• 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!

Is it Possible to Prove Being the Messiah?

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
No, the answer is something like this:

Atheist, "If God made the world, then who made God?"
Theist, "We can't comprehend what lies outside of our universe to even ask such a question. It says God is eternal."
Atheist, "Then you haven't answered my question."
Theist, "How did the universe spring into existence from nothing?"
Atheist, "The universe just happened, that's all. Or it is eternal."

or

Theist, "God brought the rain."
Atheist, "No, it's all cause and effect - rain is brought from condensation of water vapor."
Theist, "Where did the vapor come from?"
Atheist, "Water driven by heat of sunshine"
Theist, "And the sunshine?"
Atheist, "Nothing magical, sun shines through the fusion of hydrogen into helium"
Theist, "And where did the hydrogen come from?"
Atheist, "Nothing magical, hydrogen formed from the cooling of the Big Bang which enabled protons to catch electrons."
Theist, "And where did the Big Bang come from?"
Atheist, "It just happened."
Theist, "Like in magic?"
Atheist, "It's not magic, it just happened."

or

Atheist, "There is no evidence for King David in the bible"
Theist, "What are you saying?"
Atheist, "There was no King David"


Really? We can all be silly sometimes cant we but i dont think i have ever heard an atheist say what you claim. But of course i expect you can give examples of your claims

But i see you have not bothered trying to defend your claim by answering your own questions. After all, i showed that at least I am not evasive and replied honestly to your questions so fair is fair... Isn't it?
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Isaiah 51:8 has sas, not sus. Sas is a worm.
Thank you I acknowledge that there is a Vav in the middle of Horse; it still is contextually comparing Yeshua (Salvation H3444), and the Beast/Grub/Worm that shall come S+S (H5580) in Isaiah 51:8.
Add any letter and it can be something else. You can't just add letters and claim meaning.
There are specific prefixes to words that elaborate on the meaning: Prefixes in Hebrew - Wikipedia

When we see the contextual application, that Moses added a Yod to the start of Hosea, and we get Shall be Saviour (Yehoshua) or the Lord Saves...

Adding a yod to grubs, makes it Shall be a Beast, which is what Revelation is referring to the fake jesus of the Roman Catholic church, instead of the Hebrew Messiah Yehoshua.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Then some humility and openness to correction might be in order.
I'm always open to learning, if the evidence can be shown...

Yet when Modern Hebrew claims to be based on a Tri-Root system similar to Arabic, we can show two letter words, and a language closer to Hieroglyphics...

So not going to automatically take on board the modern understanding as being correct, when things can be shown wrong in their comprehension.
In general, I would trust a rabbi to know more about the differences between ancient and modern Hebrew as well as how to interpret ancient Hebrew more than I would trust you on the subject.
I'd not trust either, and the idea of not assessing it ourselves with evidence is crazy, when we're down near Hell according to the texts, and the whole world has been deceived.
Or you really were wrong in your interpretation.
Someone can show evidence contrary, and we can examine the workings of the sum, that is logical...

Claiming there is no such thing as maths, is where some people are just childish, and can't debate rationally.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Thank you I acknowledge that there is a Vav in the middle of Horse; it still is contextually comparing Yeshua (Salvation H3444), and the Beast/Grub/Worm that shall come S+S (H5580) in Isaiah 51:8.
So the word is different, you acknowledge that. Great start. Now, if the word isn't "beast" then there can't be any comparison to a beast. Next, the first verses discuss the triumph and victory of God, using nouns conjugated in a few different ways. This triumph/victory is compared to the insults of men. Verse 8 then says that "they" will be eaten up like a garment (to which the earth was compared a couple of verses earlier) or wool eaten by moths and worms. So the comparison is between the triumph of God and the worn-out earth and its human insults. I have no idea what you mean by S+S.
There are specific prefixes to words that elaborate on the meaning: Prefixes in Hebrew - Wikipedia
Those prefixes indicate a change in particular meaning. Adding a Y to the verb changes its tense to a particular conjugation of a future tense. Y is not added to a noun. Sus (or even Sas) is a noun. You can't add a Y prefix to it. So your "add a Yod" is meaningless.
When we see the contextual application, that Moses added a Yod to the start of Hosea, and we get Shall be Saviour (Yehoshua) or the Lord Saves...
Names get additional letters not as grammatical constructs, but to invoke other ideas -- generally to bring out the presence of and protectioon of God. Saying that adding the Yod to make a grammatical change not in line with the other uses of the Yod is wrong. Adding and removing letters was done with Abram, Sarai, Yirmiya, Yeshaya and Chizkia among others. If you look at the case of Abram --> Abraham, the general reference, but not meaning of the name is discussed textually. The name isn't a word. It is a more complex collection of ideas, so claiming that adding a word turns it into a word that can be used as a lexical entry is false. But you have heard this all and insist that you know Hebrew better than anyone else, even though you think that Sus and Sas are the same.

