Is Moses God?

[BilliardsBall]

1. There are two kinds of salvation. One is universal salvation from universal catastrophes of the size of the Flood. That's free. The other is personal salvation. We must obey the laws to have it. That's as simple as that.

2 - Because that statement was written by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul's who had a bitter grudge against the Pharisees.

3 - There is none. The NT is the only original source of knowledge about Jesus.

1 - Please list here the Tanakh statements that personal salvation is based on law-keeping.

2 - What? The saying is attributed to Jesus in the gospels. Are you saying Jesus is a "Hellenist former disciple of Paul's?" That would make no sense based on all scholarly consensus that Paul taught Christianity after Jesus had come and gone.

3 - If you have no refutation for what Jesus did or didn't say, why did you claim Jesus never said it? Jesus said your righteousness must exceed that of the rabbis to be saved . . .

 

[Ben Avraham]

1 - Please list here the Tanakh statements that personal salvation is based on law-keeping.

2 - What? The saying is attributed to Jesus in the gospels. Are you saying Jesus is a "Hellenist former disciple of Paul's?" That would make no sense based on all scholarly consensus that Paul taught Christianity after Jesus had come and gone.

3 - If you have no refutation for what Jesus did or didn't say, why did you claim Jesus never said it? Jesus said your righteousness must exceed that of the rabbis to be saved . . .

1 - Isaiah 1:18,19. "To set things right with the Lord so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent, make reparations and return to the obedience of God's Law. Psalm 119, the whole chapter.

2 - I said nothing of the sort but that the statement was written by the Hellenist former disciple of Paul who wrote that gospel.

3 - You should be happy to have met a Jew, the only Jew ever to admit 20% of the NT worth believing about Jesus and from him. The other 80% is made up of anti-Jewish interpolations to enhance the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Other Jews consider the whole of the NT anathema.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hi Ben,

1. I'm familiar with the Isaiah passage. It is not referring to eternal life. The next verse:

If you are willing and obedient,
You shall eat the good of the land;
20 But if you refuse and rebel,
You shall be devoured by the sword”;
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Repentance can save one from the coming judgment on Israel. However, Tanakh nowhere, in no passage, says one receives eternity via repentance or mitzvot. Eternal terms in Tanakh are used solely for trusting in God. One is saved in (either testament) via trusting in God.

2. What is your proof that a "former Hellenist disciple of Paul" wrote one or more of the four gospels? All scholars I'm familiar with teach different things about Paul, however, all the ones I know who agree with you that Paul changed from Jesus's original belief system say Paul comes after the four gospels. If there weren't gospels, what was Paul changing? Be logical. Be consistent.

3. If you believe in parts of the NT about Jesus, clearly you don't believe all four gospels are accurate. So which books or chapters do you believe are true?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Hi Ben,

1. I'm familiar with the Isaiah passage. It is not referring to eternal life. The next verse: If you are willing and obedient,
You shall eat the good of the land; 20 But if you refuse and rebel, You shall be devoured by the sword”; For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

2 - Repentance can save one from the coming judgment on Israel. However, Tanakh nowhere, in no passage, says one receives eternity via repentance or mitzvot. Eternal terms in Tanakh are used solely for trusting in God. One is saved in (either testament) via trusting in God.

3. What is your proof that a "former Hellenist disciple of Paul" wrote one or more of the four gospels? All scholars I'm familiar with teach different things about Paul, however, all the ones I know who agree with you that Paul changed from Jesus's original belief system say Paul comes after the four gospels. If there weren't gospels, what was Paul changing? Be logical. Be consistent.

4. If you believe in parts of the NT about Jesus, clearly you don't believe all four gospels are accurate. So which books or chapters do you believe are true?

1 - Have I ever said here that Prophet Isaiah was interested in eternal life? The opposite is rather true that once dead, we are like shades that can never rise. (Isaiah 26:14)

2 - Agreed! Indeed nowhere in the Tanach one can get eternal life through repentance and mitzvot and I have never contradicted the Tanach.

