1. 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!

Featured Is according to Jews everything God's will?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by ayin, Dec 22, 2020.

Tags:
  1. Skywalker

    Skywalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    6,464
    Ratings:
    +320
    Religion:
    Christian
    Other Jewish beliefs about the Messiah could also be considered Avodah Zara by some interpretations of the Tanakh. Jewish Christian - Wikipedia
    Many Jews use the term the Messiah, and some say that there are multiple Messiahs. Both can't be true. To the Jews who believe in one Messiah, even the ones who don't believe in Jesus, those other Messiahs are Avodah Zara. The Torah was completed before the 2nd century BCE and 1st century CE, so the beliefs in Jewish messianism are about interpretations and not necessarily what the Tanakh says. The Tanakh doesn't mention there being a military leader as the Messiah, its an interpretation.
     
  2. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    6,358
    Ratings:
    +4,129
    Religion:
    Jewish
    You claimed that the verses point to a mediator. I show you the text which says "no mediator" and now you claim that the verses point to a hope of the messiah? That's nowhere in the verses and no where is there a "God in human form."

    I quoted the verses. You have seen the words (you even bolded them in your response). Yet you continue to claim the opposite.
     
  3. Skywalker

    Skywalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    6,464
    Ratings:
    +320
    Religion:
    Christian
    Job 9:33, indirectly in certain translations, mentions a Mediator. Job 9:33 NIV: If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together,

    Job 19:25 refers to the Redeemer being God in human form. Job 19:25 - I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the ...

    The Redeemer and Mediator refers to the Messiah. Jesus Is the Mediator, Advocate, and Redeemer in Job - Scott LaPierre

     
  4. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,623
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Jesus. Spirit of life water oxygen sacrificed in gas reaction.

    It's illumination.

    Life needed the water oxygen mass.

    To illuminate pretend Jesus equals immaculate.

    O God earth in space stone.

    Heavens separate in space. Gases and mass.

    No human included as removed in thinking.

    Magic that claim fake.

    Immaculate. No natural balances.

    Cold night not burning. Daylight burning.

    The balance zero.

    No burning. Nighttime removed already.

    Science quotes day twenty four hours balanced.

    Is natural by natural causes.

    Immaculate. Natural spirit. Gases of God balanced.

    Jesus imbalance. Life sacrificed. Should be highest life.

    Jesus never highest life. Life in its suffering lesser life.

    Falsely taught.

    My father told me. His spirit message for his daughter. He knew.
     
  5. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    6,358
    Ratings:
    +4,129
    Religion:
    Jewish
    "Indirectly in certain translations"? And yet directly, and in the Hebrew, it says the opposite.
    The one who will speak up for Job exists, according to Job, but nothing in the text suggests that this refers to God in or out of human form. Imagining that any of this refers to Jesus is the tail wagging the dog.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. Skywalker

    Skywalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    6,464
    Ratings:
    +320
    Religion:
    Christian
    The word daysman and mediator are synonyms.

    That verse does refer to God, because only God is our redeemer. The New Testament talks about God walking the earth. "For I know that my Redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth;"
     
  7. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    6,358
    Ratings:
    +4,129
    Religion:
    Jewish
    9:33 uses the word "mochi'ach" (one who proves) and says none exists. 19:25 uses "go'ali" (redeemer), a word used textually to refer to an avenger of blood after a manslaughter, and one who redeems property which has been set aside, among other things. You should read up in Numbers 5:8. So while you might want to see it as referring to God here, it does not need to.
     
  8. Skywalker

    Skywalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    6,464
    Ratings:
    +320
    Religion:
    Christian
    Kinsman redeemers were not people who had the role of a Messiah or a Savior, they had the role of acting on behalf of a relative. What is a kinsman redeemer? | GotQuestions.org

    Job said that no mediator exists, because he was talking about the hope of the future Messiah. How does the Hebrew word about one who proves disagree with the idea of the Mediator being the Messiah advocating for us before God? Just because the word for Redeemer in the Hebrew has meanings about property doesn't mean that it also doesn't have meanings about forgiveness.
     
  9. Flankerl

    Flankerl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    Messages:
    7,167
    Ratings:
    +3,570
    Religion:
    Judaism
    These threads are always the same.

    "I just have a question to our Jewish friends"
    That's where the lie starts, there never was a question and neither are we seen as friends.
    It's just a pretext to get to the real issue: Debating with Jews about why they are so stupid in not accepting Jesus/Mohammed/Baháʼu'lláh.

    It gets really sad when they think that we can't see through that.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    6,358
    Ratings:
    +4,129
    Religion:
    Jewish
    Except that they were called textually by the same language used in Job, so any conclusion you draw based on what the text says, which excludes them, is flawed.

