• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Well, David is playing real fast & loose with his references. Just one example is the rather obvious fact that if one looks at the Isaiah references objectively, it becomes very clear that they have nothing to do with Jesus at all, regardless as to what one's denomination may teach. Also, some of the interpretations of said verses are sometimes bizarre based on what actually is written. IOW, it's like him saying that a grape is a bowling ball because they're both round.

Hey, I really don't lose any sleep over this, and if a Christian wants to believe Jesus is the Messiah, I seriously have no problem with that. That belief and $5 will getcha a cup of coffee at Starbucks. What's far more important to me is how we live out our life, which I also believe was Jesus' main focus in the first place-- compassion and justice for all. If we do that, then I do believe we're at least going in the right direction.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate your righteous, moral behavior, but Jesus said if you're heading in the right direction, you are headed toward a relationship with Him.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No, that's your belief in the point. That doesn't make it so.

"And after the sixty-two sevens Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself."

"“Seventy sevens are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy."
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
"And after the sixty-two sevens Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself."
Um...why are you quoting something different from what you were commenting on? If you don't know the difference between "should" and "did" just say so. Moving to a different quote won't help your comprehension.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
"And after the sixty-two sevens Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself."

"“Seventy sevens are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy."
Great...more quotes that don't address what is being discussed. Just because you quote it doesn't mean you understand it. I gave you the explanation which you then chose to misunderstand and you just quote it again.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I appreciate your righteous, moral behavior, but Jesus said if you're heading in the right direction, you are headed toward a relationship with Him.
I wasn't talking about me, plus billions of people say they believe in God, and most of them ain't Christian. I place moral behaviors over p.c. beliefs.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Um...why are you quoting something different from what you were commenting on? If you don't know the difference between "should" and "did" just say so. Moving to a different quote won't help your comprehension.

I repeated a quote you failed to address previously. One of the hallmarks of the person under discussion in Daniel 9 is He dies as a substitute for others. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the differences in Jewish thought between the Messiah-ben-Yosef and the Messiah-ben-David, that is, the suffering servant and the Messianic conqueror. Surely you don't think Agrippa or David was cut off in the first Century for other people's sake...?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Great...more quotes that don't address what is being discussed. Just because you quote it doesn't mean you understand it. I gave you the explanation which you then chose to misunderstand and you just quote it again.

I'm sorry, but you can go back through all our posts and replies. The exalted person in Daniel 9 does astonishing things including reconciling Israel to God and ending ALL HUMAN SIN! Your "explanations" have included "you don't understand who Daniel is and why he's writing what he's writing."

I'm a Christian in part because these things stand in Tanakh and the Jewish leaders I respect are unable to offer viable alternatives, even a future, expected Messiah, as qualified as Jesus/Y'shua.

Thank you.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I wasn't talking about me, plus billions of people say they believe in God, and most of them ain't Christian. I place moral behaviors over p.c. beliefs.

And I continue to respect your moral behaviors and moral beliefs, but I would ask you from where/whom/which God/what absolutes did you derive them from?
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Once we label God we then reduce him to a mere concept, God has no name, if you are stuck in calling him a name, then you truly don't know him.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And I continue to respect your moral behaviors and moral beliefs, but I would ask you from where/whom/which God/what absolutes did you derive them from?
Thanks. The closest we get to "absolutes" is probably our genetic disposition towards helping those that are in our "in-group". However, as we've seen, even that is not an absolute, and even that can be largely explained through genetics.

Humans are quite malieable animals, and a large part of our success throughout history is because of our cultural flexibility. For just about every rule, you can find an exception somewhere.

However, one very common "rule" that is cross-religious are the teachings of compassion and justice, at least within the in-group. Now if that can be extended to the "out-groups" as the largest religions have tried to do, that's even better yet.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
A wise man obeys Tanakh. A foolish man is immoral, a sinner, who disobeys Tanakh.
That is your interpretation of a fool. The Tanach's interpretation of a fool is someone who hates knowledge and does foolish things.

Thanks for following the conversation about Daniel 9. Perhaps read the whole chapter for yourself, and then return here to explain how Agrippa or Cyrus fulfilled it.

Thanks!
No problem! I just feel that, even with @ rosends doing such a great job, you're still not able to comprehend, what's the point of me throwing in there too?

