Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[BilliardsBall]

And so you actually think you can speak for God and that some people should be sacrificed. Unbelievable.

Some people were sacrificed in the Bible. I'm not speaking of human sacrifices unto God or idols. I'm speaking of address the Tanakh honestly where it commands extermination of idolaters. This was for the Amalekites and others, but of course, does not apply today.

 

[BilliardsBall]

King David called his son Lord? Where do you get that?
"Of David a psalm. The word of the Lord to my master; "Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."" The word "son" isn't even in there. You are inventing that. And you have ignored Psalm 2 aside from saying that the identified person is begotten on a particular day. People who are begotten are, indeed, begotten on a particular day. That's how "begotten" works. Psalm 2 indicates that David was the singular begotten son. It doesn't say anything about a God. You invent that as well. Exodus 4:22 is also written in the singular BTW.

I'm having trouble following your flow here. I'll try and parse this and wait for your response:

*Two figures, neither of whom are David, are speaking to one another. One is Lord and one is adonai or master. You accept that David acknowledges one singular God and one singular adonai in this Psalm.

*In Psalm 2, you are likewise insistent that this Son of God is a singular person, not a group of people. But you reject my statement that besides multiple sons of God in Tanakh, there is one, elevated, singular Son in Tanakh.

*How is it that from both Psalms you are insisting a singular adonai, who may or may not be a birthed son, means I'm wrong? God says in one of the Psalms, "you [singular] are today my [singular] son."

*If you are sure this one is David, why does God say He begot him? David was begotten of Jesse, not God. "I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father."

It's not David talking about Solomon or Jesse speaking of David. It's the Lord's decree. Is it your stance that King David was begotten by both Jesse and God?

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Further, rabbi, I would appreciate it if either you would read the Psalm more carefully if you wish to address the whole Psalm or not accuse me of inventing or lying, or both. You wrote:

It doesn't say anything about a God. You invent that as well.

The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed...

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”...

“I will declare the decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You...

Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

Since I've quoted some of Psalm 2 above, your statement:

It doesn't say anything about a God. You invent that as well.

...with all due respect, is either forgetful of you or rude to me as a fellow Jewish aspirant to knowledge. I hope you're not one of those Lubavitch proselytizers who abrogates the Decalogue, lying intentionally in the name of "helpful evangelism" to return wayward Messianics like me to the fold. I respond to God's Word and truth, not lies.

If you like, Rabbi, I can point out Tanakh verses that indicate men may/can/are to trust the Lord. This would be the sole place in the Tanakh saying:

"Blessed are all those who put their trust in KING DAVID." It rather says,

"Kiss the SON... Blessed are all those who put their trust in HIM."

 

[rosends]

I'm having trouble following your flow here. I'll try and parse this and wait for your response:

*Two figures, neither of whom are David, are speaking to one another. One is Lord and one is adonai or master. You accept that David acknowledges one singular God and one singular adonai in this Psalm.

Wrong. David speaks and tells of the conversation between God and David's master (adoni). There is no "one singular adonai." There is a singular "adoni." Different word.

*In Psalm 2, you are likewise insistent that this Son of God is a singular person, not a group of people. But you reject my statement that besides multiple sons of God in Tanakh, there is one, elevated, singular Son in Tanakh.

Yes, I reject that because no where in the text does anything indicate that of a singular son, or the plural sons any is elevated.

*How is it that from both Psalms you are insisting a singular adonai, who may or may not be a birthed son, means I'm wrong? God says in one of the Psalms, "you [singular] are today my [singular] son."

1. both don't have a "singular adonai." Remember, Psalm 110 has "adoni" spoken to by God.
2. In fact, one mentions "adoni" and not a son, and one mentions God's son, David

*If you are sure this one is David, why does God say He begot him? David was begotten of Jesse, not God. "I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father."

Excellent! And when God says that the nation of Israel is his son, or that Solomon is his son, or that the angels are his sons, they ALL are not literal, any more than any claim that Jesus is God's son can be literal. It is a metaphorical trope across the board. This perfectly deflates any claim to Jesus being any special sort of son.

It's not David talking about Solomon or Jesse speaking of David. It's the Lord's decree. Is it your stance that King David was begotten by both Jesse and God?

