• 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!

Shamar on You.

Tumah

Veteran Member
4Q246, also known as the Son of God Text or the Aramaic Apocalypse, is one of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran which is notable for an early Messianic mention of a Son of God (look it up on Wiki).
Yes, I did. And I found that it says:
But others viewed this figure "as a villain, one who usurps the place of God but is subsequently overthrown by the "people of God," who have God on their side."[8] When the full text was published, more researchers concluded that the latter interpretation was correct.[8]
But regardless the interpretation, this represents a theology specific to the Essenes, not the Jewish people as a whole.

Also see Enoch Ch 46 for numerous references to a Son of man

"There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was and why he accompanied the Ancient of days."
Enoch is not a canonical Jewish text. And also an interesting feature of the phrase "son of man" is that it's not "son of G-d". Another interesting feature is that "son of man (ben Adam)" just means "person". It's one of four terms the Tanach uses for "person": Adam (eg. Lev. 1:2), Enosh (eg. Job 7:1), son of Adam (eg. Ez. 2:1) and son of Enosh (eg. Psa. 144:3).

They are listed in Wikipedia. Included are:
  • Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)
  • There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
And as I said to you before, these are not things we believe the Messiah will accomplish, but things G-d will accomplish during the Messianic Era. You can check these verses yourself. Nowhere in that passage does it mention the Messiah.
I don't pretend to any knowledge of Jewish "theology" other than it is based in the Old Testament +++.
So you made a comparison of Judaism to Trinitarianism without any actual knowledge of the former?
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Yes, I did. And I found that it says:
But others viewed this figure "as a villain, one who usurps the place of God but is subsequently overthrown by the "people of God," who have God on their side."[8] When the full text was published, more researchers concluded that the latter interpretation was correct.[8]
But regardless the interpretation, this represents a theology specific to the Essenes, not the Jewish people as a whole.
I accept what you say. The frame of reference could be to the Maccabean era and to the Seleucids, although I find it startling that an evil ruler such as Antiochus IV could be denoted by such a term as "son of God." I think may be that it is not the "best" interpretation.

Yet the point is surely this, that there is specific Jewish authority to denote one blessed with such absolutist world power as the messiah must undoubtedly command, to be deferred to as a "son of God." That is, the term "son of God" is not specific to Christianity, or to trinitarianism, or to dyophysitism. The idea is clearly latent in the Tanakh. So any Jewish rejection of Jesus as the "son of God" cannot rest its laurels solely in a repudiation of Trinitarianism. The "son of God" concept does not mandate dyophysitism, or any specific theology. Thus your rejection of the Jewish messiah as a or the "son of God" is purely academic.

Yes, I
Enoch is not a canonical Jewish text. And also an interesting feature of the phrase "son of man" is that it's not "son of G-d". Another interesting feature is that "son of man (ben Adam)" just means "person". It's one of four terms the Tanach uses for "person": Adam (eg. Lev. 1:2), Enosh (eg. Job 7:1), son of Adam (eg. Ez. 2:1) and son of Enosh (eg. Psa. 144:3).
There were many Jews who could not accept Enoch, which comprises the writings of later anonymous Jewish prophets in the Maccabean era, presumably writing under anonymity for fear of persecution by ruling Jewish elites. Enoch shows similarity of anonymity and terminology to Daniel (both refer to a "son of man"). Enoch and Dan are used as pseudonyms. The "son of man" is always identified as being "with" God himself. The rejection of Enoch is probably based on the inability of Jews to accept some of its theology, e.g. that angels sinned etc, but which is standard Christian theology. In any event Daniel is in the Tanakh and also defers to "son of man."

That Jesus himself contually referred to himself as the "son of man" showed empathy with its terminology. Enoch was embraced by early Christian Jews.

And as I said to you before, these are not things we believe the messiah will accomplish, but things G-d will
accomplish during the Messianic Era. You can check these verses yourself. Nowhere in that passage does it mention the messiah.
The questions I put to you are, if it were that simple for God to accomplish so much, why is everything being delayed, and to what avail? Also, given the rejection of Jesus, the Jewish messiah appears to be an oxymoron, commanding the attention and worship of what should presumably be given only to God (and not men), whilst, as you say, being not God in himself, and doing nothing of himself, but all by the power of God. Why would "he" be the messiah if he was just a man? It's difficult for anyone outside Judaism to divine what about the new messiah, being a mere man, like Jesus, could warrant him being a messiah at all. Just my personal observations.

So you made a comparison of Judaism to Trinitarianism without any actual knowledge of the former?
I made a comparison of the publicy available information on the Jewish messiah and what he is anticipated to accomplish with the Trinitarian conception of Jesus as both God and man, and found them to be essentially compatible. This is not merely my view. There is a vast body of so-termed Christians in the USA, known as premillennialists, Darbyites, dispensationalists, etc, devoted to the promulgation of a "returning Christ" to effectively function in the role of such a Jewish messiah and performing almost the exact function that the Jews anticipate for their own messiah.
 
Last edited:

Tumah

Veteran Member
I accept what you say. The frame of reference could be to the Maccabean era and to the Seleucids, although I find it startling that an evil ruler such as Antiochus IV could be denoted by such a term as "son of God." I think may be that it is not the "best" interpretation.
Apparently though, a majority of academic scholars do think it may be. Also see Dan. 4:25.

Yet the point is surely this, that there is specific Jewish authority to denote one blessed with such absolutist world power as the Messiah must undoubtedly command, to be deferred to as a "son of God."
No, I don't think that's true at all. The Tanach calls people of leadership such as judges, "gods". Why refer to the highest Jewish ruler as simply the "son of god"?

That is, the term "son of God" is not specific to Christianity, or to trinitarianism, or to dyophysitism. The idea is clearly latent in the Tanakh. So any Jewish rejection of Jesus as the "son of God" cannot rest its laurels solely in a repudiation of Trinitarianism. The "son of God" concept does not mandate dyophysitism, or any specific theology. Thus your rejection of the Jewish messiah as a or the "son of God" is purely academic.
It's not academic when the theology behind the meaning of the phrase is so divergent. The letters that make up the word is not what's important, but the meaning behind it. It's no different than if the theology was the same but the terminology was different. It's the meaning that's important and it's the theology that we reject.

