• 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!

How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
You're choosing to ignore the solitary unity of Deuteronomy 32:39. "there is no god with me".

Also Isaiah 45:5. " I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me"

Deuteronomy 32:39 saying "there is no god with me" means that we are supposed to have a relationship with God and not have idols. The context of that verse is not about the Trinity.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Deuteronomy 32:39 saying "there is no god with me" means that we are supposed to have a relationship with God and not have idols. The context of that verse is not about the Trinity.
If the relationship is compatible with the OT, it would need to skip over any plurality in favor of "there is no God with me". This is what's meant by Deuteronomy 6:4. 6:4 ends with the word "one." That's the goal: To know that God is one. It's a deep concept.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
If the relationship is compatible with the OT, it would need to skip over any plurality in favor of "there is no God with me". This is what's meant by Deuteronomy 6:4. 6:4 ends with the word "one." That's the goal: To know that God is one. It's a deep concept.

"There is no God with me" means that we should make God a part of our life and not have other gods before Him. God isn't looking for perfect people, but people who are going to seek Him and strive.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
"There is no God with me" means that we should make God a part of our life and not have other gods before Him. God isn't looking for perfect people, but people who are going to seek Him and strive.
I agree that "There is no God with me" = "not have other gods before Him", if Him is God, not Jesus.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Just because something is easy to understand doesn't mean it's true.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Isaiah 55:8
So you are saying that God's thoughts aren't YOUR thoughts? And your ways aren't God's ways?

Great, thanks.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Just because something is easy to understand doesn't mean it's true.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Isaiah 55:8
If the words are in the OT "there is no God with me" and they are easy to understand, then it's foolish to discuss God as a Trinity in the OT.

Isaiah 55:8 is irrelevant.

Here's your original claim:

The Old Testament never mentions God is one in the context of solitary oneness.

This is false ^^.

What else would you like to discuss?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
God is beyond human understanding. Can an animal understand physics?
So you are saying that you can't understand God, and yet here you are trying to pass off what you think as "right" and telling others that THEY can't understand God.

And if animals can understand gravity enough to use it to get food, then maybe your question is answered.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
If the words are in the OT "there is no God with me" and they are easy to understand, then it's foolish to discuss God as a Trinity in the OT.

Isaiah 55:8 is irrelevant.

Here's your original claim:



This is false ^^.

What else would you like to discuss?

"There is no God with me" is about there is only one true God who is holy and just and loving. There is no god of this or god of that.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
So you are saying that you can't understand God, and yet here you are trying to pass off what you think as "right" and telling others that THEY can't understand God.

And if animals can understand gravity enough to use it to get food, then maybe your question is answered.

I'm saying that we can't deny that the Trinity is in the Old Testament just because we can't fully understand it. I can't fully understand why God sent the Messiah to die for every single person, because people can't love like God can.
 

Tzephanyahu

Member
What, give names of Orthodox Jewish academics?

Haha, no my friend I was just joking with you. Of course I believe they exist! :)

like ben-Sira, Judith, Tobias, Maccabees

Fascinating works.

I highly recommend you check out 2 Esdras though. Not just for the allusions of Messiah but also because of the detail of how Scripture came to be after the Yahudah's return from Babylon - including the formation of an early canon.

other books were dismissed, such as Judith, Susanna

As I understand it, Susanna may have been deliberately left out due to the controversial depiction of the leaders in the book. It didn't paint them a great light at all, and so may have been "edited" out along with other books that didn't harmonise with the Pharisaic standpoint. This is a slippery slope. Removing a second book will be twice as easy as removing the first. Unfortunately, this is still happening today.

We may therefore assume that it was obvious to the sages that works such as the Testament and Enoch were post-prophetic works

One could assume that, but should they?

Which do you think is wiser? Assessing a book for yourself, using your acute powers of analysis, or assuming someone else has done so adequately before? If we assume real infallible geniuses have gone before us, then what new ground can we ever hope to break? With that assumption, over time wouldn't we slowly and consistently become reductive in our own opinions and experiences?

I remember seeing an explanation for this, but can't quite remember. Possibly because it contradicts way too many Jewish traditions. Another possibility is that it was concluded, as mentioned above, to not have been from the era of prophecy.

It's another one worth checking out. Even if it's as approached as a fiction novel. :)
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I'm saying that we can't deny that the Trinity is in the Old Testament just because we can't fully understand it. I can't fully understand why God sent the Messiah to die for every single person, because people can't love like God can.
So you can't affirm the trinity because you don't understand it, and can't deny unity because you don't understand it. As a matter of fact, you can't do much of anything related to God and religion because, as you say, you can't understand it. If you wish to be consistent, you need to stop commenting because you don't understand anything.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
So you can't affirm the trinity because you don't understand it, and can't deny unity because you don't understand it. As a matter of fact, you can't do much of anything related to God and religion because, as you say, you can't understand it. If you wish to be consistent, you need to stop commenting because you don't understand anything.

I understand the concept of unity I just don't think it's in the Bible because the term echad is also used about a husband and wife.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
"Father+Son+Spirit" contradicts "There is no God with me"

"There is no God with me" doesn't exclude compound unity. Plurality in the Old Testament

The word that we rendered as Unity is Echad. Echad functions precisely like our English word one, and can refer to either a solitary unity or to a compound one. Places where Echad is used as a uni-plural, a compound unity, include:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (basar echad)." Genesis 2:24
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
"There is no God with me" doesn't exclude compound unity.

Then why doesn't the OT describe God as Gods plural? And when it does, it's talking about idol worship?

Examples:

1 Kings 18:24
Jeremiah 2:28
Daniel 3:18

The OT denounces Gods and divine plurality.
 
Top