Nope. In the same way that it is illogical for you to claim that Jesus was begotten by Joseph (or a Roman soldier) and God.

 

[rosends]

Further, rabbi, I would appreciate it if either you would read the Psalm more carefully if you wish to address the whole Psalm or not accuse me of inventing or lying, or both. You wrote:



The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed...

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”...

“I will declare the decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You...

Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

I assumed you would understand the context of what I said. When Psalm 2 says that David is the begotten son of God, it makes no statement that the begotten person is a God. Your idea that Jesus' being born of God elevates him to some higher plane as a divine figure is completely missing from any mention of "being begotten of God" textually. There is no God as part of the "begotten" statement. You have to read that in as a possibility when it simply doesn't exist. I will try to be more explicit when I point out the things you read into the text which are actually absent there.

As for 2:12, for you to understand "son" there you would have to assume that the text switches to Aramaic for 1 word, "bar" in a text which only uses Hebrew. Once you take this translation

"Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him."

your point ceases to be valid.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus does not have to be a "mere man" to be the Son of God. His "Father gave Him" the authority to which now his son can speak for him.

Speaking as an image or representative of the Father is very different than coming as the Father himself.

That and Jesus as man flows well with the Torah. Like Moses, he still was a messanger ans had the authority of god, etc. Once you make jesus a god, then it splits. Jesus never thought of himself as the father. The context in many verses and other verses directly state otherwise.

Why does he have to be a "mere man" if he is human?

The prophets where not mere men nor were the apostles. I think Muslim and Jews give more respect to the. (ex apostles to judaism) than christians do. Even with Mary being "just a vessel".

Out of the two, I would say neither. In abrahamic monotheism there is only one creator. Take away the Quran, Torah, and Bible, does the creator not exist?

Is he the same now that there is no division between defining who god is? Is god's existenced based on these three books?

Take away the language: there is only one creator.

Do Jews, Muslims, and Christians disagree? If so, why?

Great; that being said, Judaism / uses the Torah, does not adhere to Jesus.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Great; that being said, Judaism / uses the Torah, does not adhere to Jesus.

They don't adhere to Jesus because of Christians claims about him and they don't regnonize books outside of the Torah.

If Jesus was a mere man, what would Jews be upset over him for? Moses was a child of god just as Jesus. They don't have to accept him in order to respect him.

Once you put him in place of divinity as the father is where the conflict (not contradiction between beliefs) comes. If Christianity taught what Jesus said about himself in relation to his father, I think the Jews would have a bit more respect. Since he isn't replacing himself with the creator. Muslims already have respect for Jesus regardless.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wrong. David speaks and tells of the conversation between God and David's master (adoni). There is no "one singular adonai." There is a singular "adoni." Different word.

Yes, I reject that because no where in the text does anything indicate that of a singular son, or the plural sons any is elevated.

1. both don't have a "singular adonai." Remember, Psalm 110 has "adoni" spoken to by God.
2. In fact, one mentions "adoni" and not a son, and one mentions God's son, David

Excellent! And when God says that the nation of Israel is his son, or that Solomon is his son, or that the angels are his sons, they ALL are not literal, any more than any claim that Jesus is God's son can be literal. It is a metaphorical trope across the board. This perfectly deflates any claim to Jesus being any special sort of son.

Nope. In the same way that it is illogical for you to claim that Jesus was begotten by Joseph (or a Roman soldier) and God.

1. Sorry, adoni, I need to check my type check better. Dr. James White brings up an interesting counter to your argument. His main point was that the Masoretic “vowel pointing” that proves/shows that the two root “Adon” words are actually different (Adonai vs. Adoni) was something Judaism developed centuries after Jesus, an attempt to counter the deity issue with the usage of their vowel points. No, I don't want for you or me to have to look at dozens of verses where these words are used.

2.

And when God says that the nation of Israel is his son, or that Solomon is his son, or that the angels are his sons, they ALL are not literal, any more than any claim that Jesus is God's son can be literal. It is a metaphorical trope across the board. This perfectly deflates any claim to Jesus being any special sort of son.

How do you know they are metaphorical "across the board"? I find your special knowledge in this area remarkable.

3.

