With bafflement upon bafflement!

[dybmh]

18:50. 'Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore'.

Now, God is majestic, for this passage could be read in two ways. You could read it to be talking about David, or you could read it to be talking about king Messiah. Or, it could be BOTH. And, it's the latter view l take.

The first interpretation makes David the subject, and his seed the Messiah.

The second interpretation makes the king Messiah the subject, and his seed the believers in Christ.

Can't be Christ. The verse says: "to his anointed, to David". Christ was never anointed. This has been shown repeatedly. Also, you're ignoring the verses 38-43 which do not describe Jesus. Please provide scripture if you disagree. So, no, Psalm 18 is not about Christ. This is a fail.

Now, let me refer you to Psalm 22, once again. In verse 30 it says, 'A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation'.

Who is the seed serving? Is it David, or king Messiah?

Neither of course. You're ignoring the previous verses... again. Here it is in context. I'll even use the KJV in spite of the choices it makes of translation.

27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.

29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
​

There you go. Per the KJV, if one reads verses 27,28,29, and 30 in order. The seed serves the LORD.

However, if one ignores those verses... they might wonder if its talking about something else. It's pure folly. ( Proverbs 15:2 )

 

[dybmh]

The lie here is that Paul encourages the breaking of the law.

I quoted the verses. God's law is in Genesis 17:13. Pauls advice to break it is 1 corinthians 7:19.

These are Paul's words to Timothy: 1 Timothy 1:8,9.' But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,'

This is saying that the law does not apply to everyone. It says the righteous are above the law. It is not encouraging following the law. It weakens it.

Per Isaiah, the LORD desires a law magnified, not weakened.

כא יְהֹוָ֥ה חָפֵ֖ץ לְמַ֣עַן צִדְק֑וֹ יַגְדִּ֥יל תּוֹרָ֖ה וְיַאְדִּֽיר

21 The Lord desires for His righteousness' sake; He magnifies the Torah and
strengthens it.
​

So Paul is opposed to both Genesis and Isaiah.

Why would a person who demonstrates love towards his God and his neighbour require the discipline of the law?

Well... that's pretty easy. It's about love of God. Each commandment is a way to serve. more commandments is more ways to serve, which are more opportunity to love.

God gives commandments, loving God is following them not changing them or abolishing them. "Circumcision is nothing" = hating God. God said it's eternal, calling it nothing is an insult. Paul is hateful to God.

 

[Harel13]

If Jesus had converted to a form of Samaritanism

I have never stated that Jesus converted to Samaritanism. More likely, he was born a Samaritan and had Samaritan parents. If anything, he ""converted"" to Judaism (but not in the traditional sense of the word).

If Jesus had converted to a form of Samaritanism, it would be evident in his beliefs and practices.

Please reread the post where I laid out the theory. It is evident in his beliefs and practices.

The allegations made by the Pharisees against Jesus and his disciples are of a different nature altogether, and relate to specific issues of interpretation.

Debatable.
Why would the Jews call Jesus a "Samaritan" and why didn't he refute this claim? Weird, huh?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

IMO, the blindness of Torah Jews boils down to not being able to SEE Christ hidden in the words of scripture!

And I just want to point out that this fallacy is a verion of ad hominem. Rather than acknowledge that any intelligent scholar can read the text and understand it, you attack those who disagree with you as "blind." It's an illogical way of avoiding their points.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Beyond God's actions, and what is said about God in scripture, God is unknowable. If your god is knowable. That's a different god.

King David's God is unknowable. God is more than any concept or combination of concepts.