There were many Jews who could not accept Enoch, which comprises the writings of later anonymous Jewish prophets in the Maccabean era, presumably writing under anonymity for fear of persecution by ruling Jewish elites. Enoch shows similarity of anonymity and terminology to Daniel (both refer to a "son of man"). Enoch and Dan are used as pseudonyms. The "son of man" is always identified as being "with" God himself. The rejection of Enoch is probably based on the inability of Jews to accept some of its theology, e.g. that angels sinned etc, but which is standard Christian theology. In any event Daniel is in the Tanakh and also defers to "son of man."
Whatever your ideas about the book of Enoch, it's author/s and it's acceptance, one thing you have not gotten clear is that the phrase "son of man" is not a specific person outside it's context. Ezekiel and Daniel are both called "son of man". Apparently, this is a phrase that angelic beings use to refer to mankind, as in the case of the Voice of Ezekiel and the angel Gabriel by Daniel. So when the phrase is used, it's actually saying the exact opposite of what you imply: the prophets are seeing someone who isn't naturally found among heavenly beings, being as they are people.

That Jesus himself contually referred to himself as the "son of man" showed empathy with its terminology. Enoch was embraced by early Christian Jews.
That is only one of many examples of Jewish theology that was altered to suit the merging Christian religion.

The question I put to you is, if it were that simple for God to accomplish so much, why is everything being delayed, and to what avail?
Why did G-d have to wait 210 years to redeem us from Egypt? Why 70 years from Babylon? There's a plan and there needs to be whatever developments before it will be the right time to accomplish those tasks.

What role could such a Messiah have unless it were to promote idolatry of himself?
The role of the Messiah in Judaism, is simply to lead the nation of Israel. Same like Moses. He leads us out of the exile and then he becomes the head of state. That's all. There's no requirement to believe in the Messiah. If we see some righteous individual who has accomplished the tasks that the Messiah is meant to perform, than he's it. If he doesn't accomplish them all, he's not it.

I submit that he "never" be accepted by the Jews for that reason. The Jewish Messiah is an oxymoron, commanding the attention and worship of what should presumably be given only to God (and not men), whilst, as you say, being not God in himself, and doing nothing of himself, but all by the power of God. Why is "he" a messiah? What is it about "him" that makes him a messiah?
You keep saying these things about Jewish theology that aren't actually present. We don't worship the Messiah any more than we worshiped any other king of Israel. His significance is basically the same as that of Moses: an extremely righteous Jewish person who leads the nation out of exile and continues to lead the people until his death (or if death is "swallowed up" by then, until the world is destroyed). Moses was the first "Messiah" and he will be the last one. The only difference between them is that he might be more righteous than Moses and the redemption that he will lead us to will be a greater one paralleling the longer exile we are in. Everything beyond that is you superimposing Christian beliefs onto Judaism.

I made a comparison of the publicy available information on the Jewish Messiah and what he is anticipated to accomplish with the Trinitarian conception of Jesus as both God and man, and found them to be essentially compatible. This is not merely my view. There is a vast body of so-termed Christians in the USA, known as premillennialists, Darbyites, dispensationalists, etc, devoted to the promulgation of a "returning Christ" to effectively function in the role of such a Jewish messiah and performing almost the exact function that the Jews anticipate for their own messiah.
That is again, just Christians super-imposing their beliefs onto Judaism. Just because they think Judaism aught to believe something, doesn't mean that it's what we actually believe.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Apparently though, a majority of academic scholars do think it may be. Also see Dan. 4:25.

No, I don't think that's true at all. The Tanach calls people of leadership such as judges, "gods". Why refer to the highest Jewish ruler as simply the "son of god"?
Psa 82:6
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

Psa 82:7
But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

Also see what Martha the Jewish woman construed of the Messiah on the death of Lazarus, “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

It's not academic when the theology behind the meaning of the phrase is so divergent. The letters that make up the word is not what's important, but the meaning behind it. It's no different than if the theology was the same but the terminology was different. It's the meaning that's important and it's the theology that we reject.
Well "sons of the most high" and even "son of God" is in the Tanakh so I don't see how you can arbitrarily reject the term, just because it is associated with an alternative theology that you find distasteful.

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like a Son of God" Dan 3:25

Whatever your ideas about the book of Enoch, it's author/s and it's acceptance, one thing you have not gotten clear is that the phrase "son of man" is not a specific person outside it's context. Ezekiel and Daniel are both called "son of man". Apparently, this is a phrase that angelic beings use to refer to mankind, as in the case of the Voice of Ezekiel and the angel Gabriel by Daniel. So when the phrase is used, it's actually saying the exact opposite of what you imply: the prophets are seeing someone who isn't naturally found among heavenly beings, being as they are people.
I concur "son of man" refers to a man/men generally speaking, but it is the context in which "son of man" is found in Daniel and Enoch which is so remarkable - i.e. coming down from heaven or being seen in heaven. It cannot be ignored.

That is only one of many examples of Jewish theology that was altered to suit the merging Christian religion.

Why did G-d have to wait 210 years to redeem us from Egypt? Why 70 years from Babylon? There's a plan and there needs to be whatever developments before it will be the right time to accomplish those tasks.
The Old Testament time scales are measured in decades or perhaps a few hundred years. 2000 years is a very long time to wait for a prophecy as to a "Messiah."

The role of the Messiah in Judaism, is simply to lead the nation of Israel. Same like Moses. He leads us out of the exile and then he becomes the head of state. That's all. There's no requirement to believe in the Messiah. If we see some righteous individual who has accomplished the tasks that the Messiah is meant to perform, than he's it. If he doesn't accomplish them all, he's not it.
But Israel isn't in exile any more. Why wasn't David Ben-Gurion a or the messiah?

You keep saying these things about Jewish theology that aren't actually present. We don't worship the Messiah any more than we worshiped any other king of Israel. His significance is basically the same as that of Moses: an extremely righteous Jewish person who leads the nation out of exile and continues to lead the people until his death (or if death is "swallowed up" by then, until the world is destroyed). Moses was the first "Messiah" and he will be the last one. The only difference between them is that he might be more righteous than Moses and the redemption that he will lead us to will be a greater one paralleling the longer exile we are in. Everything beyond that is you superimposing Christian beliefs onto Judaism.
I'm not trying to define Judaism. My primary interest lies in what the 1st century Jews construed of the Messiah. In any case there is no agreement within Judaism, which is now denominated, just as Christianity is. And of course, many Jews take the Christian line. They are still Jews. My thesis on the Messiah started with an analysis of the New Testament record of what the Jews construed as to the Messiah, and his "permanence," which you seem to have resiled from. Thus you may not in fact agree with what the 1st century Jews construed as to the Messiah.

