Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[rosends]

I don’t feel “condemned”,

And yet you said "your condemning me"

I feel you are being rude far beyond what I would tolerate from a casual acquaintance, let alone someone who is an ordained rabbi.

How those are related, I'll never understand. If you feel I am being rude, feel free not to respond when I correct you. Or just stop saying things that are wrong. Your call.

You know nothing about my educational background,

Sure I do -- you haven't learned Hebrew. That would be the most relevant aspect of your educational background and you have made it clear.

where I was Bar Mitzvah or my Hebrew training, yet you continually assault my intelligence, my Hebrew and even my Jewishness.

No, I point out that there is no evidence of the first, a lack of the second and no proof of the fifth. As for the 4th, we have established the lack and the third? Well, you choose to be wrong and ignore evidence. The conclusions to be drawn I leave up to others.

Further, I guarantee I know far more Greek than you but I’ve been careful to keep our NT discussions in plain English—as well as our OT discussions for the most part—so that others can be involved.

Good thing I haven't made any comments which hinge on understanding Greek!

Are you unaware of how patronizing your patter is of “Only people who really understand Hebrew and believe what I do about the Hebrew also know God’s Word”? This is demeaning to Jews and Gentiles alike who love God’s Word in English and many other languages, too.

You call it patronizing to remind you that to understand the text, it is best to work in the language of the text? OK, be patronized. The text is in Hebrew. You are relying on translations and drawing conclusions by looking at a document presented IN a theological context, outside of that context.

I already said it’s a Messianic passage and when you were rude again, THE Messiah, not “a Messiah” or “an anointed personage”.

And that's your reading, not one supported by the text. The Hebrew in 9:25 is pretty clear about that. At least in the Hebrew...

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

Actually, you asked "How Jewish transgression within 490 periods (seventy sevens) after this prophecy stream began" Look it up. See the verb "began"? Not "ended". I answered repeatedly about "ending" but you keep ignoring that part. Then you asked how it BEGAN -- your word. Now I'm waffling because I answered what you asked? Tsk tsk.

Regardless, Agrippa II did not end human transgression or reconcile Israel back to God.

I know -- hence the word "should". Remember when I pointed out the word "should" as opposed to "did"?

Daniel gave Israel 70 weeks to finish it ALL.

Yes, and it was finished after 70 weeks. You just are getting "it" wrong.

Further, I have not severed my connections from Judaism nor declared my lack of connection to Judaism, as you wrote. Indeed, I still experience persecution for identifying as a Jew and as a Jewish Christian also.

Which means you have severed ties with Judaism. Plain and simple. Are you also a meat eating vegetarian?

I don’t think you would like it in turn if I wrote, “You are not a rabbi, rabbis are kind!”

Feel free to write it. It has no value and makes no sense. Please stop saying nonsensical things.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

I'll note the following with humor -- I am not Chasidic. Far from it, actually. That you come to a conclusion is laughable. Next, you did nothing in what you quoted to answer the direct question I asked about the claim of "not for himself". I also love how you put the word "translation" in quotes and then quote the 1917 JPS (which agrees with the Judaica Press) in explaining the Hebrew "v'ein lo" as "be no more" and not "not for himself." Then you switch focus onto another phrase which actually refers to Vespasian and Titus who made a covenant of peace but within 7 years (the "week") abrogated the covenant and destroyed the temple, ending sacrifices.

 

[metis]

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

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

Thank you.

But rape can destroy the harmony of the "band". For example, bonobos, which tend to be quite promiscuous, will attack any other bonobo that attempts to rape a female.

Humans survived in large part because we had no choice but to cooperate within our band if we wanted to survive, and fairly rigid mating habits, which did tend to vary from society to society, had to be in pace to try and create harmony.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But rape can destroy the harmony of the "band". For example, bonobos, which tend to be quite promiscuous, will attack any other bonobo that attempts to rape a female.

Humans survived in large part because we had no choice but to cooperate within our band if we wanted to survive, and fairly rigid mating habits, which did tend to vary from society to society, had to be in pace to try and create harmony.

Now you are saying a proven fact or a scientific assumption?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You call it patronizing to remind you that to understand the text, it is best to work in the language of the text? OK, be patronized. The text is in Hebrew. You are relying on translations and drawing conclusions by looking at a document presented IN a theological context, outside of that context.