כב עַל־כֵּ֥ן גָּדַ֖לְתָּ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים כִּֽי־אֵ֣ין כָּמ֗וֹךָ וְאֵ֚ין אֱלֹהִים֙ זֽוּלָתֶ֔ךָ בְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַ֖עְנוּ בְּאָזְנֵֽינוּ

22 Therefore You are great, O' Lord God: for there is none like You, neither is there any God beside You, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
​

Jeremiah says basically the same thing:

ו מֵאֵ֥ין כָּמ֖וֹךָ יְהֹוָ֑ה גָּד֥וֹל אַתָּ֛ה וְגָד֥וֹל שִׁמְךָ֖ בִּגְבוּרָֽה
ז מִ֣י לֹ֚א יִרָֽאֲךָ֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ הַגּוֹיִ֔ם כִּ֥י לְךָ֖ יָאָ֑תָה כִּ֣י בְכָל־חַכְמֵ֧י הַגּוֹיִ֛ם וּבְכָל־מַלְכוּתָ֖ם מֵאֵ֥ין כָּמֽוֹךָ

6 There is none like You, O Lord; You are great, and Your name is great with might.
7 Who will not fear You, O King of the nations, for it befits You, for among all the wise men of the nations and among all their kingdom there is none like You.
​

The meaning of these verses is that God is greater than anything that can be imagined.


Sorry, but no. Faith isn't required. Faith does not make an appearance in Daniel 7.

If you want to make a logical argument about a nation and a king that fails too. The citizens of a nation do not need to have faith if the king is all powerful. As long as the king can enforce its will, faith isn't needed.

This needs to be rephrased to be understood.

Recognizing King Messiah as God is polytheism. Is that what you meant?? Please see the scripture I quoted which states "none is like/as God".

Also per scripture, God is always with the Jewish people.

Joshua 1:9

ט הֲל֚וֹא צִוִּיתִ֙יךָ֙ חֲזַ֣ק וֶאֱמָ֔ץ אַֽל־תַּעֲרֹ֖ץ וְאַל־תֵּחָ֑ת כִּ֚י עִמְּךָ֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ בְּכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר תֵּלֵֽךְ

9 Did I not command you, be strong and have courage, do not fear and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.
​

Also God is everywhere! God is "with" everyone, everything, all the time.

Jeremiah 23:24

כ דאִם־יִסָּתֵ֨ר אִ֧ישׁ בַּמִּסְתָּרִ֛ים וַֽאֲנִ֥י לֹֽא־אֶרְאֶ֖נּוּ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֑ה הֲל֨וֹא אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֧יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֛רֶץ אֲנִ֥י מָלֵ֖א נְאֻם־יְהֹוָֽה​

24 Can a man hide in secret places that I should not see him? says the Lord. Do I not fill the heavens and the earth? says the Lord.
​

So, the Future King is not "God is with us", that's already / always happening.


Uh-oh. Another serpentine reply. This is a LIE. Building the temple comes directly from scripture and you know it. There's chapters about it in Ezekiel. And no one is worshipping the temple, or the concept of a temple. No idolatry here.

Exodus 20:16, Proverbs 6:16-17 Proverbs 12:22, Proverbs 19:9, Psalms 43:1

See how that list keeps getting longer. Each time you post a lie, I keep adding one to the list. It's a nice way to keep track of how much falsehood is coming from you.

You say that David's God is unknowable, but what do you make of Jeremiah 31:31-34? Verse 34 reads: 'And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more'.

Admittedly, this refers to a 'new covenant', which Christians claim exists now, but Torah Jews still seek. Is that not correct?

 

[Redemptionsong]

First of all, I like that you said Love is a concept. Bravo! I think you're getting it.

Second, the rest of your reply does not address the issue. God says circumcision is eternal. Paul says it isn't. You say it isn't. Your god and Paul's god is not the God of Torah. Changing the subject concedes the point.

What I say is that circumcision can be seen as earthly, of the flesh, or heavenly, of the heart.

The Torah Jewish approach, which is consistent, is to make circumcision a temporal affair, meaning that the circumcision of the flesh lasts as long as a man's life.

The Christian approach is to make circumcision an issue of the heart, which last eternally.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I have never stated that Jesus converted to Samaritanism. More likely, he was born a Samaritan and had Samaritan parents. If anything, he ""converted"" to Judaism (but not in the traditional sense of the word).

But taking this approach to Jesus is to ignore the evidence of the eyewitnesses.