Adding a yod to grubs, makes it Shall be a Beast, which is what Revelation is referring to the fake jesus of the Roman Catholic church, instead of the Hebrew Messiah Yehoshua.
Except:
1. Grub does not equal Beast
2. Nowhere is that addition made except in your imagination
2a. So there is NO Hebrew word with that construction
2b. there is therefore no truth to the claim that it, "in Hebrew is a swear word"
3. To might as well add any other letter (the Hay and the Vav are also added to names throughout the Tanach) and then make believe that one of them creates a new Hebrew word
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
It still says that God is already the savior of the Jews.
There hasn't been any replacement of God being the Savoir; Yeshua is a being made by the Source of our reality, for it to have fulfilled prophecy, and what it showed is that God offers salvation not by believing in animal sacrifices, yet by simply asking the Lord for repentance (Yehoshua - Lord Saves).

Christianity is a Pharisaic invention that came about after, claiming jesus came to die as an animal sacrifice; which the early Church stood against i.e. the Ebionites.
Jesus doesn't fit the description of a messiah anyway, eg he was never anointed by the Jewish priesthood.
Yeshua was meant to cut off Judah for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11), and placing the Curse of Moses on them (Deuteronomy 28)...

Yeshua/David/Zion was not meant to be anointed as Messiah before the Messianic Age; which God does, not man (Daniel 7:13-14).
Any alternative real explanation is many orders of magnitude more probable.
The most probable when we get how precise some of the prophecies are, and how we can show most people in this world have very little clue about it...

Is the whole thing is made up in a laboratory, and we're some form of guinea pigs being tested by it.
What's lacking are specifics ─ names, dates, places, causes ─ but of course that takes it out of waffle's comfort zone.
We have causes in places, history, and prophecy to show it has all happened as expected...

Names and dates are not specific, as that depends on when certain criteria are fulfilled.

Like prophecy is a ticking time bomb, as Christendom forwards the agendas of its fulfilments by active sponsorship.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
insist that you know Hebrew better than anyone else
I'm learning Ancient Hebrew from the texts, where find it works more like Hieroglyphics, and with two letter words... Thus as letters are added it changes the symbolism.

Not sure how much others know, am always willing to learn; yet have low expectations from what I've seen understood so far.
Abram --> Abraham
AB (H1) = Father.
AB+RM (H1+H7311) = Exalted + Father.
AB+H+RM (H85) = The added H implies the breath of God put into Abraham's seed.
I have no idea what you mean by S+S.
S+S = סס H5580
Y is not added to a noun.
Latin grammatical ideas like nouns, verbs, etc did not exist at the time of Isaiah, David, Moses in a pictographic writing.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I'm learning Ancient Hebrew from the texts, where find it works more like Hieroglyphics, and with two letter words... Thus as letters are added it changes the symbolism.
But you claimed it changed meaning via tense. Can't have it both ways.
AB (H1) = Father.
AB+RM (H1+H7311) = Exalted + Father.
AB+H+RM (H85) = The added H implies the breath of God put into Abraham's seed.
Exactly -- implies an idea. You claimed that the added Yod changed the direct translation of the meaning.
S+S = סס H5580
Of course, you mean סָ֑ס, worm (so why use +?). You shouldn't rely on Strong, by the way. Go to Klein and use that.
Latin grammatical ideas like nouns, verbs, etc did not exist at the time of Isaiah, David, Moses in a pictographic writing.
You are confusing written language with language. At the time, people didn't speak in pictographs and had nouns and verbs etc which drove how they spoke. The grammatical structures existed. Adding a Yod in speech to a noun made no more sense just because the written language used a different system of writing. Your citing prefixes would make no sense if your position was that nouns and verbs didn't exist.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Can't have it both ways.
Actually we can have it both ways, the modern language is derived from the ancient sources, so we can check ideas, and compare if they work in a clearer system.
You claimed that the added Yod changed the direct translation of the meaning.
The Yod added to a start of an existing word, makes it add 'shall+', to the translation.

Adding the Yod to Hosea means he 'Shall Deliver' his people, and it also then makes it the 'Lord Saves' - thus the name is fulfilling Exodus 23:20-23 in putting the title Yah (Lord H3050) on Hosea, as we see Joshua 3:10.
(so why use +?)
Sorry for the confusion.
You shouldn't rely on Strong
With Esword Bible software, and Strongs Concordance, HebrewOT+, KJV+, GreekApostolic+, we can search every word by Strongs reference number, and examine the language next to it....