Not at all. I’m saying you are being presumptive regarding my knowledge of the Hebrew language and rude concerning all other things.

And that's your reading, not one supported by the text. The Hebrew in 9:25 is pretty clear about that. At least in the Hebrew...

Again, you are using sophistry, “You don’t understand Hebrew like I do!” instead of facts.

Fact: The concept of a coming Messiah, believed upon by non-Y’shua Jews, stems from passages in scripture including Daniel 9.

Fact: THE Messiah in this chapter ENDS ALL HUMAN SIN.

Actually, you asked "How Jewish transgression within 490 periods (seventy sevens) after this prophecy stream began" Look it up. See the verb "began"? Not "ended". I answered repeatedly about "ending" but you keep ignoring that part. Then you asked how it BEGAN -- your word. Now I'm waffling because I answered what you asked? Tsk tsk.

I mistyped a word as began instead of ended, yes. You’ve harped on it twice now. Which do you consider relevant in this discussion?

1. I mistyped “begin” for “end”
   
   
   
   
2. You have failed to show how anyone other than Y’shua fulfilled MULTIPLE Messianic prophecies in Daniel 9
   

I know -- hence the word "should". Remember when I pointed out the word "should" as opposed to "did"?

I don’t understand your point here. God’s Word isn’t “you should only do such and such” in places where He says “it is decreed that”…

Yes, and it was finished after 70 weeks. You just are getting "it" wrong.

Human sin ended circa 70 CE? Amazing…

Which means you have severed ties with Judaism. Plain and simple. Are you also a meat eating vegetarian?

I am a Jew. Is Judaism our externals, our circumcisions? Or is it internal? Don’t bother answering, this is a rhetorical question.

Further, you can judge me and still be respectful!

Feel free to write it. It has no value and makes no sense. Please stop saying nonsensical things.

I’ll write it again, then. If you’re a rabbi with a congregation and not just a Chabad anti-missionary with a computer connected to the Internet, stop being a mean, rude person. Rabbis are nice people.

I'll note the following with humor -- I am not Chasidic. Far from it, actually. That you come to a conclusion is laughable. Next, you did nothing in what you quoted to answer the direct question I asked about the claim of "not for himself". I also love how you put the word "translation" in quotes and then quote the 1917 JPS (which agrees with the Judaica Press) in explaining the Hebrew "v'ein lo" as "be no more" and not "not for himself." Then you switch focus onto another phrase which actually refers to Vespasian and Titus who made a covenant of peace but within 7 years (the "week") abrogated the covenant and destroyed the temple, ending sacrifices.

Your quotation was word-for-word from Chabad’s site. I thought you “knew” Hebrew and were giving us the benefit of your own translations?

 

[metis]

Now you are saying a proven fact or a scientific assumption?

Based on overwhelming evidence, the former. We know how bonobos behave and we know how humans behave.

Which part(s) do you doubt and why?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Which part(s) do you doubt and why?

Metis,I also have a problem with your humanist morality. Can any attempt to justify yourself through works succeed in dealing with the two greatest obstacles to your peace and joy - namely, sin and death?

 

[metis]

Metis,I also have a problem with your humanist morality. Can any attempt to justify yourself through works succeed in dealing with the two greatest obstacles to your peace and joy - namely, sin and death?

I'd much rather have "humanist morality" that "bigoted judgmentalism".

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'd much rather have "humanist morality" that "bigoted judgmentalism".

Given that Jesus teaches against judgmentalism, I think your criticism is unjustified. The question is whether we are sinners in need of salvation, and whether Christ can provide us with eternal life. I would answer with an emphatic 'yes'.

 

[metis]

Given that Jesus teaches against judgmentalism, I think your criticism is unjustified. The question is whether we are sinners in need of salvation, and whether Christ can provide us with eternal life. I would answer with an emphatic 'yes'.

Since "Jesus teaches against judgmentalism", and since you spout judgementalism, when do you plan on converting to Christianity?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Since "Jesus teaches against judgmentalism", and since you spout judgementalism, when do you plan on converting to Christianity?

Huh?

 

[metis]

Huh?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Since "Jesus teaches against judgmentalism", and since you spout judgementalism, when do you plan on converting to Christianity?