Jesus has two genealogies, one in Matthew's Gospel, through Joseph, and the other in Luke's Gospel, through Mary. Why are you choosing to ignore these?

If you're going to ignore the testimony found in the NT, then you are free to make up any story you like. Then you're no longer discussing the Jesus of scripture.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why would the Jews call Jesus a "Samaritan" and why didn't he refute this claim? Weird, huh?

What passage of scripture are you referring to?

 

[Redemptionsong]

And I just want to point out that this fallacy is a verion of ad hominem. Rather than acknowledge that any intelligent scholar can read the text and understand it, you attack those who disagree with you as "blind." It's an illogical way of avoiding their points.

From the very start, I have quoted Hebrew prophets. If they believe that Judah is blind, then are they not correct?

A person who sees clearly does not stumble, yet Isaiah says that Judah and Jerusalem stumble because of a specific 'block'!

Isaiah 56:10. 'His watchmen are blind:'

Isaiah 57:14. 'And shall say, Cast ye up, Cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumblingblock out of the way of my people'.

There is, of course, an answer to this blindness. By recognising the stumblingblock, you can avoid stumbling.

Isaiah 42:6,7. 'I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.'

 

[dybmh]

You say that David's God is unknowable, but what do you make of Jeremiah 31:31-34? Verse 34 reads: 'And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more'.

OK. Very well said. You are correct. I was wrong. Thank you for pointing it out. At some point, God can be knowable, per Jeremiah. I will try very hard to remember that.

Admittedly, this refers to a 'new covenant', which Christians claim exists now, but Torah Jews still seek. Is that not correct?

Yes. Correct as far as I know. Thank you,

 

[dybmh]

What I say is that circumcision can be seen as earthly, of the flesh, or heavenly, of the heart.

It's addressed differently in different places. The eternal covenant is physical, we know this because the verse says "flesh" not "heart" not "spiritual". Also it occurs on the 8th day of birth. You're the expert, can a circumcision of the heart occur that early in a young person's life? Also, if it were a spiritual circumcision, why only boys, not girls? Girls do not get the opportunity?

The Torah Jewish approach, which is consistent, is to make circumcision a temporal affair, meaning that the circumcision of the flesh lasts as long as a man's life.

Which is consistent with Genesis.

The Christian approach is to make circumcision an issue of the heart, which last eternally.

Which is consistent with Jeremiah.

The proper approach would be to do both? Genesis directs a circumcision of flesh (Genesis 17:11) as an eternal covenant.
The same can be said for the temple. Ezekiel directs construction of a physical temple. But it's true a person can make themself into a temple. Why not do both? That way God's law is truly fulfilled in heaven and on earth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

From the very start, I have quoted Hebrew prophets. If they believe that Judah is blind, then are they not correct?

A person who sees clearly does not stumble, yet Isaiah says that Judah and Jerusalem stumble because of a specific 'block'!

Isaiah 56:10. 'His watchmen are blind:'

Isaiah 57:14. 'And shall say, Cast ye up, Cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumblingblock out of the way of my people'.

There is, of course, an answer to this blindness. By recognising the stumblingblock, you can avoid stumbling.

Isaiah 42:6,7. 'I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.'

Redemption: Jewish schoiars disagree with your interpretations. So they are not "obvious." Your claim that a person cannot see it simply becasse they are not a Chrsitian is simply an ad hominem, as I said.

 

[Harel13]

Jesus has two genealogies, one in Matthew's Gospel, through Joseph, and the other in Luke's Gospel, through Mary. Why are you choosing to ignore these?

You do realize that:
a. The genealogies contradict each other.
b. Samaritan names are very similar to Jewish names.
c. I have already pointed out that some Jews joined the Samaritans, particularly circa the Macedonian conquest (centuries before the purported time of Jesus).

If you're going to ignore the testimony found in the NT

You, on the other hand, are ignoring many of the things I have already pointed out. You have yet to even attempt a strong case against the Samaritan identity of Jesus. One verse here and another verse there is not a strong case. How do you explain the similarity between the Samaritan scriptures and the NT's versions of verses, for example?