It is the only way I've found to objectively show paraphrasing by the prophets, as the indexing system allows to show the findings easily.
Your citing prefixes would make no sense if your position was that nouns and verbs didn't exist.
Only in the structuring in your mind, in a system where each letter is a symbol, and adding symbols together creates patterns of meanings, we don't need to have a system of certain words only being applicable in one usage, that to me came after.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Actually we can have it both ways, the modern language is derived from the ancient sources, so we can check ideas, and compare if they work in a clearer system.
In that case, you have no problem with their being nouns and verbs in ancient Hebrew.
The Yod added to a start of an existing word, makes it add 'shall+', to the translation.
Not in front of a noun it doesn't.
Adding the Yod to Hosea means he 'Shall Deliver' his people, and it also then makes it the 'Lord Saves' - thus the name is fulfilling Exodus 23:20-23 in putting the title Yah (Lord H3050) on Hosea, as we see Joshua 3:10.
No it doesn't. Names don't have direct definitions but, as you say, they present ideas. Adding letters does not work to make grammatical changes to names. If my name is Bob, adding an -S doesn't make it a singular.
With Esword Bible software, and Strongs Concordance, HebrewOT+, KJV+, GreekApostolic+, we can search every word by Strongs reference number, and examine the language next to it....
But Klein does a better job of connecting to ancient middle eastern sources. If that's what you want...And you can use Even Shoshan if you want to search for the words.

Only in the structuring in your mind, in a system where each letter is a symbol, and adding symbols together creates patterns of meanings, we don't need to have a system of certain words only being applicable in one usage, that to me came after.
and none of this impacts that "tense" is a function of the verb so the prefix has to be applied to a verb. You can't have a future tense of a noun. ANd "to you" it came after? Good thing you know better than everyone else, I guess.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Not in front of a noun it doesn't.
So Moses was wrong? Hosea didn't deliver his people into the promised land?
Adding letters does not work to make grammatical changes to names.
Words in Ancient Hebrew are not defined by being a noun, verb, etc the rules of adding additional letters apply to all words, like adding pictures to a story line.
You can't have a future tense of a noun.
Tho this sounds perfectly reasonable that a name in our modern understanding couldn't have additional letters added to it, to change its tense...

This is a pictographic writing before the creation of these divisions, where every jot and tittle adds additional meanings.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Prophecy across the Tanakh & world said he'll come back at the end (Just have to learn to exegete properly), and Yeshua said it in multiple places that his return is at the midnight hour (Matthew 25:1-13, Mark 13:35-37).
According to my beliefs, it is impossible for the same man Jesus to return in the same body because the physical body of the same man Jesus is not still alive in heaven. Heaven is a purely spiritual world so a physical body cannot live in heaven. The soul of Jesus is very much alive in heaven in a spiritual body, but souls do not come back to earth, as that would be reincarnation. Instead, what I believe happened is that the ‘spirit’ of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, and the Holy Spirit returned to earth in the body of another man who was the promised Messiah of the OT and the Comforter/Spirit of truth that Jesus promised to send from heaven in the NT.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Did anyone ever wonder why Jesus did not say “And then shall they see me coming in the clouds with great power and glory?” Not once in the entire NT did Jesus ever say He was coming back to earth. I have discussed this with Christians for years and the verses just are not there. Christians just want it to be Jesus so they interpret verses to mean they are about Jesus when they are not. And if Jesus was coming back to earth, where is He? The prophecies have been fulfilled and still no Jesus.

Why would Jesus keep it a secret if He had been planning to return to earth? Why did Jesus say His work was finished here (John 17:4) and He was no more in the world (John 17:11) if He was planning to return to earth? Why did Jesus say “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) if He was planning to come back and build a kingdom on earth? When asked if He was a king, why did Jesus say explain to Pilate “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth” (John 18:37) if Jesus was coming back to rule as a king, as Christians believe? All these things are clues that tell us that Jesus was never planning to return to earth to rule and build the Kingdom of God, and that means that the Messiah who would accomplish this has to be another man.

The title ‘Son of man’ is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented, but it does not apply exclusively to Jesus. It ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah. It is a Baha’i teaching that the title applies to both Jesus and Baha’u’llah.

To explain in brief, I believe that ‘Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven’ means that the return of the Christ Spirit promised in the Bible will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God, and will appear in the form of a human being. The term “heaven” means loftiness and exaltation. Although Jesus was delivered from the womb of His mother, in reality He descended from the heaven of the will of God. Though dwelling on this earth, His true habitation was the realms above. While walking among mortals on earth, Jesus soared in the heaven of the divine presence.