3 - Read Mat. 1:18. It is about the Hellenistic myth of the demigod aka the son of a god with an earthy woman. That's how the Hellenist who wrote that gospel painted Jesus to be: The son of God with Mary without Joseph as Jesus' biological father. He simply replaced the Jewish identity of Jesus with a Greek one. The name is Replacement Theology.

4 - Of course, the four gospels could never be accurate! I agree only with the texts that do not contradict the Tanach. For instance, when Jesus said to listen to "Moses" aka the Law (Luke 16:29-31 and that he came to obey the Law down to the letter till heaven and earth passed away (Mat. 5:17-19) and so on for about 20% of the NT.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1 & 2 - The Tanakh indeed says we receive eternal life, trusting in God. Also, I asked you for every Tanakh reference stating differently--that we receive eternal life from law keeping. You gave me on Isaiah passage saying repentance, not works, is a need to miss a specific punishment in the land. Ben, knowing what Tanakh says and doesn't say can save you soul--unfortunately, your theology is based on Talmud. Tanakh says thousands of times it is the very Word of God. Talmud, zero times!

3 - Matthew 1:18 is based on Isaiah 7, not Hellenistic myths (or Egyptian or other myths that are similar). Fidelity to the Word of God, Tanakh--not the then-oral Talmud, marks each and every page of NT scriptures.

4. Jesus said "listen to Moses" regarding Moses's prophecy of a prophet similar to Moses--if the people disobeyed this prophet the land would be harmed and the people would go into diaspora! The great diaspora began soon after the people rejected Jesus and the NT prophets!

Let's use logic, Ben. You can be most obedient to the law yet still sin. You must be transformed in order to enter a perfect moral community, where the citizens never harm in any way the other citizens.

 

[Thrillobyte]

You know, archeologists never found the slightest traces of 3 million people wandering around the Sinai for 40 years. Is it possible Moses and the Exodus are all just legend?

 

[Ben Avraham]

You know, archeologists never found the slightest traces of 3 million people wandering around the Sinai for 40 years. Is it possible Moses and the Exodus are all just legend?

Do you think that the Jews would be that stupid to celebrate Passover to this very day in memory of "Yetsiyat Miztraim" aka Exodus from Egypt? It did not start last year or the year before but about 5000 years ago. It is only obvious that we are not dealing here with a legend.

 

[Ben Avraham]

1 & 2 - The Tanakh indeed says we receive eternal life, trusting in God. Also, I asked you for every Tanakh reference stating differently--that we receive eternal life from law keeping. You gave me on Isaiah passage saying repentance, not works, is a need to miss a specific punishment in the land. Ben, knowing what Tanakh says and doesn't say can save you soul--unfortunately, your theology is based on Talmud. Tanakh says thousands of times it is the very Word of God. Talmud, zero times!

3 - Matthew 1:18 is based on Isaiah 7, not Hellenistic myths (or Egyptian or other myths that are similar). Fidelity to the Word of God, Tanakh--not the then-oral Talmud, marks each and every page of NT scriptures.

4. Jesus said "listen to Moses" regarding Moses's prophecy of a prophet similar to Moses--if the people disobeyed this prophet the land would be harmed and the people would go into diaspora! The great diaspora began soon after the people rejected Jesus and the NT prophets!

Let's use logic, Ben. You can be most obedient to the law yet still sin. You must be transformed in order to enter a perfect moral community, where the citizens never harm in any way the other citizens.

1&2 - Would you please, quote to me a single reference in the Tanach that we receive eternal life, trusting God? Thank you!

3 - The virgin is Israel if you read Amos 5:2 and the child born of the virgin is Judah if you read the sequence of Isaiah 7:14,15,22; 8:8. The birth aka rebirth of the child happened when HaShem rejected Israel aka the Tabernacle of Joseph and confirmed Judah to remain alone the only Kingdom throughout the Land of Israel. (Psalm 78:67-70) So, the child was Judah which in Isaiah 8:8 was named Emmanuel to remain alone the only connection between HaShem and Mankind.