What passage of scripture are you referring to?

We've discussed this already here on the thread. I will bring it again:
John 8:48-49:

48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan(A) and demon-possessed?” 49 "I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.​

Jesus only denies being possessed by demons. He doesn't deny being a Samaritan.
Thoughts?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you're going to ignore the testimony found in the NT,.

What testimony? The gospels are not written by eye witnesses. They were written decades after Jesus by non-Jews who had never even met Jesus, but who were trying to gather together all the legends about him. Most of the gospels are written by more than one person, in more than one phase. For example, the synoptic gospels use the Q document as a source, and John is built around an original document on the seven signs. There is so much legend added to history, that you can never possibly know exactly what Jesus did and said.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It's addressed differently in different places. The eternal covenant is physical, we know this because the verse says "flesh" not "heart" not "spiritual". Also it occurs on the 8th day of birth. You're the expert, can a circumcision of the heart occur that early in a young person's life? Also, if it were a spiritual circumcision, why only boys, not girls? Girls do not get the opportunity?

Which is consistent with Genesis.

Which is consistent with Jeremiah.

The proper approach would be to do both? Genesis directs a circumcision of flesh (Genesis 17:11) as an eternal covenant.
The same can be said for the temple. Ezekiel directs construction of a physical temple. But it's true a person can make themself into a temple. Why not do both? That way God's law is truly fulfilled in heaven and on earth.

Yes, l agree with your conclusions.

This debate was held between Paul and other Jewish members of the Church in Jerusalem [Acts ch.15]. The outcome was that Jews continued to have the mark in the flesh (and heart) whilst the Gentile believers were not required to be circumcised in the flesh, only the heart.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Redemption: Jewish schoiars disagree with your interpretations. So they are not "obvious." Your claim that a person cannot see it simply becasse they are not a Chrsitian is simply an ad hominem, as I said.

What is the stumblingblock, according to Jewish scholars?

 

[Redemptionsong]

You do realize that:
a. The genealogies contradict each other.

I disagree with this conclusion.

Where is the contradiction?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What is the stumblingblock, according to Jewish scholars?

That the things Christians see are not really there in the text but are superimposed. Let me give you an example:

Hosea 11:1
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

Clearly this verse is about the Exodus from Egypt, the son being the Children of Israel. But Christians yank "out of Egypt I have called my son" completely out of context, and turn it into a future prophecy rather than a past tense reminder -- they see a messianic prophecy here where clearly none exists.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You, on the other hand, are ignoring many of the things I have already pointed out. You have yet to even attempt a strong case against the Samaritan identity of Jesus. One verse here and another verse there is not a strong case. How do you explain the similarity between the Samaritan scriptures and the NT's versions of verses, for example?

It's not just one verse 'here or there', it's the whole context of Jesus' ministry. In John 1:11 it says, 'He came unto his own, and his own received him not'.

Who were 'his own'? Was Jesus rejected at Mount Gerizim, or in Jerusalem?

Had Jesus been a Samaritan then there would be a record of him visiting the temple at Mount Gerizim, rebuilt by Herod the Great, and with its own priesthood. There is no such record. Instead, we have many records of Jesus ministering in Jerusalem, and in the temple.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That the things Christians see are not really there in the text but are superimposed. Let me give you an example:

Hosea 11:1
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

Clearly this verse is about the Exodus from Egypt, the son being the Children of Israel. But Christians yank "out of Egypt I have called my son" completely out of context, and turn it into a future prophecy rather than a past tense reminder -- they see a messianic prophecy here where clearly none exists.

As dybmh has argued, God is Lord over heaven and earth. I agree.

I have long believed that scripture is written as a parable, presenting the earthly alongside the heavenly. If one applies this to all Hebrew scripture then Hosea 11:1 has two meanings, not one. There is the earthly, temporal meaning, and there is the heavenly, or spiritual meaning.

What you are telling me is that Jewish scholars are only prepared to consider the earthly interpretion, not the heavenly.