When Psalm 2 says that David is the begotten son of God, it makes no statement that the begotten person is a God. Your idea that Jesus' being born of God elevates him to some higher plane as a divine figure is completely missing from any mention of "being begotten of God" textually. There is no God as part of the "begotten" statement. You have to read that in as a possibility when it simply doesn't exist. I will try to be more explicit when I point out the things you read into the text which are actually absent there.

What is absent is your response to the other five mentions of God in the passage!

You are further arguing the word Son is IN the text earlier in the Psalm! How convenient for you to assert that the Gentiles have their translation wrong here.

 

[rosends]

1. Sorry, adoni, I need to check my type check better. Dr. James White brings up an interesting counter to your argument. His main point was that the Masoretic “vowel pointing” that proves/shows that the two root “Adon” words are actually different (Adonai vs. Adoni) was something Judaism developed centuries after Jesus, an attempt to counter the deity issue with the usage of their vowel points. No, I don't want for you or me to have to look at dozens of verses where these words are used.

You mean like Gen 23:6 which is explicitly talking about Abraham (plus 2 others in 23 and a few in 24)? Or Gen 31, 33 and 39, in which none refers to God? All changed to mask something? The decision that Judaism in its current form is really a later conspiracy to counter Jesus-type claims is more than a bit paranoid. The contention has to be that for years and years, and entire society was pronouncing words differently but got together and conspired to change isolated vowel points. Sneaky, sneaky Masoretes...There are actually 4 different bits of vocalization which can be found under the nun so the Masoretes must have been attempting to obfuscate in many different ways. And don't even think about "adnei" -- "adnei kesef" is silver sockets? No, that's a Masoretic trick because it must mean "My god, silver". The 4 letters are used 212 times. Your vision of conspiracy is ridiculous. It makes more sense that someone later in the game didn't know Hebrew or the vowels and assumed the word was "adonai" and made a reading based on that error. But you stick with the paranoia.

How do you know they are metaphorical "across the board"? I find your special knowledge in this area remarkable.

It must rank up there with your special knowledge that in one particular case, it isn't metaphorical. At least mine points to consistency and doesn't intuit a difference when the text doesn't.

What is absent is your response to the other five mentions of God in the passage!

You are further arguing the word Son is IN the text earlier in the Psalm! How convenient for you to assert that the Gentiles have their translation wrong here.

Asserting that a translation is wrong is more than convenient. It is easy and proper because there have been so many agendized translational errors already. I didn't ignore the other mentions of God -- they weren't salient to my point. The mention of son makes no mention of that son being God. Pure and simple.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mean like Gen 23:6 which is explicitly talking about Abraham (plus 2 others in 23 and a few in 24)? Or Gen 31, 33 and 39, in which none refers to God? All changed to mask something? The decision that Judaism in its current form is really a later conspiracy to counter Jesus-type claims is more than a bit paranoid. The contention has to be that for years and years, and entire society was pronouncing words differently but got together and conspired to change isolated vowel points. Sneaky, sneaky Masoretes...There are actually 4 different bits of vocalization which can be found under the nun so the Masoretes must have been attempting to obfuscate in many different ways. And don't even think about "adnei" -- "adnei kesef" is silver sockets? No, that's a Masoretic trick because it must mean "My god, silver". The 4 letters are used 212 times. Your vision of conspiracy is ridiculous. It makes more sense that someone later in the game didn't know Hebrew or the vowels and assumed the word was "adonai" and made a reading based on that error. But you stick with the paranoia.


It must rank up there with your special knowledge that in one particular case, it isn't metaphorical. At least mine points to consistency and doesn't intuit a difference when the text doesn't.


Asserting that a translation is wrong is more than convenient. It is easy and proper because there have been so many agendized translational errors already. I didn't ignore the other mentions of God -- they weren't salient to my point. The mention of son makes no mention of that son being God. Pure and simple.

Yes, the ones that you redirected to after I hadn't finished arguing re: Proverbs!

And it isn't "my vision" of conspiracy. Dozens of Gentile translations have been different than Soncino and other Jewish translations. Why could that be, do you think?

 

[rosends]

Yes, the ones that you redirected to after I hadn't finished arguing re: Proverbs!

And it isn't "my vision" of conspiracy. Dozens of Gentile translations have been different than Soncino and other Jewish translations. Why could that be, do you think?