I will say that I looked through Daniel 9 and I didn't find any words that correlate with "make an end of human sin!". There are the word "to end sin". But there doesn't seem to be any reason to understand that this is referring to the sins of humanity rather that the sins of the Jews. Especially when we consider that in context Daniel is praying for atonement for the sins of the Jews specifically (see verses 5-19).

5. "We have sinned, we have been iniquitous, we have been evil and we rebelled and we turned away from Your commandments and Your rules"
8 "...that we have sinned to You."
11 "And all Israel transgressed Your Torah and turned away, to not listen to Your voice... because we have sinned to Him"
13 "...to return from our iniquity..."

Prayer for atonement for sins of the Jews.
Prophecy of atonement of the sins of the Jews.

24 "...to terminate transgression, to end sin and to atone iniquity..."
 

arthra

Baha'i
Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah. Which one and why?

Well all of those Names are from the same Source in my view...

The Name Allah has roots in Aramaic and Hebrew so does Yahweh and Jehovah.. of course the "J" in Jehovah is "soft" and the Hebrew letters for Yahweh and Jehovah look something like this..

Jehovah is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH)

Allah is the Arabic word referring to God in Abrahamic religions. The word is thought to be derived by contraction from al ilāh, which means "the God", and has cognates in other Semitic languages, including Elah in Aramaic, ʾĒl in Canaanite and Elohim in Hebrew.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but you can go back through all our posts and replies. The exalted person in Daniel 9 does astonishing things including reconciling Israel to God and ending ALL HUMAN SIN! Your "explanations" have included "you don't understand who Daniel is and why he's writing what he's writing."

I'm a Christian in part because these things stand in Tanakh and the Jewish leaders I respect are unable to offer viable alternatives, even a future, expected Messiah, as qualified as Jesus/Y'shua.

Thank you.
Aside from the obvious problem of "should" vs. "did" or even "does" you might want to relook at Daniel 9:23 and 24 and see what the actor is which brings about "to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness". Simple English reading skills (unless you suddenly think you know Hebrew). These actions are the infinitive verbs performed by the subject of the sentence. Can you recognize the subject? Let me know if you need me to spell it out.

Hint -- the verse never says that a messiah will do this; it says something else.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Thanks. The closest we get to "absolutes" is probably our genetic disposition towards helping those that are in our "in-group". However, as we've seen, even that is not an absolute, and even that can be largely explained through genetics.

Humans are quite malieable animals, and a large part of our success throughout history is because of our cultural flexibility. For just about every rule, you can find an exception somewhere.

However, one very common "rule" that is cross-religious are the teachings of compassion and justice, at least within the in-group. Now if that can be extended to the "out-groups" as the largest religions have tried to do, that's even better yet.

All very well. Is murder "wrong"? Is rape "evil"?

In the animal kingdom, a tiger will specifically prey on the weak, the young and those separated from the group--like a rapist, a murderer, a pedophile. Humans are different, humans pray, touch God, and encounter God.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Aside from the obvious problem of "should" vs. "did" or even "does" you might want to relook at Daniel 9:23 and 24 and see what the actor is which brings about "to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness". Simple English reading skills (unless you suddenly think you know Hebrew). These actions are the infinitive verbs performed by the subject of the sentence. Can you recognize the subject? Let me know if you need me to spell it out.

Hint -- the verse never says that a messiah will do this; it says something else.

Rabbi, respectfully, your condemning me for what you feel is lack of Hebrew knowledge is wholly inappropriate for someone claiming to be a member of the rabbinate. If you are a rabbi, you would treat others with kindness, particular a fellow Jew.

Again now, you say I misunderstand scripture without bothering to cite scripture so we may all see and understand the context. You've most recently stated I don't understand Dan 9:23-24:

"As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed [Daniel]. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision: “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

Feel free to tell all of us here, since you believe Daniel 9 is Tanakh, the Word of the living God, the Savior of all,

* How Jewish transgression within 490 periods (seventy sevens) after this prophecy stream began

* How human sin was ended 490 periods after this prophecy

* How human wickedness was atoned for " "

* How everlasting [eternal!] righteousness was ushered in " "

* How vision and prophecy were sealed [veiled from the minds of some] " "

* How the Most Holy Place was specially anointed " "

It is a known historical fact that Y'shua of Bethlehem died 483 years (69 sevens) after the decree prophesied, specifically on Pesach, 29 AD. A quick search of Wikipedia confirms that nearly 100% of scholars of all persuasions recognize the crucifixion of the preacher Y'shua in Jerusalem as 100% fact! He died 489 360-day biblical Jewish years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem!