4 - The Prophet-like-unto-Moses was Joshua if you read Deuteronomy 18:18; Numbers 27:18-20; and Joshua 1:5,18. Moses was a Messianic leader who guided the Messiah back to the Promised Land. When Jesus came, the Messiah was in the Promised Land, whereas under Gentile occupation; during his lifetime, that occupation only got worse and, soon after he died the Gentiles destroyed the Temple. How could Jesus in your mind have been the Messiah! Even as a Messianic leader he could not classify, let alone the Messiah.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You know, archeologists never found the slightest traces of 3 million people wandering around the Sinai for 40 years. Is it possible Moses and the Exodus are all just legend?

What evidence do you seek?

What remnants of tents do you think will exist from wanderers in a desert with moving sands from 3500 years ago?

What distance would the scholars need to be off in the routes to miss the archaeological evidence? (In other words, they could be 500 feet off, let alone five miles off, and would miss things beneath 1,000 feet of powder sand).

There is evidence that Moses was an actual Egyptian name, that the peoples of Canaan were replaced by wandering tribes, etc., etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1&2 - Would you please, quote to me a single reference in the Tanach that we receive eternal life, trusting God? Thank you!

3 - The virgin is Israel if you read Amos 5:2 and the child born of the virgin is Judah if you read the sequence of Isaiah 7:14,15,22; 8:8. The birth aka rebirth of the child happened when HaShem rejected Israel aka the Tabernacle of Joseph and confirmed Judah to remain alone the only Kingdom throughout the Land of Israel. (Psalm 78:67-70) So, the child was Judah which in Isaiah 8:8 was named Emmanuel to remain alone the only connection between HaShem and Mankind.

4 - The Prophet-like-unto-Moses was Joshua if you read Deuteronomy 18:18; Numbers 27:18-20; and Joshua 1:5,18. Moses was a Messianic leader who guided the Messiah back to the Promised Land. When Jesus came, the Messiah was in the Promised Land, whereas under Gentile occupation; during his lifetime, that occupation only got worse and, soon after he died the Gentiles destroyed the Temple. How could Jesus in your mind have been the Messiah! Even as a Messianic leader he could not classify, let alone the Messiah.

1 - There are numerous verses. First that came to me - Psalm 25 - "Indeed, none of those who wait for You will ever be ashamed; Those who deal treacherously without cause will be ashamed."; Daniel says (which we've discussed, I believe) "...But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above;1 and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. . ."

Clearly Ha Shem uses trust and forever statements . . . it is a canard of our people that the dead don't resurrect to eternal blessings or eternal shame.

3 - Isaiah offered a SIGN, a miraculous SIGN, in Isaiah 7. I bet you can think of a half-dozen miracle signs that happened concerning literal births and literal children in Genesis and Judges alone. Ben, again, it is old, old news that our people think everything prophetic is about Israel, not individuals, not salvation. (And please, let's not waste time discussing why Judah wasn't yet "eating curds and honey" or "didn't yet know know to choose between evil and good". Only a toddler would fulfill those precepts. People were IN the land of HONEY already.

4 - Ben, read Deut 28-30. Fulfilled long after Joshua and the days of the judges. No.

 

[Thrillobyte]

What evidence do you seek?

What remnants of tents do you think will exist from wanderers in a desert with moving sands from 3500 years ago?

What distance would the scholars need to be off in the routes to miss the archaeological evidence? (In other words, they could be 500 feet off, let alone five miles off, and would miss things beneath 1,000 feet of powder sand).

There is evidence that Moses was an actual Egyptian name, that the peoples of Canaan were replaced by wandering tribes, etc., etc.

Clay pots, eating utensils, tools, anything that archeologists go digging for to prove a people occupied an area. Here's what Wiki says:

[...QUOTE]...but the archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[4] and archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."[5] The opinion of the overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars is that the exodus story was shaped into its final present form in the post-Exilic period, [/QUOTE]

 

[Ben Avraham]

Daniel says (which we've discussed, I believe) "...But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above;1 and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. . ."