That is again, just Christians super-imposing their beliefs onto Judaism. Just because they think Judaism aught to believe something, doesn't mean that it's what we actually believe.
I don't know what you believe, I am not trying to "super-impose" any beliefs onto any Jews, and I leave such matters entirely up to the Jews to say what they believe or rathet accept, for as with Christianity, the word "belief" is often confused with mere doctrinal acceptance of certain theological positions, which obtain to rational process outcomes rather than belief or faith in the true sense of the word.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Psa 82:6
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

Psa 82:7
But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”
Yes, this is one example where a judge is called "god" in Tanach. I'm not sure why you've quoted to me one of the examples, but this is definitely one of them.

Also see what Martha the Jewish woman construed of the Messiah on the death of Lazarus, “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”
I don't really see the NT as being authoritative when it comes to presenting what Jews believe when an alternative presentation would defeat the claim the NT authors are trying to make.

Well "sons of the most high" and even "son of God" is in the Tanakh so I don't see how you can arbitrarily reject the term, just because it is associated with an alternative theology that you find distasteful.
I find it puzzling that you accuse me of rejecting the term in response to the point that I made about not rejecting the term, but the theology Christians lend to it.

I concur "son of man" refers to a man/men generally speaking, but it is the context in which "son of man" is found in Daniel and Enoch which is so remarkable - i.e. coming down from heaven or being seen in heaven. It cannot be ignored.
Of course it can. If the one who is doing the seeing, is seeing someone in heaven, then where do you think the one who is doing the seeing is standing?

The Old Testament time scales are measured in decades or perhaps a few hundred years. 2000 years is a very long time to wait for a prophecy as to a "Messiah."
Just because most prophecies manifest within a few hundred years doesn't mean that all prophecies must manifest within a few hundred years. It just means that all those other prophecies were for events that would take place relatively sooner than these.

But Israel isn't in exile any more. Why wasn't David Ben-Gurion a or the messiah?
We are still in exile. Most Jews don't live in Israel. Ben Gurion isn't the Messiah because half fulfilling one out of a number of prophecies the Messiah is meant to fulfill doesn't make a Messiah.

I'm not trying to define Judaism. My primary interest lies in what the 1st century Jews construed of the Messiah. In any case there is no agreement within Judaism, which is now denominated, just as Christianity is. And of course, many Jews take the Christian line. They are still Jews. My thesis on the Messiah started with an analysis of the New Testament record of what the Jews construed as to the Messiah, and his "permanence," which you seem to have resiled from. Thus you may not in fact agree with what the 1st century Jews construed as to the Messiah.
Judaism was just as denominated then as it is now if not more so.
As I said earlier, the NT is in the business of spreading a new theology. This is clear from the reinterpretations it makes out of the Tanach. There's no reason to believe any event that doesn't have third-party corroboration, as it is described in the NT, because there will always remain that suspicion of fabrication on the part of the authors to advance their theology.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Yes, this is one example where a judge is called "god" in Tanach. I'm not sure why you've quoted to me one of the examples, but this is definitely one of them.
I was referring to the usage of "sons of the Most High." This is a biblical denotation and authority for the term "son of God."

I don't really see the NT as being authoritative when it comes to presenting what Jews believe when an alternative presentation would defeat the claim the NT authors are trying to make.
You misunderstand the context. I wasn't (here) intending anything as to Jesus, but intending to show what first century Jews construed as to the concept of the Messiah, i.e. as a / the "son of God." It is not how Jesus usually referred to himself. Rather it reflects an understanding of first century Jews of the Messiah as also a / the son of God. Cf also Peter's confession. “You are [c]the Christ, the Son of the living God....flesh and blood did not reveal this to you.

In other words Jesus did not teach people to call him "son of God." It was by conviction that the terms Messiah and Son of God were equated and applied to Jesus, but also it suggests that "Messiah" and "son of God" were then orthodox Jewish theology.

I find it puzzling that you accuse me of rejecting the term in response to the point that I made about not rejecting the term, but the theology Christians lend to it.
I formed an impression that you rejected the application of "son of God" to the Messiah.

Of course it can. If the one who is doing the seeing, is seeing someone in heaven, then where do you think the one who is doing the seeing is standing?
He is standing on earth, but what does that have to do with it? It is a vision - a "son of man" in the presence of God. So no ordinary man, I think, although still a man.

Just because most prophecies manifest within a few hundred years doesn't mean that all prophecies must manifest within a few hundred years. It just means that all those other prophecies were for events that would take place relatively sooner than these.
I agree. Yet to keep people in suspense for thousands of years for a Messiah seems strange. Does God have any interest in salvation (one might ask)?

We are still in exile. Most Jews don't live in Israel. Ben Gurion isn't the Messiah because half fulfilling one out of a number of prophecies the Messiah is meant to fulfill doesn't make a Messiah.
I take your point, but it seems to me to be a question, as I said earlier, of waiting for a magical event, were the event ever to occur at all, rather than anything pertaining to the real world.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I was referring to the usage of "sons of the Most High." This is a biblical denotation and authority for the term "son of God."
Even if that's true, what is your point having brought it? Whoever the subject is, they are still only called "sons of god" which is clearly a lesser status than those who are called "gods" outright.

You misunderstand the context. I wasn't (here) intending anything as to Jesus, but intending to show what first century Jews construed as to the concept of the Messiah, i.e. as a / the "son of God." It is not how Jesus usually referred to himself. Rather it reflects an understanding of first century Jews of the Messiah as also a / the son of God. Cf also Peter's confession. “You are [c]the Christ, the Son of the living God....flesh and blood did not reveal this to you.