Also, you can remember to actually respond to another facet of Daniel 9 as I've mentioned earlier, that someone in Daniel 9 is cut off [dies] but NOT FOR HIMSELF.

Thank you.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
All very well. Is murder "wrong"? Is rape "evil"?

In the animal kingdom, a tiger will specifically prey on the weak, the young and those separated from the group--like a rapist, a murderer, a pedophile. Humans are different, humans pray, touch God, and encounter God.
It should be very clear where I'm coming from, so read this next part carefully: "Do not do unto others that which you would not done unto yourself".

Why is that important to me? Because this is how our in-group should be treated, and we now know that this is largely genetically-linked. And this is also how I think our out-groups should be treated even though that appears to be somewhat less genetically linked. Why? Because we're all human, and at least the major religions reflect this.

To me, the issue of God and morality is a lot like which came first, the chicken or the egg? IOW, did God or Gods create morality for us to follow, or is it that we are genetically prone to have a religious bent and that we sought out and created our God or Gods.

Here's the answer: "I don't know". But what I do know is that even though we cannot be assured of having the right answer, we can still operate out of compassion and justice for all because that's how we survived as a species and also that this just seems the right thing to do, imo.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Rabbi, respectfully, your condemning me for what you feel is lack of Hebrew knowledge is wholly inappropriate for someone claiming to be a member of the rabbinate. If you are a rabbi, you would treat others with kindness, particular a fellow Jew.
If you feel condemned then that is your problem. I am simply pointing out a necessary difficulty and obstacle to your understanding and a roadblock to a truly thorough discussion. When you claim a mastery of the text and its understanding, this should be put within a certain context of full disclosure. You don't like that context or feel that my pointing it out is "condemning" when in fact, it is simple honesty.
Again now, you say I misunderstand scripture without bothering to cite scripture so we may all see and understand the context. You've most recently stated I don't understand Dan 9:23-24:
Yes, that is precisely what I said. I cited those two verses and asked if you could explain something based on the reading of the text. You have yet to do that. I have already presented a reading of the same text which answers all of your questions. You had trouble with the auxiliary verbs in question.

Feel free to tell all of us here, since you believe Daniel 9 is Tanakh, the Word of the living God, the Savior of all,

* How Jewish transgression within 490 periods (seventy sevens) after this prophecy stream began
Transgression began when people sinned.
* How human sin was ended 490 periods after this prophecy

* How human wickedness was atoned for " "

* How everlasting [eternal!] righteousness was ushered in " "

* How vision and prophecy were sealed [veiled from the minds of some] " "

* How the Most Holy Place was specially anointed " "
It wasn't. It could have been. " in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated," Note those pesky helping verbs again. Had you addressed the question I asked about the subject of the verb, you might have understood this. But you ignored it.

You can take a look at a complete time line (one understanding of it) here http://drazin.com/?7._The_L-RD'S_Anointed just scroll down. It seems that your timeline is simply wrong, reverse engineered to account for things the way you like. Here are some other explanations http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/13294/the-70-weeks-in-daniel-9 . Feel free to insist that your understanding is right. It doesn't matter. Your view doesn't conform with anything in Judaism so by attaching yourself to it, you are declaring your lack of connection to Judaism. Pretty straightforward.

Also, you can remember to actually respond to another facet of Daniel 9 as I've mentioned earlier, that someone in Daniel 9 is cut off [dies] but NOT FOR HIMSELF.

Thank you.
I answered this already. The text reads, "the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation." Agrippa was killed in 68ce. Where in that verse does it say "not for himself"?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It should be very clear where I'm coming from, so read this next part carefully: "Do not do unto others that which you would not done unto yourself".

Why is that important to me? Because this is how our in-group should be treated, and we now know that this is largely genetically-linked. And this is also how I think our out-groups should be treated even though that appears to be somewhat less genetically linked. Why? Because we're all human, and at least the major religions reflect this.