"At that time my people shall be delivered." That's the time for the end of the exile in Babylon. Nothing would help to shorten that exile to less than 70 years. At the determined time, all Jews trusted that the Lord would delivered them. All of them that slept in the dust of Babylon. If you read Isaiah 53:8,9 when Jews are forced into exile, it is as if they have been cutoff from the Land of the living and graves were assigned to them among the nations. At the end of the exile, HaShem opens up those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. Those who hear the call to return, the euphemism is that they return to everlasting life and those who decide to remain in exile to shame and everlasting contempt. The expression, "Those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. This is an euphemism to the righteous Gentiles who would help many of the Jews to return aka to make Aliyah.

Clearly Ha Shem uses trust and forever statements . . . it is a canard of our people that the dead don't resurrect to eternal blessings or eternal shame.

No, it is not canard not to believe in bodily resurrection because the Tanach was inspired to be written that way. (II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 49:12,20; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9; etc)

Isaiah offered a SIGN, a miraculous SIGN, in Isaiah 7. I bet you can think of a half-dozen miracle signs that happened concerning literal births and literal children in Genesis and Judges alone. Ben, again, it is old, old news that our people think everything prophetic is about Israel, not individuals, not salvation. (And please, let's not waste time discussing why Judah wasn't yet "eating curds and honey" or "didn't yet know know to choose between evil and good". Only a toddler would fulfill those precepts. People were IN the land of HONEY already.

The problem with you is that you take every thing literal. The sign was given through Isaiah in Isaiah 7:14 that the virgin Israel if you read Amos 5:2, was ready to give birth to a child that would be called Emmanuel. That was the time which was approaching for Israel to fall to the Assyrians and Judah would be the sole head of the Kingdom in the whole Land of Israel. The point with the "eating of curds and honey" is a reference to the fact that the whole Land of Israel would belong to Judah. Yes, People were in the Land of milk & honey already but Israel would soon be taken by the Assyrians and Judah would be reborn to be the sole owner of the whole Land; so soon, even before the child knows the difference between good and evil. To understand this, you must read Isaiah 7:14,15,22; and 8:8 where Emmanuel is identified with being Judah the only one left to keep the connection between HaShem and Mankind qua Emmanuel, which means, "God with us."

Ben, read Deut 28-30. Fulfilled long after Joshua and the days of the judges. No.

I read it and I did not see the connection with the issue under discussion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Clay pots, eating utensils, tools, anything that archeologists go digging for to prove a people occupied an area. Here's what Wiki says:

[...QUOTE]...but the archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[4] and archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."[5] The opinion of the overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars is that the exodus story was shaped into its final present form in the post-Exilic period,

[/QUOTE]

I understand that liberal scholars say "archaeological evidence not in support". You must understand that these were a nomadic people who moved and only briefly "occupied an area". And that:

1. Scholars are only guessing WHERE the areas that were occupied were. Many still look in areas of the Sinai that would cross the Red Sea, for one example, but the Jewish people crossed the Reed Sea.

2. If I knew approximately where to dig, I could be off by 500 feet from the campsite and not find anything. Don't think this is like digging on the tracks where a railroad was 100 years ago.

3. You said nothing to respond to my points regarding "digging" in a desert with moving, giant sand dune.

4. The clay pots and utensils traveled with this nomadic people.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1. Gentiles or Jews, the word used is FOREVER. Shine FOREVER. Or shame FOREVER.

2. I'm aware that passages in Tanakh were written from the point of view of the living. "I can't talk to lost ones anymore."

3. You are parsing the Isaiah passage incorrectly. Emmanuel doesn't mean "Judah" it means "God with us". Judah did not inherit the whole land--there was always a remnant left behind by the Assyrians and later, the Babylonians, and the later prophets record the geneaologies and tribal lines of the ones who returned. Others than Judah returned.

You are correct to emphasize Judah regarding Emmanuel. Jesus is Emmanuel of the tribe of Judah, God with us.