In other words Jesus did not teach people to call him "son of God." It was by conviction that the terms Messiah and Son of God were equated and applied to Jesus, but also it suggests that "Messiah" and "son of God" were then orthodox Jewish theology.
I think it is you who are misunderstanding what I'm saying. The narrative as portrayed by the NT is not reliable. The writers of the NT were trying to present a new theology that included Jesus as the ultimate figure either divine or superhuman. The authors of the NT reinterpreted and re-purposed Tanach phrases to support the theology they were trying to disseminate. You can't prove from the NT that Jews of the time period thought that son of G-d was somehow applicable to Jesus. All you can do is prove that the authors of the NT wanted people to think that Jews might think that.

I formed an impression that you rejected the application of "son of God" to the Messiah.
Is this the ol' bait and switch? Again. I do not reject the term "son of god". It is found in the Tanach. I reject the meaning Christian theology applies to it and that includes it's application to the Messiah.

He is standing on earth, but what does that have to do with it? It is a vision - a "son of man" in the presence of God. So no ordinary man, I think, although still a man.
In the vision of the prophet, the prophet himself is also standing in G-d's presence. That's how he's able to look around and see what's going on, interact with the residents, etc.

I agree. Yet to keep people in suspense for thousands of years for a Messiah seems strange.
No stranger than keeping people in suspense for 210 years, or 70 years. Why not just redeem people right away?

Does God have any interest in salvation (one might ask)?
In the Christian idea? As a Jew, I'd reckon not.

I take your point, but it seems to me to be a question, as I said earlier, of waiting for a magical event, were the event ever to occur at all, rather than anything pertaining to the real world.
Thankfully, G-d isn't restricted to the things you can imagine.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Even if that's true, what is your point having brought it? Whoever the subject is, they are still only called "sons of god" which is clearly a lesser status than those who are called "gods" outright.
My point is simply that there is a scriptural authority for denoting men as "sons of God." Christianity did not invent an alien term in "son of God."

I think it is you who are misunderstanding what I'm saying. The narrative as portrayed by the NT is not reliable. The writers of the NT were trying to present a new theology that included Jesus as the ultimate figure either divine or superhuman.
I think that is Trinitarian theology, which many Christians repudiate e.g. Michael Servetus. If you look into the book of Acts, Jesus was always described as a "man" by the evangelists, albeit a man from a different place, but still a man - a man who came with a sign of future judgement.

The authors of the NT reinterpreted and re-purposed Tanach phrases to support the theology they were trying to disseminate. You can't prove from the NT that Jews of the time period thought that son of G-d was somehow applicable to Jesus. All you can do is prove that the authors of the NT wanted people to think that Jews might think that.
The universality of the (jewish) apostolic references to "son of God" (note not "God the Son") and that the phrase was also used at Jesus' trial by the Jewish rulers discovers that "son of God" was orthodox Jewish theology at the time for the messiah. The point is that the Jews did not believe Jesus was the messiah, not that the messiah was not the son of God.

Is this the ol' bait and switch? Again. I do not reject the term "son of god". It is found in the Tanach. I reject the meaning Christian theology applies to it and that includes it's application to the Messiah.
I cannot see that there is any theological issue in applying "son of God" to the Jewish messiah deriving from the Tanakh. You have yet to show it.

In the vision of the prophet, the prophet himself is also standing in G-d's presence. That's how he's able to look around and see what's going on, interact with the residents, etc.
What does that prove about the reference to "son of man?"


No stranger than keeping people in suspense for 210 years, or 70 years. Why not just redeem people right away?
I think God would be negligent for keeping salvation away from people for 2000 years. Man's capability for rational thought has not changed much in that time. Indeed he is still engaging with the philosophers of thousands of years ago.

In the Christian idea? As a Jew, I'd reckon not.
Thankfully, G-d isn't restricted to the things you can imagine.
I think the unimaginable things are reserved for heaven. I believe God is largely contrained to working in accordance with human and scientific nature on earth, which would make it very difficult to conceive of the Jewish conception of messianic fruit.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
My point is simply that there is a scriptural authority for denoting men as "sons of God." Christianity did not invent an alien term in "son of God."
And my point is not that men can't and haven't been called "sons of god/s", but that the Christian theology behind the term is a false one not found in the Tanach.

I think that is Trinitarian theology, which many Christians repudiate e.g. Michael Servetus. If you look into the book of Acts, Jesus was always described as a "man" by the evangelists, albeit a man from a different place, but still a man - a man who came with a sign of future judgement.
Whether that is true or not is irrelevant to my point here. I am talking about NT narratives and you are talking about Christian theology.

The universality of the (jewish) apostolic references to "son of God" (note not "God the Son") and that the phrase was also used at Jesus' trial by the Jewish rulers discovers that "son of God" was orthodox Jewish theology at the time for the messiah. The point is that the Jews did not believe Jesus was the messiah, not that the messiah was not the son of God.
Which brings us back to my point that NT narratives are not trustworthy. Just because the NT claims that something occurred (or in this case that "the phrase was also used at Jesus' trial by the Jewish rulers") doesn't means that it really happened (or that such a phrase was ever used). This narrative from the NT is not a proof of actual events.

I cannot see that there is any theological issue in applying "son of God" to the Jewish messiah deriving from the Tanakh. You have yet to show it.
It's very simple.

The word "elohim" is already used in Tanach to refer to leaders and judges. The Messiah is a leader and judge. It wouldn't be appropriate to call him "son of elohim" because he already is an "elohim". The Messiah's child would be deserving of the title, which would be similar to how it's used in Gen. 6:1.

In the metaphoric sense as well, there's no reason to designate the Messiah with that title, because the Messiah is Jewish and the entire Jewish people have that title.

Lastly, it is used to refer to angels in general, not people.

What does that prove about the reference to "son of man?"
That "son of man" is not a special designation. It's just how those that aren't "'children of man" call people who are "children of man". Whoever it is that the heavenly beings are talking about is deserving of that epithet when that person is a person. If the subject is the Messiah, then he is called "son of man". If the subject is Daniel, then they'll call him "son of man". If the subject is me, then I'm also going to be "son of man". It's not a special reference.

I think God would be negligent for keeping salvation away from people for 2000 years. Man's capability for rational thought has not changed much in that time. Indeed he is still engaging with the philosophers of thousands of years ago.
That's because you're superimposing Christian theology onto Jewish theology. G-d is not waiting for mankind and mankind is not in exile. It's Jews who are in exile and Jews who are awaiting the redemption from exile. There's no Christian salvation. When the time comes, G-d will return the Jewish people to Israel and provide us with a theocratic monarchy. The relationship of this event to non-Jews is incidental, not causal.