To me, the issue of God and morality is a lot like which came first, the chicken or the egg? IOW, did God or Gods create morality for us to follow, or is it that we are genetically prone to have a religious bent and that we sought out and created our God or Gods.

Here's the answer: "I don't know". But what I do know is that even though we cannot be assured of having the right answer, we can still operate out of compassion and justice for all because that's how we survived as a species and also that this just seems the right thing to do, imo.

Do not do unto others... is very close to Jesus's statements on morality. Worth investigating.

I would question, respectfully, "we can still operate out of compassion and justice for all because that's how we survived as a species" which may be true say, regarding nuclear deterrence, but rape propagates the species and those who take and kill, survive--because we are different than the rest of the animal kingdom is a strong reason why I've been intrigued with the Bible stance on these things...

Thank you.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
If you feel condemned then that is your problem. I am simply pointing out a necessary difficulty and obstacle to your understanding and a roadblock to a truly thorough discussion. When you claim a mastery of the text and its understanding, this should be put within a certain context of full disclosure. You don't like that context or feel that my pointing it out is "condemning" when in fact, it is simple honesty.

I don’t feel “condemned”, I feel you are being rude far beyond what I would tolerate from a casual acquaintance, let alone someone who is an ordained rabbi. You know nothing about my educational background, where I was Bar Mitzvah or my Hebrew training, yet you continually assault my intelligence, my Hebrew and even my Jewishness. Further, I guarantee I know far more Greek than you but I’ve been careful to keep our NT discussions in plain English—as well as our OT discussions for the most part—so that others can be involved. Are you unaware of how patronizing your patter is of “Only people who really understand Hebrew and believe what I do about the Hebrew also know God’s Word”? This is demeaning to Jews and Gentiles alike who love God’s Word in English and many other languages, too.

Yes, that is precisely what I said. I cited those two verses and asked if you could explain something based on the reading of the text. You have yet to do that. I have already presented a reading of the same text which answers all of your questions. You had trouble with the auxiliary verbs in question.

No, I asked you regarding YOUR stance, since I already said it’s a Messianic passage and when you were rude again, THE Messiah, not “a Messiah” or “an anointed personage”.

Transgression began when people sinned.

I’ve asked you three or four (?) times regarding Daniel 9 how sinning ENDED per the chapter in the times of Jesus—without Jesus. Your waffling leaves me more convinced than before that Jews who abhor Y’shua don’t have a counter claim of substance.

It wasn't. It could have been. " in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated," Note those pesky helping verbs again. Had you addressed the question I asked about the subject of the verb, you might have understood this. But you ignored it.

You can take a look at a complete time line (one understanding of it) here http://drazin.com/?7._The_L-RD'S_Anointed just scroll down. It seems that your timeline is simply wrong, reverse engineered to account for things the way you like. Here are some other explanations http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/13294/the-70-weeks-in-daniel-9 . Feel free to insist that your understanding is right. It doesn't matter. Your view doesn't conform with anything in Judaism so by attaching yourself to it, you are declaring your lack of connection to Judaism. Pretty straightforward.

I looked at both sites and read the texts, and I will insist. You likely know there are now four or five alternative timelines given by different secular, Jewish and Christian apologists. Regardless, Agrippa II did not end human transgression or reconcile Israel back to God. Daniel gave Israel 70 weeks to finish it ALL. There are hundreds of verses in Tanakh about the coming Day of the Lord. You can find sources online to see how Daniel’s 70th ties into the coming tribulation and Battle of Megiddo, if you have an interest.

Further, I have not severed my connections from Judaism nor declared my lack of connection to Judaism, as you wrote. Indeed, I still experience persecution for identifying as a Jew and as a Jewish Christian also. I don’t think you would like it in turn if I wrote, “You are not a rabbi, rabbis are kind!” but rather, I encourage you to be an adult, mature, and kind on these, their own merits. Please stop mocking me, and being rude.

I answered this already. The text reads, "the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation." Agrippa was killed in 68ce. Where in that verse does it say "not for himself"?

Well, if I wasn’t certain before, at least I know that you are a Hasidic anti-missionary, since you declined to actually look at the Hebrew for yourself and took this “translation” off Chabad.org. At least the JPS has it more like reality:

“And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.”

So I’m certain you can also tell us what this means:

“…he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease…”

Thank you.
 
Top