The Word judges me, as it judges you. We all face the same judge.
So rather than avoiding the issue of sin and death, maybe you'd like to suggest a better alternative to overcoming these obstacles than the salvation offered by the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[metis]

The Word judges me, as it judges you. We all face the same judge.
So rather than avoiding the issue of sin and death, maybe you'd like to suggest a better alternative to overcoming these obstacles than the salvation offered by the Lord Jesus Christ.

At 71, I've thought about death many times over, let me tell ya, but not to the point whereas it bothers me. The idea that having a p.c. belief alone about Jesus will somehow "save" one makes so little sense, and that's even giving it more credit than it's due.

To me, your position is an example of the danger of this kind of "fundamentalism" that is found in all religions: the "my way or the highway" approach. It is both illogical, even on the surface, plus how many millions have been killed by people taking your position? According to the Tanakh, the righteous of all nations are looked at favorably by God, and this righteousness doesn't involve p.c. beliefs but moral actions instead. It says, for example, that nations will be judged on how they treat the poor-- not just sitting back in one's rocking chair having nice and p.c. thoughts about Jesus..

What you have done is to take the position of the "goats" in Matthew 24, namely that having p,c, beliefs about Jesus somehow will "save" one. Guess what? Jesus said it ain't true-- one needs to be a "sheep", namely believing in Jesus by doing what Jesus told his disciples to do.

Because of this, many churches have dropped the p.c. belief concept, instead adopting one that says that what we do may be more important than having p.c. beliefs. After all, if Jesus taught the Torah, the Torah is much more about moral actions than p.c. belief.

In today's world, there's still a huge segment of people in the world that never heard of Jesus, so are they somehow condemned? What about the people who came before Jesus? What about those who many not be Christians but who live a moral life that follows what Jesus taught: compassion and justice for all? If your god were to condemn people like that, then it is one messed-up deity-- but my feeling is that it's not God that's "messed-up"-- it's the "my way or the highway" approach that's messed-up, which has messed-up all too much in yesterday's and also today's world.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Metis, you know that this is not a judgment about what you, or I, have, or haven't, done in life. There is no way of making such judgments about a person from these forums. The issues here are about doctrine, and about the truth of the scriptures. What is made apparent from your words is that you think a person has to please God by good works. But for Christians this is not the message. The love that Christians are able to share with others is a love that comes firstly from God. As it says in Galatians, 'I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.'
It's interesting that you should use a term like 'fundamentalist' as a term of abuse. But Jesus was a fundamentalist, because he never wavered from doing his Father's will. So it is possible to have a positive view of fundamentalism - when based on a love for others.
It seems that we both agree that to love others is essential to pleasing God. Where we differ is in the belief about the source of love. I believe a person must repent and be born-again of God's spirit through faith in a risen Lord. If you don't take this path then you face a judgment based on righteousness before the law, and not on faith. As Paul says, 'Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.'

I'm not so arrogant as to suggest it's 'my way or the highway', but I do profess to believing the only sure way is Christ's Way.

 

[metis]

Metis, you know that this is not a judgment about what you, or I, have, or haven't, done in life. There is no way of making such judgments about a person from these forums. The issues here are about doctrine, and about the truth of the scriptures. What is made apparent from your words is that you think a person has to please God by good works. But for Christians this is not the message. The love that Christians are able to share with others is a love that comes firstly from God. As it says in Galatians, 'I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.'
It's interesting that you should use a term like 'fundamentalist' as a term of abuse. But Jesus was a fundamentalist, because he never wavered from doing his Father's will. So it is possible to have a positive view of fundamentalism - when based on a love for others.
It seems that we both agree that to love others is essential to pleasing God. Where we differ is in the belief about the source of love. I believe a person must repent and be born-again of God's spirit through faith in a risen Lord. If you don't take this path then you face a judgment based on righteousness before the law, and not on faith. As Paul says, 'Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.'

I'm not so arrogant as to suggest it's 'my way or the highway', but I do profess to believing the only sure way is Christ's Way.

First of all, I highlighted "believing" in your last sentence for the reason that what you say you believe is fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned, but if you check some of your previous posts, you often don't use that word, thus stating things in absolute terms, which comes off as being highly judgmental.

Secondly, if you reread my last post, you'll see that I wrote "this kind of 'fundamentalism'", which clearly is not an indictment of all forms of fundamentalism.