I think the unimaginable things are reserved for heaven. I believe God is largely contrained to working in accordance with human and scientific nature on earth, which would make it very difficult to conceive of the Jewish conception of messianic fruit.
I have no idea what Messianic fruit is supposed to mean. I don't think I've heard of this term in my life and the context gives nothing away.

But also - and I think significantly - G-d is not bound by your conception of Him or your conception of the state of the world today. He has performed miracles in the past for us and nothing constrains Him from performing miracles in the future for us. If we are unworthy and He chooses not to bring our Redemption in a miraculous way, there is similarly nothing barring him from directing natural events to culminate in a similar way.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
And my point is not that men can't and haven't been called "sons of god/s", but that the Christian theology behind the term is a false one not found in the Tanach.


Whether that is true or not is irrelevant to my point here. I am talking about NT narratives and you are talking about Christian theology.
No - it is you who are talking about "Christian theology." My point is that "son of God" is not exclusive to Christianity. Your point is that the "Christian theology" of the son of God "is a false one not found in the Tanach."

That means that you are the one talking about it. I am only talking about the empirical evidence for associating the messiah with being a "son of God." That is an empirical inquiry, not a theological one. The New Testament strongly supports, as a matter of fact, the Jews did then associate the messiah with being a son of God. The two were regarded as alternatives for the same thing, IMO. This is because there is no evidence of any dispute in the New Testament in the association of the son of God with the messiah.


And my point is not that
Which brings us back to my point that NT narratives are not trustworthy. Just because the NT claims that something occurred (or in this case that "the phrase was also used at Jesus' trial by the Jewish rulers") doesn't means that it really happened (or that such a phrase was ever used). This narrative from the NT is not a proof of actual events.
It may not be "proof" to your way of thinking, but it is empirical evidence that the Jews did not at that period have any theological objection to denoting the messiah as the son of God. It further suggests that the modern Jewish practice (if indeed such exists) of denouncing the term "son of God" as relating to the messiah is a recent one.

And my point is not that
It's very simple.

The word "elohim" is already used in Tanach to refer to leaders and judges. The Messiah is a leader and judge. It wouldn't be appropriate to call him "son of elohim" because he already is an "elohim". The Messiah's child would be deserving of the title, which would be similar to how it's used in Gen. 6:1.
A "son of elohim" denotes a "son of God" i.e. son of YHWH, not a "son of a ruler", but where elohim is used to denote rulers etc directly, it is not referring to "God." So a "son of elohim" means something conceptually different from the mere usage of elohim as it applies to rulers.

And my point is not that
In the metaphoric sense as well, there's no reason to designate the Messiah with that title, because the Messiah is Jewish and the entire Jewish people have that title.
From Psa 82:1 I suggest that the entire Jewish people is not designated as either elohim or sons of elohim, but only the members (i.e. rulers) of an assembly, amongst whom God gives judgement. However I can concede that the context of Ps. 82:6 is that there is more than one son of God denoted, but it does not forgo the messiah being a son of God. In fact from Ps. 82 derives an expectation of the messiah calling himself a son of God.

Lastly, it is used to refer to angels in general, not people.
Angels identified themselves directly as YHWH. They spoke as agents of God and they are referred to as YHWH. When it says "YHWH spoke" it actually means an angel spoke.

That "son of man" is not a special designation. It's just how those that aren't "'children of man" call people who are "children of man". Whoever it is that the heavenly beings are talking about is deserving of that epithet when that person is a person. If the subject is the Messiah, then he is called "son of man". If the subject is Daniel, then they'll call him "son of man". If the subject is me, then I'm also going to be "son of man". It's not a special reference.
Yet it would have significance for one claiming to have come from God.

That's because you're superimposing Christian theology onto Jewish theology. G-d is not waiting for mankind and mankind is not in exile. It's Jews who are in exile and Jews who are awaiting the redemption from exile. There's no Christian salvation. When the time comes, G-d will return the Jewish people to Israel and provide us with a theocratic monarchy. The relationship of this event to non-Jews is incidental, not causal.
Jews are not in exile. They are more powerful today than they ever were for the last 2000 years. They could even wipe out every surrounding muslim nation at one stroke with nuclear weapons. To describe the Jews as in exile is perverse. Just because there is a Jewish diaspora does not infer that they are in exile. They would be in exile if they were not permitted to go to Israel but I think most are, except perhaps for African Jews. One issue is proving you're a Jew, which is another issue entirely, and another is that many Jews would rather not live in Israel.

I have no idea what Messianic fruit is supposed to mean. I don't think I've heard of this term in my life and the context gives nothing away.

But also - and I think significantly - G-d is not bound by your conception of Him or your conception of the state of the world today. He has performed miracles in the past for us and nothing constrains Him from performing miracles in the future for us. If we are unworthy and He chooses not to bring our Redemption in a miraculous way, there is similarly nothing barring him from directing natural events to culminate in a similar way.
What I meant by messianic fruit is the result of his coming. I really struggle to understand what benefit you think should accrue to the Jews besides some kind of political dictatorship where everyone lives in peace, which is effectively to transpose everyone into heaven.
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
Sorry to butt in, but just a couple of side notes. Tumah doesn't need my help...

The New Testament strongly supports, as a matter of fact, the Jews did then associate the messiah with being a son of God.
But if the "New Testament" has no historical validity then citing it as "empirical" evidence for anything is meaningless. If I said "the Harry Potter series presents empirical proof that Londoners in the 21st century were surrounded by magic" that wouldn't be a useful claim. The problem with any claim about Judaism and the notion of "Son of God" is that a variety of people were called "son of God" or referred to as sons of God in the text, so telling a Jew what Jews thought of the term when the Jew sees the idea as having other clear meaning is not fruitful.