Simple. Because they have to be to support later readings. Isn't that simpler than assuming that Jewish translations all changed to cover something up?
I was browsing through the versions here http://biblehub.com/psalms/110-1.htm and here https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm 110:1 and was amazed. I hadn't realized that the NET, the NIV, CEB and the Berean were Jewish translations. The conspiracy runs deep. Not only did the Masoretes change the pronunciation, but they influenced non-Jewish translators so that they would present it wrong!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Simple. Because they have to be to support later readings. Isn't that simpler than assuming that Jewish translations all changed to cover something up?
I was browsing through the versions here http://biblehub.com/psalms/110-1.htm and here https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm 110:1 and was amazed. I hadn't realized that the NET, the NIV, CEB and the Berean were Jewish translations. The conspiracy runs deep. Not only did the Masoretes change the pronunciation, but they influenced non-Jewish translators so that they would present it wrong!

What? They all say, "The Lord says to my lord," and the point is not just the divinity of the Son, but how it is that King David or his descendants give birth to one who is his master...? And how God told this human, not yet born, person--sit at my right hand while I subjugate your enemies.

 

[rosends]

What? They all say, "The Lord says to my lord," and the point is not just the divinity of the Son, but how it is that King David or his descendants give birth to one who is his master...? And how God told this human, not yet born, person--sit at my right hand while I subjugate your enemies.

It says "lord" so there is no divinity involved according to them. Also, where does it say that the descendants give birth to one who is a master? Now you are deciding that the "master" is a future leader? Oh, I see. You are starting assuming that this is about a future leader so you now have to figure out who it is and the rest stems from there. Pity. Jews understood something very different about that Psalm a long time ago (cf Nedarim 32b). Unless that conspiracy included writing the talmud to undermine later claims made by non-Jews about Jesus.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It says "lord" so there is no divinity involved according to them. Also, where does it say that the descendants give birth to one who is a master? Now you are deciding that the "master" is a future leader? Oh, I see. You are starting assuming that this is about a future leader so you now have to figure out who it is and the rest stems from there. Pity. Jews understood something very different about that Psalm a long time ago (cf Nedarim 32b). Unless that conspiracy included writing the talmud to undermine later claims made by non-Jews about Jesus.

Rabbi, I have no wish for us to disagree again and again over one Psalm. You are ignoring Proverbs 30, as I wrote--along with over 300 prophecies of Y'shua fulfilled when He came. We need not argue over the meaning of one word or some conspirators.

 

[rosends]

Rabbi, I have no wish for us to disagree again and again over one Psalm. You are ignoring Proverbs 30, as I wrote--along with over 300 prophecies of Y'shua fulfilled when He came. We need not argue over the meaning of one word or some conspirators.

You are ignoring all that has been written about Proverbs 30. That's your prerogative. You can invent all the conspiracies you want and avoid all the words you don't really understand. You can decide that someone who rides a donkey is fulfilling a prophecy, or decide that certain things which aren't prophecies are. You can make up whatever you want. And even if you can't, you will.

 

[Desert Snake]

They don't adhere to Jesus because of Christians claims about him and they don't regnonize books outside of the Torah.

If Jesus was a mere man, what would Jews be upset over him for? Moses was a child of god just as Jesus. They don't have to accept him in order to respect him.

Once you put him in place of divinity as the father is where the conflict (not contradiction between beliefs) comes. If Christianity taught what Jesus said about himself in relation to his father, I think the Jews would have a bit more respect. Since he isn't replacing himself with the creator. Muslims already have respect for Jesus regardless.

Actually, Xian beliefs and Judaism beliefs, differ in more regards than the divinity of Jesus.
Your remarks seem completely relegated to your own, non-Xian, position. They aren't relevant.

You are presenting your own interpretation, of the Xian Bible, and presenting it in the context of other religions. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Do you mind giving a brief background of your god. And why he/she is the "almighty"

Neither, Allah, Jesus or Yahweh.
Lord Krishna is the almighty.

Because it was inside Krishna's mouth that his mother saw the entire cosmos.
It was in his Vishvaroopa, Arjuna saw all deities, demons, vampires, animals, humans, stars, planets, angelic beings, sages, etc.
It is because Krishna causes Brahman to produce life.
He's transcendent to time and space.
And because "There's no truth superior to me. Everything rests upon me as pearls are strung on a thread."- Bhagavad Gita, chapter 7

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I actually don't see the relationship between my quote and what you said. I do know that Jews and mainstream Christians differ on Jesus' divinity. I don't think I said they were in agreement.