    Are you now saying that the particular language doesn't matter? You have often quoted the words and made the point that the words indicate a specific role or person. Just because the word for redeemer has meanings about forgiveness doesn't mean it doesn't have meanings about property. You can certainly enjoy your interpretation, but should see it as an agendized and selective interpretation driven by the reverse engineering based on the theological needs created in the gospels.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Skywalker

    Skywalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    6,464
    Ratings:
    +320
    Religion:
    Christian
    Job wasn't referring to God as a kinsman redeemer, because a kinsman redeemer is a relative. There is nothing in the context of Job 19:25 that references God and property.
     
  12. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    6,358
    Ratings:
    +4,129
    Religion:
    Jewish
    There is nothing that references Jesus either. What there is is the use of a particular piece of language that is used elsewhere to refer to another idea. In post 166 you said " because only God is our redeemer" and yet I showed you how, textually, others are referred to as redeemer.
     
  13. Skywalker

    Skywalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    6,464
    Ratings:
    +320
    Religion:
    Christian
    God can't be a kinsman redeemer or a property redeemer because there is no evidence in the text that property or relatives is what redeemer is referring to.
     
  14. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    6,358
    Ratings:
    +4,129
    Religion:
    Jewish
    But that verse also doesn't mention God. You decided it had to be God because the word for "redeemer" is in it and you cited a verse in which "redeemer" refers to God. Thing is, that same word is used elsewhere to refer to others. Your decision that it must refer to God is simply your preference, no more supported textually than any other option. In fact, as the next verse says that the redeemer will appear after the skin is stripped off, and then says that God will be recognized before that (while the speaker is still in his flesh), there is a major distinction between this redeemer and God - they CAN'T be the same thing.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Skywalker

    Skywalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    6,464
    Ratings:
    +320
    Religion:
    Christian
    The context of the book of Job was about Job's hardship, not about kinsman redeemers or property redeemers. The verse that talks about Job's skin is a reference to Job's death. Job 19:26 Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God.

    I believe that verse is a reference to Job believing he will meet Jesus.
     
  16. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,623
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Is a human the history of O planet they named as God in cosmic forming.

    No.

    No man is God.

    Yet a man theoried about God.

    So you placed a self innocent living thinking ability about history planet and know you are not God.

    Your just consciousness as theist.

    As you sacrificed attacked self thinker consciousness. Self voice image was recorded. Consciousness now never dies. Remains forever in God O earth gas spirits owned by its evolution.

    God evolution is with first law womb.
    Vacuum space.

    No human owns that advice.

    We however lived life supported within immaculate heavens which science burnt extra gas mass. We got life sacrificed as we are not energetic conversion.

    Stephen Hawking warning.

    When you personally claim you began in a place where no human even existed the intent is to end us with the concept.
    Thinker strings one I own history.

    Named heaven gases. You are not there. The gas spirit is. Consciousness says my thoughts naming it now own it.

    How you lied to self human as a theist.

    We live separately as humans in one heavenly mass . Water oxygenated.
     
  17. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    6,358
    Ratings:
    +4,129
    Religion:
    Jewish
    This translation might not lead you to that conclusion:

    This, after my skin will have been peeled off. But I would behold God while still in my flesh,
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. IndigoChild5559

    IndigoChild5559 Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    5,724
    Ratings:
    +2,478
    Religion:
    Judaism
    It's like you just didn't read a word that he wrote.
     
  19. Skywalker

    Skywalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    6,464
    Ratings:
    +320
    Religion:
    Christian
    Certain verses in the Bible and Tanakh have details that are not clear in the text, like whether Isaiah 7:14 is an explicit prophecy of the virgin birth. It's clear from the text that it's a prophecy of supernatural birth in the house of David of one called Immanuel, which was part of the larger complex of messianic prophecies that reach their fulfillment in the miraculous conception of Jesus.
     
  20. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    6,358
    Ratings:
    +4,129
    Religion:
    Jewish
    I understand your religious belief but I wish you could see that you present it in a way which does not prove fruitful. Your first claim is that certain verses "have details that are not clear in the text."

    Some might say, "no, they have the details that are clear, but you read in other ideas because you need the verses to say more." Others might say, "the details that are not clear are not at all what you think they are but since they are not clear, you miss them" while even others might say, "the details are clear if you read the text properly and in the right context."

    Your next suggestion is that 7:14 has to do with a "virgin birth". That is no where in the verse and is a function of what you need to find, after the fact.

    Then you say that something is "clear from the text." Thing is, no such thing is clear to many people. What is clear is that you are using eisegesis, starting from the conclusions you need to validate.

    There are plenty of things I could say are "clear from the text" and I could either show you the explanations which show how clear they are, or I could just aver their truth with nothing other than my faith to support them. Neither would prove persuasive.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...