From Psa 82:1 I suggest that the entire Jewish people is not designated as either elohim or sons of elohim, but only the members (i.e. rulers) of an assembly, amongst whom God gives judgement. However I can concede that the context of Ps. 82:6 is that there is more than one son of God denoted, but it does not forgo the messiah being a son of God. In fact from Ps. 82 derives an expectation of the messiah calling himself a son of God.
But since the entire nation of Israel is said, by God, to be his children, why would that be any more special than my saying that I, too, am a son of God?
Jews are not in exile.
Yes, we are. That you don't understand the Jewish idea of exile is fine, but confusing the political state of Israel and our ability to fly there on an airplane with the theological concept of galut, exile doesn't change the religious reality in which we live.

I really struggle to understand what benefit you think should accrue to the Jews besides some kind of political dictatorship where everyone lives in peace, which is effectively to transpose everyone into heaven.
Not so much a political dictatorship as a theocratic construct which would be very similar to peaceful living in heaven. Yes. That sounds great.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
No - it is you who are talking about "Christian theology." My point is that "son of God" is not exclusive to Christianity. Your point is that the "Christian theology" of the son of God "is a false one not found in the Tanach."

That means that you are the one talking about it. I am only talking about the empirical evidence for associating the messiah with being a "son of God." That is an empirical inquiry, not a theological one. The New Testament strongly supports, as a matter of fact, the Jews did then associate the messiah with being a son of God. The two were regarded as alternatives for the same thing, IMO. This is because there is no evidence of any dispute in the New Testament in the association of the son of God with the messiah.
There is no empirical evidence or reason for associating the Messiah with "son of G-d". The lack of evidence in the NT of any dispute only serves to prove that the authors did not fabricate an argument against the new interpretation of it they were presenting.

It may not be "proof" to your way of thinking, but it is empirical evidence that the Jews did not at that period have any theological objection to denoting the messiah as the son of God. It further suggests that the modern Jewish practice (if indeed such exists) of denouncing the term "son of God" as relating to the messiah is a recent one.
No, the narratives written in the NT aren't empirical of anything except of what the authors wanted to present.

A "son of elohim" denotes a "son of God" i.e. son of YHWH, not a "son of a ruler", but where elohim is used to denote rulers etc directly, it is not referring to "God." So a "son of elohim" means something conceptually different from the mere usage of elohim as it applies to rulers.
No it doesn't. See Gen. 6:1, sons of elohim are the sons of the rulers.

From Psa 82:1 I suggest that the entire Jewish people is not designated as either elohim or sons of elohim, but only the members (i.e. rulers) of an assembly, amongst whom God gives judgement. However I can concede that the context of Ps. 82:6 is that there is more than one son of God denoted, but it does not forgo the messiah being a son of God. In fact from Ps. 82 derives an expectation of the messiah calling himself a son of God.
There is nothing in Psalm 82 that suggests a Messianic connection. This Psalm is about G-d setting Himself against judges who give unjust judgement.

Angels identified themselves directly as YHWH. They spoke as agents of God and they are referred to as YHWH. When it says "YHWH spoke" it actually means an angel spoke.
That's correct. Except it's just not the whole story. See Job 1:6. The sons of elohim come to present themselves before G-d and among the sons of elohim was also the Satan. The Satan is an angel and he was among the other angels who went to present themselves before G-d.

Yet it would have significance for one claiming to have come from God.
It would not. Not only would it not, it would also sound really weird. Pretending this narrative actually took place and it took place in front of an Aramaic speaking audience this is how it would translate: "My people! I am here for you! It is I PERSON!!!!" Because in Aramaic, barnash (or bar nash) is literally "son of man" but that also happens to be the way you say "person". Any native Aramaic speaker would not catch the meaning. It happens to be the same way in Hebrew today with the phrase ben adam which is again literally "son of man". Come to Israel and tell an Israeli that Jesus was ben adam and they'll be like, "yeah cool, but don't you also believe he was G-d?"
It could be that there's an argument here that the NT was written in Greek for a Greek speaking audience who wouldn't recognize "son of man" as a colloquial term for "person" in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Jews are not in exile. They are more powerful today than they ever were for the last 2000 years. They could even wipe out every surrounding muslim nation at one stroke with nuclear weapons. To describe the Jews as in exile is perverse. Just because there is a Jewish diaspora does not infer that they are in exile. They would be in exile if they were not permitted to go to Israel but I think most are, except perhaps for African Jews. One issue is proving you're a Jew, which is another issue entirely, and another is that many Jews would rather not live in Israel.

Exile is not about being in the diaspora, although that is a part of it. We've been in exile since the Romans destroyed the Temple - even though there were sizable Jewish communities in Israel for the following few hundred years. Similarly, Ezra only brought a minority of Jews with him out of Babylon and that was still called a redemption from exile.

What I meant by messianic fruit is the result of his coming. I really struggle to understand what benefit you think should accrue to the Jews besides some kind of political dictatorship where everyone lives in peace, which is effectively to transpose everyone into heaven.
Do you use the word "fruit" like that when you talk to people all the time?

That is enough benefit. As Maimonides says, "there is no difference between now and the Messianic Era, except subjugation to [other] governments." The Messiah will lead us in a theocratic monarchy where we will be at peace so that we will be able to study the Torah without worries. That's all it is.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Sorry to butt in, but just a couple of side notes. Tumah doesn't need my help...
He may yet do.

Sorry to butt in, but
But if the "New Testament" has no historical validity then citing it as "empirical" evidence for anything is meaningless. If I said "the Harry Potter series presents empirical proof that Londoners in the 21st century were surrounded by magic" that wouldn't be a useful claim. The problem with any claim about Judaism and the notion of "Son of God" is that a variety of people were called "son of God" or referred to as sons of God in the text, so telling a Jew what Jews thought of the term when the Jew sees the idea as having other clear meaning is not fruitful.
Harry Potter was written as a work of fiction, although it would still be possible to deduce certain facts about civilization even from such works of fiction. A problem that you have is in any assumption that the New Testament was fiction. It is not deemed to be fiction. On the contrary, especially per the gospel of Luke, it is stated to be a carefully researched record of facts, nearly contemporaneous with their occurrence. "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning.." Luke 1;3.Other gospels purport to be first hand accounts.

And consider Luke 22:70. "They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”

Why would the Jews ask him such a question if they never believed in the Messiah as a son of God? The New Testament is empirical evidence that the Jews construed their expected messiah as a son of God.