Thirdly, Jesus' approach was not a "fundamentalist" one-- quite the opposite. Back then within Judaism, "fundamentalism" would be the Pharisee approach minus the "building the fence around the Torah", which is what I believe Jesus may have been referring to when he said "laws made by men". I can explain if that's not familiar to you. Instead, Jesus' approach was a very liberal one to say the least, particularly when one considers his approach to the Law itself. He even went further than the school of Hillel, which itself was quite theologically liberal.

Finally, you did not address the questions and points that I brought up with those who may know nothing about Jesus or those who try to live moral lives but are not Christian.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is your interpretation of a fool. The Tanach's interpretation of a fool is someone who hates knowledge and does foolish things.


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

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

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

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

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

I understand. If you are saying the Jewish people stopped transgressing and sinning when the Temple was destroyed, I think you are misunderstanding.

 

[Tumah]

I understand. If you are saying the Jewish people stopped transgressing and sinning when the Temple was destroyed, I think you are misunderstanding.

It doesn't say to "end sinning", it says "to end sin". The sins that caused the destruction in the first place, should be atoned for (hence 'to atone iniquity).

If you see any indication in this chapter of some statement regarding humanity in general, I think you are misunderstanding.

 

[NadiaMoon]

Neither.
Because I believe the Goddess is the true one.

 

[rosends]

Not at all. I’m saying you are being presumptive regarding my knowledge of the Hebrew language and rude concerning all other things.

Except that you have admitted to not knowing Hebrew. What have I presumed?

Again, you are using sophistry, “You don’t understand Hebrew like I do!” instead of facts.

Fact: The concept of a coming Messiah, believed upon by non-Y’shua Jews, stems from passages in scripture including Daniel 9.

Fact: THE Messiah in this chapter ENDS ALL HUMAN SIN.

Incorrect. The messiah in Daniel 9 does no such thing. The fact that you start with that assumption leads to so many errors. You just can't accept that you are wrong.

I mistyped a word as began instead of ended, yes. You’ve harped on it twice now. Which do you consider relevant in this discussion?

Well, you have had such trouble distinguishing between should" and "did" that it seems that basic English is beyond you.

You have failed to show how anyone other than Y’shua fulfilled MULTIPLE Messianic prophecies in Daniel 9

Because you fail to understand the nature of the prophecies. Your "Y'shua" (which isn't even a name...but you would have to be able to read Hebrew to know that) fulfilled nothing, by the way.

I don’t understand your point here. God’s Word isn’t “you should only do such and such” in places where He says “it is decreed that”…

Clearly you don't. If you had read carefully, a bunch of messages back, you would see why your confusion between the 2 words is so telling.

Human sin ended circa 70 CE? Amazing…

Nope -- but again, you put words in my mouth and ignore what I actually wrote because it negates your entire identity. You should go back and read for comprehension and stop embarrassing yourself.

I am a Jew. Is Judaism our externals, our circumcisions? Or is it internal? Don’t bother answering, this is a rhetorical question.

So why ask it? Especially when it has a clear answer, and one which you seem not to know.

I’ll write it again, then. If you’re a rabbi with a congregation and not just a Chabad anti-missionary with a computer connected to the Internet, stop being a mean, rude person. Rabbis are nice people.

You understand so little that now you create false binaries. There is a big world out there that you can learn about only once you admit you don't know instead of assuming you do.

Your quotation was word-for-word from Chabad’s site. I thought you “knew” Hebrew and were giving us the benefit of your own translations?

My quotation was from the Judaica Press translation of the Hebrew. If you quote the Jewish Publication Society 1917 version, do I assume you work for the JPS?
Your logic is seriously flawed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It doesn't say to "end sinning", it says "to end sin". The sins that caused the destruction in the first place, should be atoned for (hence 'to atone iniquity).

If you see any indication in this chapter of some statement regarding humanity in general, I think you are misunderstanding.

You are thus saying that the destruction of the Temple atoned for the sins of Israel up to that point? Interesting. Sometimes I wonder whether others read the prophecies for themselves or simply parrot the "deep" ideas found at sites like Chabad.org. The passage actually SAYS:

“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place."

EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS occurred amongst Israel in DIASPORA? Really? Do only Messianic Jews believe Messiah will usher in a new era for Israel? Of course not. BE CONSISTENT.