You have to do convoluted moves to reconcile the passage. You are saying there is a literal child not old enough to understand good and evil but that Judah is the child, Emmanuel? That makes no sense.

 

[Ben Avraham]

1. Gentiles or Jews, the word used is FOREVER. Shine FOREVER. Or shame FOREVER.

2. I'm aware that passages in Tanakh were written from the point of view of the living. "I can't talk to lost ones anymore."

3. You are parsing the Isaiah passage incorrectly. Emmanuel doesn't mean "Judah" it means "God with us". Judah did not inherit the whole land--there was always a remnant left behind by the Assyrians and later, the Babylonians, and the later prophets record the geneaologies and tribal lines of the ones who returned. Others than Judah returned.

You are correct to emphasize Judah regarding Emmanuel. Jesus is Emmanuel of the tribe of Judah, God with us.

You have to do convoluted moves to reconcile the passage. You are saying there is a literal child not old enough to understand good and evil but that Judah is the child, Emmanuel? That makes no sense.

Right! Emmanuel means "God with us" but, Prophet Isaiah was the one who said that Judah was Emmanuel if you read Isaiah 8:8. Now, as I am concerned, Jesus indeed was part of Emmanuel for being from the Tribe of Judah aka a biological son of Joseph but, as you guys are concerned, he was not a biological son of Joseph. Therefore, not from the Tribe of Judah and so, not a part of Emmanuel. See now what the NT did to Jesus?

Now, the remnant you claim above left by the Assyrians were not Israelites but Assyrian peasants to replace the Israelites who had left. Kind of an exchange of population; the Israelites for the Assyrians. (I Kings 17:24-26) Judah inherited the whole Land of Israel. Hence the way the Gentiles in Samaria welcomed the Jews returning from Babylon as the new landlords. (Isaiah 9:1-6)

No, I did not say any thing about a literal child. The child born of the virgin Israel was Judah. Reborn so-to-speak, as Israel fell to the Assyrians and Judah remained alone as Emmanuel. (Isaiah 8:8) That's why, according to Psalm 78:67-70, HaShem rejected Israel aka the Tabernacle of Joseph and confirmed Judah to remain as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever for the sake of David.(I Kings 11:36)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Emmanuel is still a singular child in Isaiah 8. Is 8 has to do with the prophet's children.

Jesus was a biological child of Judah through Mary AND his adoptive father Joseph. Joseph is of Solomon of David, Mary is of Nathan of David. The NT doesn't "do" things to Jesus, rather the sole way to fulfill both Tanakh prophecies (David's descendant will be Messiah and Lord to be king forever, and Solomon's son will be cut off from the kingship) is to have a child of Solomon (Joseph) who is the titular king adopt a child of David not via Solomon but Nathan, who is David's. Thus, a king who is Davidic but not Solomonic but with ALL the legal and Tanakh rights to the throne (oldest child of King Joseph).

I deny the nonsense that the Assyrian captivity was a complete, 100% captivity of all persons. No ruling empire would empty a land but would leave workers behind. I deny that Benjamin, the 11th tribe, magically disappeared when the Assyrians took two tribes captive, leaving Judah as the only Emmanuel. It's also somewhere between bad interpretation of Tanakh, and bad taste, Ben, to say that "God is with" only Judah. Our God is with all the tribes. Jesus is the true Emmanuel, however, and is GOD WITH US.

I deny that Judah wasn't eating curds and honey and didn't know right from wrong. It is a child who is unable to eat honey. Even today, doctors proscribe against feeding toddlers honey--it's too complex to break down.

I will be away from this account over the holidays and hope to chat again after the Gentile New Year.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Emmanuel is still a singular child in Isaiah 8. Is 8 has to do with the prophet's children.

No, it has not. The Prophet mentions Judah by name as being Emmanuel.