Moreover what Jews today think is not necessarily what they thought then. Another problem for modern Jews is that they are not easily perceived as speaking on behalf of the Jews predating the fall of the second temple, who were themselves divided into sundry groups, including Essenes, Pharisees, Saducees etc, and within such groups, there were differences of opinion. There was no such concept then as an "orthodox Jew" I think.



Sorry to butt in, but
But since the entire nation of Israel is said, by God, to be his children, why would that be any more special than my saying that I, too, am a son of God?
I do not believe that the entire nation of Israel is denoted as the children of God. Children of Abraham possibly. You will have to supply references for such an assertion. Yet here we immediately get into theology of distinguishing merely natural children, often cast off by God, from the children of obedience.

Sorry to butt in, but
Yes, we are. That you don't understand the Jewish idea of exile is fine, but confusing the political state of Israel and our ability to fly there on an airplane with the theological concept of galut, exile doesn't change the religious reality in which we live.
Do you mean exile from the temple mount? I think that is self-imposed for reasons of political expediency. In fact I have been on the temple mount, and I was not exiled.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
A problem that you have is in any assumption that the New Testament was fiction. It is not deemed to be fiction. On the contrary, especially per the gospel of Luke, it is stated to be a carefully researched record of facts, nearly contemporaneous with their occurrence. "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning.." Luke 1;3.Other gospels purport to be first hand accounts.
So your claim is that it is not fiction because it says it is not fiction. There are a bunch of Stephen King novels which do the same thing. You are saying that the text proves its own status. If that is your position then have fun with that. I don't see the value in accepting the text's claim about itself. Otherwise I would have to accept that ANY text which claims it is true, must be.
And consider Luke 22:70. "They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”

Why would the Jews ask him such a question if they never believed in the Messiah as a son of God? The New Testament is empirical evidence that the Jews construed their expected messiah as a son of God.
If the text were true and then question recorded accurately, they might be asking if he was Jewish.
Moreover what Jews today think is not necessarily what they thought then. Another problem for modern Jews is that they are not easily perceived as speaking on behalf of the Jews predating the fall of the second temple, who were themselves divided into sundry groups, including Essenes, Pharisees, Saducees etc, and within such groups, there were differences of opinion. There was no such concept then as an "orthodox Jew" I think.
There were many groups. We know this because the existence of other groups was recorded in books that we still use and which form our connection to the Jews at the time. The rabbinic/pharisaic form of Judaism existed then and now.

I do not believe that the entire nation of Israel is denoted as the children of God. Children of Abraham possibly. You will have to supply references for such an assertion.
Here
Exodus 4:22

And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

The nation is called God's son. Maybe they wanted to know if Jesus was a peace-maker (a la Matt 5:9), unless all peace makers are messiahs now... Psalms 2:7 has David saying that God claims OF DAVID "You are My son; today I have begotten you." and in I Chronicles 22:9-10 Solomon is said to be God's son as well.

Trying to distinguish between "types" of sons and inventing categories so that you can draw the conclusion you want is a fine mode of interpretation that no one who interprets differently has to accept as persuasive.



Do you mean exile from the temple mount? I think that is self-imposed for reasons of political expediency. In fact I have been on the temple mount, and I was not exiled.
No, I mean from the theocratic state and the biblical Israel. We are in exile. It isn't a matter of geography. You are relying on a simplistic and secular understanding of an English word. That has no bearing on a complex religious concept based on a Hebrew word.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
There is no empirical evidence or reason for associating the Messiah with "son of G-d". The lack of evidence in the NT of any dispute only serves to prove that the authors did not fabricate an argument against the new interpretation of it they were presenting.

No, the narratives written in the NT aren't empirical of anything except of what the authors wanted to present.
You're insinuating that they did not want to present the facts. Do you have any evidence of that?


There is no empirical
No it doesn't. See Gen. 6:1, sons of elohim are the sons of the rulers.
At least we know that angels are capable of it. cf. angels and Abraham. The New Testament also affirms that angels were capable of leaving their first estate,. Jude 1:6

I am surprised that you do not recognize a strong tradition among the Jews that the angels fell by lust for mortal women, being a Jewish way of interpreting Genesis 6:1,

There is no empirical
There is nothing in Psalm 82 that suggests a Messianic connection. This Psalm is about G-d setting Himself against judges who give unjust judgement.
I am not saying that. I am just saying that sons of God denotes a special relation to God over and above others, that is visible in a high authority given to them.

There is no empirical
That's correct. Except it's just not the whole story. See Job 1:6. The sons of elohim come to present themselves before G-d and among the sons of elohim was also the Satan. The Satan is an angel and he was among the other angels who went to present themselves before G-d.
I opine that when "son of God" denotes angels, it denotes them as having transformed themselves into human form. May be they also could transform themselves back again into angelic form, but I think the inference is that such angels as are inferred had dwelt amongst mortals.

Job 1:7 "The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”


There is no empirical
It would not. Not only would it not, it would also sound really weird. Pretending this narrative actually took place and it took place in front of an Aramaic speaking audience this is how it would translate: "My people! I am here for you! It is I PERSON!!!!" Because in Aramaic, barnash (or bar nash) is literally "son of man" but that also happens to be the way you say "person". Any native Aramaic speaker would not catch the meaning. It happens to be the same way in Hebrew today with the phrase ben adam which is again literally "son of man". Come to Israel and tell an Israeli that Jesus was ben adam and they'll be like, "yeah cool, but don't you also believe he was G-d?"
It could be that there's an argument here that the NT was written in Greek for a Greek speaking audience who wouldn't recognize "son of man" as a colloquial term for "person" in Hebrew/Aramaic.
ben Adam = Hebrew, huios anthropos = Greek - I think it means more than "a person." I don't really understand you.

There is no empirical
Exile is not about being in the diaspora, although that is a part of it. We've been in exile since the Romans destroyed the Temple - even though there were sizable Jewish communities in Israel for the following few hundred years. Similarly, Ezra only brought a minority of Jews with him out of Babylon and that was still called a redemption from exile.
So you mean exile from the temple mount? But if you counted absolutely everyone in the world that had one grain of Jewish DNA, would they all fit into Israel? Would it then become like Hong Kong?

Do you use the word "fruit" like that when you talk to people all the time?
No all the time.

