ya'aqov for a few weeks Esaw should have been perfectly fine. There would have also been no reason for Rivqah to get involved if it was only stuff. The difference between the physical stuff at that point would have been like, "He got 400 goats and I got 350. He got 200 acres of land and I got 150 acres." Something like that is pretty much not noticible.

YET, the whole birthright was for sake of being the leader to do the work of Avraham ben-Terahh. I.e. to keep the Torah of his day which was the 7 Noachide laws, Brith Milah, and to bring about the future Torah based nation in the land of Israel.

This was why the blessing they both got are very similar, BUT, the difference is in the work of Hashem and what would be the result of it.

Can't say I disagree with you (yet). I'll be going back asap to the account about Sarah and her insistence that Hagar and her son go away. And of course the situation with the twins Esau and Jacob. Again -- much to be looked at and learned.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am saying that from the time of Avraham to the present the first born son gets a larger inheritance for a very specific reason. That reason was for him to become the new Torah based leader of the family when the father, who was the previous Torah based leader, passes away. Otherwise there is no real reason to give a first born more than the others. To a Torah based Jew, him being born first has no real value or improtance if it is just a transfer of stuff.

This was the point of the conflict between Esaw and Ya'aqov. At the end of the day Esaw got more physical stuff for him and his descendents than Ya'aqov because of where he was located. He also got that stuff a lot easier than Ya'aqov got his stuff. So if the whole episode was about physical stuff he shouldn't have been angry for that long. Once Ya'aqov for a few weeks Esaw should have been perfectly fine. There would have also been no reason for Rivqah to get involved if it was only stuff. The difference between the physical stuff at that point would have been like, "He got 400 goats and I got 350. He got 200 acres of land and I got 150 acres." Something like that is pretty much not noticible.

YET, the whole birthright was for sake of being the leader to do the work of Avraham ben-Terahh. I.e. to keep the Torah of his day which was the 7 Noachide laws, Brith Milah, and to bring about the future Torah based nation in the land of Israel.

This was why the blessing they both got are very similar, BUT, the difference is in the work of Hashem and what would be the result of it.

You know, that was the custom. And yes, I agree that it is the divine leading of Hashem which makes it even more interesting and grander.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

This is not what Trinity teaching claims.

 

[rosends]

Are you saying that the material division of the father's goods were not to be given to the firstborn son of the father in a greater quantity than the other sons? Which brings up an interesting consideration about Jacob and Esau. Also Abraham and his sons. I'll have to do more reading about this. Glad we're talking about it to further my understanding. Thanks.

A side note: the material division of the father's goods would not, by the way, be given in greater quantity to a first born son of the father if that son was born by Caesarean section.

 

[Soapy]

Historically it seems that Psalm 2 is a Psalm of victory and when the victory happens it is as if God is declaring the truth about the victor for all to see. "You are my son, this day I have become your father".
This is why that Psalm is applied to Jesus resurrection (Acts 13:33) even though before that we know that Jesus is called the Son of God.
At Romans 8:23 we also see the resurrection of believers' bodies is called an adoption to sonship even though the believer who is born of God is already a child of God while living on earth.
The resurrection is the triumphal declaration and demonstration of the truth of the claim to being the children of God.
How are you applying Psalm 2, and to which incident?

Are you supposing that this verse attributed to Jesus from God was spoken in the time of Acts?

And I did not mention psalms 2 - I was only deterring to the fact that it is an ADOPTION statement…. Something you conveniently skipped in the question I asked you!

It was stated to Mary the Virgin that the son she was going t give birth to WILL BE CALLED ‘Son of the Most High [God]’.

Do you read the words ‘WILL BE’?

And in respect of psalm 2… verse 7 states David saying:

• “I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.” (Psalm 2:7)

In verse 2 David is feeling low because:

• “The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,” (Psalm 2:2)

David declares himself as being the Lord’s anointed and that the ‘kings of the earth’ are against him and against God, the Lord!

This is exactly reflected in the time of Jesus … indeed, this is the purpose of prophesy: ‘God speaks of what is to come before it comes’.

And we know that Jesus speaks to the Jews that they should read the scriptures (obviously the Old Testament) that speaks of his FUTURE activities and events (albeit Jesus just attributes the readings to Moses!)

 

[Soapy]

This is not what Trinity teaching claims.

What does trinity teaching claim in exact regard to the son.

Does trinity not say that the son was ‘Born before all the ages’ : or firstborn of all creation?

Where does the Son of God come from?

What does it mean to be ‘Son’ … and ‘of God’?

And what then does it mean to be ‘Father’?

Just remember that ‘God does not procreate’! God only CREATES … in fact SPIRIT can only create… Angels cannot procreate!

 

[1213]

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.

Sorry, I don't think that is well enough supported by the Bible. I think the meaning is that they have same will, which is why they are one. Jesus does God's will, similarly as I think disciples of Jesus should do and in that way they are one.

He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.”
Joh. 8:29

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

 

[YoursTrue]

A side note: the material division of the father's goods would not, by the way, be given in greater quantity to a first born son of the father if that son was born by Caesarean section.

Either you're kidding, or they did Caesarean sections in Moses' time? I guess this is an added rule to the law of Moses.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, I don't think that is well enough supported by the Bible. I think the meaning is that they have same will, which is why they are one. Jesus does God's will, similarly as I think disciples of Jesus should do and in that way they are one.

He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.”
Joh. 8:29

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

Thanks for that scripture at John 8:29 which says that Jesus always does what pleases his Father. Naturally under the Law of Moses no one could follow it perfectly. Except Jesus, of course. And that, of course, brings me to consider the Law of Moses and the relationship that God had with that nation under the Law as well as His own concern.