Baha’u’llah explained the meaning of clouds in The Kitáb-i-Íqán. The term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, the desires of men hindered men from recognizing the return of Christ. Thus the meaning of clouds is symbolic, not literal. Their judgment was clouded. Christians were looking for the same man Jesus in the same body that resurrected and ascended to appear in the actual physical clouds in the sky with power and great glory, trumpets and angels, but when that did not happen that way they rejected Baha’u’llah. However, if one looks at what happened before, during and after Baha’u’llah appeared there is not one prophecy that cannot be applied to Him.

Much of this is explained in Thief in the Night by William Sears, who researched the Bible prophecies for seven years and explained exactly how they were fulfilled by the Bab and Baha’u’llah.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I should say "absolutely spot on" but i do know some very sharp believers.
True, but generally speaking, I have found atheists to be more logical. :D

I mean there is nothing illogical about a God not existing since there is no verifiable proof, but Imo it is illogical to believe that a physical body came back to life after three days and then floated up into the sky behind the clouds and that it is going to come floating back down someday and "every eye" will see Him.... I just cannot understand how people can believe that, but on the other hand, I have found that my beliefs about God, the soul, and a spiritual world sound like a stretch to nonbelievers. :oops:
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Thank you I acknowledge that there is a Vav in the middle of Horse; it still is contextually comparing Yeshua (Salvation H3444), and the Beast/Grub/Worm that shall come S+S (H5580) in Isaiah 51:8.

There are specific prefixes to words that elaborate on the meaning: Prefixes in Hebrew - Wikipedia

When we see the contextual application, that Moses added a Yod to the start of Hosea, and we get Shall be Saviour (Yehoshua) or the Lord Saves...

Adding a yod to grubs, makes it Shall be a Beast, which is what Revelation is referring to the fake jesus of the Roman Catholic church, instead of the Hebrew Messiah Yehoshua.

In my opinion. :innocent:
The latin 'Jesus', isn't from hebrew beast. The greek uses tranliteration, the way the names were said.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
So Moses was wrong? Hosea didn't deliver his people into the promised land?

Words in Ancient Hebrew are not defined by being a noun, verb, etc the rules of adding additional letters apply to all words, like adding pictures to a story line.

Tho this sounds perfectly reasonable that a name in our modern understanding couldn't have additional letters added to it, to change its tense...

This is a pictographic writing before the creation of these divisions, where every jot and tittle adds additional meanings.

In my opinion. :innocent:
Latin and greek differ from hebrew. When they wrote jesus in greek and latin, they didn't transfer an alphabet to word meaning, necessarily. It does sometimes, in the spelling, ie the spelling can be the same, using letter correlates, however this is transliteration.

[Jesus is a transliteration
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
In my opinion. :innocent: I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.

I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am
coming to you. Holy Father...


This is not saying that Jesus will not come again. He's talking about His
mission.
With all due respect, if Jesus finished His mission on earth, why would Jesus come back to earth again? o_O
I just try to be logical in how I approach things.
THIS tells you what Jesus said "Jesus answered them, “Destroy this
temple, and I will raise it again in three days.
But the temple he had spoken

of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled
what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus

had spoken."
Please note that maybe Jesus said the first sentence, but Jesus did not say any of the rest of what you quoted.
Jesus did not SAY that the temple was His body, that was someone else saying what they *believed* that Jesus meant by *temple.*
Why do you people do this all the time?
Do what? o_O
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
True, but generally speaking, I have found atheists to be more logical. :D

I mean there is nothing illogical about a God not existing since there is no verifiable proof, but Imo it is illogical to believe that a physical body came back to life after three days and then floated up into the sky behind the clouds and that it is going to come floating back down someday and "every eye" will see Him.... I just cannot understand how people can believe that, but on the other hand, I have found that my beliefs about God, the soul, and a spiritual world sound like a stretch to nonbelievers. :oops:


More than a stretch, ;-)
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Latin and greek differ from hebrew. When they wrote jesus in greek and latin, they didn't transfer an alphabet to word meaning, necessarily. It does sometimes, in the spelling, ie the spelling can be the same, using letter correlates, however this is transliteration.

[Jesus is a transliteration

No J in Latin,nor i think in ancient Greek.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
More than a stretch, ;-)
That is okay. After years of posting almost exclusively to atheists, I understand why it is a stretch.

But it is a stretch for me to believe that this world is all there is because it makes no logical sense to me.
As for God, He is an enigma and not a character I choose to tangle with... :eek:
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
That is okay. After years of posting almost exclusively to atheists, I understand why it is a stretch.

But it is a stretch for me to believe that this world is all there is because it makes no logical sense to me.
As for God, He is an enigma and not a character I choose to tangle with... :eek:

Not all there is for every single atom in your body will continue for ever. But its all there is for the insubstantiatial thoughts generated by some groups of those atoms.
 
Top