That is enough benefit. As Maimonides says, "there is no difference between now and the Messianic Era, except subjugation to [other] governments." The Messiah will lead us in a theocratic monarchy where we will be at peace so that we will be able to study the Torah without worries. That's all it is.
You mean throwing off the American & UN yokes too, and that of international law? I think on a mere Jew/gentile population ratio, the Jews are always going to be constrained in their activities by the wider international Gentile community, just because of the disproportionate ratio of Gentiles to Jews. How do you envisage this to be overcome? How will peace be achieved without the destruction of Islam who give themselves a right to certain places in Jerusalem etc?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I am surprised that you do not recognize a strong tradition among the Jews that the angels fell by lust for mortal women, being a Jewish way of interpreting Genesis 6:1,
Can you please give me some citations for this 'strong tradition'? The references I have deny this to be the case. I can send those to you if you would like. Start with the Chizkuni on 6:2 and the Berei**** Rabbah which discusses this. There is the minority reference to Uza and Uziel (dismissed by the Radak) though they didn't "fall".
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Can you please give me some citations for this 'strong tradition'? The references I have deny this to be the case. I can send those to you if you would like. Start with the Chizkuni on 6:2 and the Berei**** Rabbah which discusses this. There is the minority reference to Uza and Uziel (dismissed by the Radak) though they didn't "fall".
Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer, 1 Enoch, Jubilees (Second Temple period). I realize that there is also a strong Jewish or rather Talmudic tradition against associating the sons of God with angels,

I suggest that the problem with angels not being able to lust after women, stems partly from the fact that the apparently human messengers to Abraham were angels. And Jacob too wrestled with an angel. If you reject the notion that angels can become men, then it seems to me that you reject scripture.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer, 1 Enoch, Jubilees (Second Temple period).
Simply listing books (not all of which have any real place in Judaism) isn't very enlightening.

I suggest that the problem with angels not being able to lust after women, stems partly from the fact that the apparently human messengers to Abraham were angels. And Jacob too wrestled with an angel. If you reject the notion that angels can become men, then it seems to me that you reject scripture.
Scripture never says that angels become men. Scripture says that angels interacted with men and can appear as men. Can you show me where an angel becomes a man?
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
You're insinuating that they did not want to present the facts. Do you have any evidence of that?
I think it works the other way around. When a book is written it needs to first establish it's voracity. This particular set of books and that theology driving its authorship is clearly agenda driven: establishing itself as the new authority. Anything that's not authenticated by a third party should be assumed to have been fabricated as part of it's agenda.

At least we know that angels are capable of it. cf. angels and Abraham. The New Testament also affirms that angels were capable of leaving their first estate,. Jude 1:6

I don't know what "it" you are referring to. And I don't think the NT is capable of affirming anything, really.


I am surprised that you do not recognize a strong tradition among the Jews that the angels fell by lust for mortal women, being a Jewish way of interpreting Genesis 6:1,
Do you, as a Christian want to talk to me about the value of traditions of men or about what the words actually say?

I am not saying that. I am just saying that sons of God denotes a special relation to God over and above others, that is visible in a high authority given to them.
And what authority do Jews who G-d call "My firstborn" have in your opinion?

I opine that when "son of God" denotes angels, it denotes them as having transformed themselves into human form. May be they also could transform themselves back again into angelic form, but I think the inference is that such angels as are inferred had dwelt amongst mortals.
This is eisegesis. It has no place here.

Job 1:7 "The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
Nothing there about turning into people.

ben Adam = Hebrew, huios anthropos = Greek - I think it means more than "a person." I don't really understand you.
Ben adam in Hebrew is translated as "man" in English, not "son of man". Here's an example from the Aramaic Pe****ta. The Aramaic equivalent of ben adam in the ancient Israel dialect is bar nash; in the dialect of the Babylonian Talmud, bar inash; or in Syriac barnash ברנש (compounds words are not uncommon). All these words are coming from the other Hebrew term for mankind: ben Enosh (see eg. Psa. 144:3, also see anashim eg. Gen. 13:8). Bar is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew ben.

Here's John 2:25 in the Pe****ta:
ולא סניק הוא דאנשׁ נסהד לה על כל ברנשׁ הו גיר ידע הוא מנא אית בברנשׁא
And not / need / he / enosh / testify / for it / about / any / barnash / but / very / know / he / what / exists / in the barnash

So you mean exile from the temple mount?
Not having a Temple is definitely a part of our exile.

But if you counted absolutely everyone in the world that had one grain of Jewish DNA, would they all fit into Israel? Would it then become like Hong Kong?
We don't look for Jewish DNA. Anyone whose mother is Jewish or converted under the auspices of an acceptable Jewish court is Jewish.

You mean throwing off the American & UN yokes too, and that of international law? I think on a mere Jew/gentile population ratio, the Jews are always going to be constrained in their activities by the wider international Gentile community, just because of the disproportionate ratio of Gentiles to Jews. How do you envisage this to be overcome? How will peace be achieved without the destruction of Islam who give themselves a right to certain places in Jerusalem etc?
Either G-d will orchestrate it somehow that they decide to leave, or G-d will do great miracles that will cause the world to recognize and admit the truth of the Jewish G-d, and they will want to leave on their own. The same for international Law. And the same for secular Israeli Law.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Simply listing books (not all of which have any real place in Judaism) isn't very enlightening.
Wiki

Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer quotes Joshua ben Hananiah a post 2nd temple rabbi (I read) "The Israelites are called ‘ Sons of God,’ as it is said, ‘ Ye are the sons of the Lord your God ‘ (Deut. xiv. 1 [which states “ben Yahovah Elohim”]). The angels are called ‘ Sons of God,’ as it is said, ‘ When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy ’ (Job xxxviii. 7) ; and whilst they were still in their holy place in heaven, these were called ‘ Sons of God,’ as it is said, ‘ And also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them ; the same became the mighty men, which were of old, men of renown ‘ (Gen. vi. 4).”
Fallen angels, Nephilim & giants in the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer | True Freethinker

I can't say I am a student of such but all this is good evidence for a Jewish tradition AD10-210 for belief in fallen angels.

Simply listing books
Scripture never says that angels become men. Scripture says that angels interacted with men and can appear as men. Can you show me where an angel becomes a man?
Gen 18:5
Let me [Abraham] get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.” “Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”

If angels can eat, they can copulate.
 
Top