Jews don't recognize Christians claims about him (his divinity), and [according to one Jew here almost a year ago, I think] confirmed that why would their books be the same as the Christian OT when Judaism and Christianity are totally different religions.

From the outside that makes sense. Why would I expect Christians to have the Torah the Jews used? Christians may believe it, but from a Jewish perspective, I'd assume they know their own faith better.

In my opinion, if Jesus was a mere many they'd probably have more respect for him. They still wouldn't consider him a prophet in line with the other ones in the OT; however, they at least probably would not be offended of calling a human god.

I never believed Jesus was god even as a Christian. I read the full Bible; and, it doesn't make sense no matter how one flips it in content and context. It doesn't devalue what trinitarians say, it just means that they may personify Jesus too much because of how close he is to the father. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. A Jew may differ, though. Muslims seem to have more respect for Jesus as per experience of talking to them off-line. I haven't read the full Quran. Torah, but I can't judge how they see Jesus based on Mahammad's bias on him. Id have to know it in context first. That, and I have to read it in Arabic.

As for my interpretation, I do not believe God is an entity. So, I don't practice Christianity and accept what the Bible says and how different people interpret the same text. Many scholars of different religions have studied the Bible and many came to the same conclusion regardless their faith. It's not a hard book to understand when you are looking at it objectively. Once you make it personal, then, of course, anyone who does would take offense especially when a "non christian" has something to say.

No one is special in that regards. It's an easy book to read and digest. The difference is, does one take it personally or not.

 

[Desert Snake]

I actually don't see the relationship between my quote and what you said. I do know that Jews and mainstream Christians differ on Jesus' divinity. I don't think I said they were in agreement.

I didn't say that you said that.

Jews don't recognize Christians claims about him (his divinity), and [according to one Jew here almost a year ago, I think] confirmed that why would their books be the same as the Christian OT when Judaism and Christianity are totally different religions.

Various reasons for shared texts.

From the outside that makes sense. Why would I expect Christians to have the Torah the Jews used?

Why not?

Christians may believe it, but from a Jewish perspective, I'd assume they know their own faith better.

Christians aren't practicing Judaism. The 'Torah,' is not the same thing, as 'Judaism.' Judaism, /and Xianity, use the Torah as text.
What is the problem?

In my opinion, if Jesus was a mere many they'd probably have more respect for him. They still wouldn't consider him a prophet in line with the other ones in the OT; however, they at least probably would not be offended of calling a human god.

What?

I never believed Jesus was god even as a Christian.

Were you ever really a Christian? Or was it merely a convenient label?

I read the full Bible; and, it doesn't make sense no matter how one flips it in content and context.

Do you mean the entire Bible?

It doesn't devalue what trinitarians say, it just means that they may personify Jesus too much because of how close he is to the father. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. A Jew may differ, though. Muslims seem to have more respect for Jesus as per experience of talking to them off-line. I haven't read the full Quran. Torah, but I can't judge how they see Jesus based on Mahammad's bias on him. Id have to know it in context first. That, and I have to read it in Arabic.

Great...but, ,,therefore? Xianity is not going to make sense in the perspective of other religions..why would it? It's a different religion. This statement also is a bit silly, even, because, it isn't like every Jew is extremely critical of Jesus , or something, either. Or Christians. It's arbitrary, in other words

As for my interpretation, I do not believe God is an entity. So, I don't practice Christianity and accept what the Bible says and how different people interpret the same text. Many scholars of different religions have studied the Bible and many came to the same conclusion regardless their faith. It's not a hard book to understand when you are looking at it objectively. Once you make it personal, then, of course, anyone who does would take offense especially when a "non christian" has something to say.

Eh? I don't care if your a ''non-Christian'', and my arguments aren't based on that

No one is special in that regards. It's an easy book to read and digest. The difference is, does one take it personally or not.

Great. I'm not asking you to take the Bible personally, it's clear that you don't.

 

[Neo Deist]

Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah. Which one and why?

It depends on the language that you speak. They all mean the same thing: God. It is a moot point.