Jesus was a biological child of Judah through Mary AND his adoptive father Joseph. Joseph is of Solomon of David, Mary is of Nathan of David. The NT doesn't "do" things to Jesus, rather the sole way to fulfill both Tanakh prophecies (David's descendant will be Messiah and Lord to be king forever, and Solomon's son will be cut off from the kingship) is to have a child of Solomon (Joseph) who is the titular king adopt a child of David not via Solomon but Nathan, who is David's. Thus, a king who is Davidic but not Solomonic but with ALL the legal and Tanakh rights to the throne (oldest child of King Joseph).

You have all the right in the world to deny or to believe any thing you please. True that 10% of the Israelite, especially Levites escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South. (Isaiah 6:13) and also mentioned by Josephus in his book "The Wars of the Jews." This happened during 130 years between the taken away of Israel to Assyria and when the Babylonians took Judah for 70 years. The point is that the Lord would never allow again two people or two kingdoms as it was before: Israel and Judah. (Psalm 78:67-70) So, only one People aka Judah became the sole owner of the whole Land of Israel. (Ezekiel 37:22)

I deny that Judah wasn't eating curds and honey and didn't know right from wrong. It is a child who is unable to eat honey. Even today, doctors proscribe against feeding toddlers honey--it's too complex to break down.

Tribal inheritance could neither come down through the mother nor through adoption. That's a paradox because, you want to back your cake and eat it too. It does not go that way.

I deny the nonsense that the Assyrian captivity was a complete, 100% captivity of all persons. No ruling empire would empty a land but would leave workers behind. I deny that Benjamin, the 11th tribe, magically disappeared when the Assyrians took two tribes captive, leaving Judah as the only Emmanuel. It's also somewhere between bad interpretation of Tanakh, and bad taste, Ben, to say that "God is with" only Judah. Our God is with all the tribes. Jesus is the true Emmanuel, however, and is GOD WITH US.

Here, the problem is that you are being too literal with a prophetical statement.

I will be away from this account over the holidays and hope to chat again after the Gentile New Year.

And you will be welcome and, in the meantime, have a good one!

 

[John D. Brey]

I don't believe there is evidence to support this. I do believe much of prophecy is symbolic.

. . . With the proviso that it's understood we're talking about Moses being a type, a trope, or emblematic of God the Father, we have so much evidence that it's perhaps the fact that we have so much of it that we can't see it, like a source of light too bright to be seen:

And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

Exodus 14:21.​

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. . . And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Genesis 1:2-9.​

Genesis 1:2 says that the ruach (translated "spirit") of God moved over the waters and they divided and gathered to let the dry land appear. In Exodus 14:21, Moses stretches his hand over the waters and the Lord causes the sea to separate by means of the same ruach (here translated "wind") found in Genesis 1:2.



John

 

[Muffled]

. . . With the proviso that it's understood we're talking about Moses being a type, a trope, or emblematic of God the Father, we have so much evidence that it's perhaps the fact that we have so much of it that we can't see it, like a source of light too bright to be seen:

And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

Exodus 14:21.​

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. . . And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Genesis 1:2-9.​

Genesis 1:2 says that the ruach (translated "spirit") of God moved over the waters and they divided and gathered to let the dry land appear. In Exodus 14:21, Moses stretches his hand over the waters and the Lord causes the sea to separate by means of the same ruach (here translated "wind") found in Genesis 1:2.



John

I believe if God can work through an ***, it does not mean an *** is emblematic of God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it has not. The Prophet mentions Judah by name as being Emmanuel.

I’ve already pointed to the folly of believing that all Judah wasn’t old enough to discern good from evil or digest honey, which postings you’ve ignored.

Tribal inheritance could neither come down through the mother nor through adoption. That's a paradox because, you want to back your cake and eat it too. It does not go that way.

The adopted child in this case, being the eldest child, would have the full rights and inheritance. Jesus was an adopted child of Mary of David, not a Gentile child or stepchild.

Here, the problem is that you are being too literal with a prophetical statement.

Please provide evidence from Tanakh where I can grow to understand how I should not take God at His Word . . . “Hear now the non-literal Word of the Lord” is not something I’ve found in Tanakh. I’ve found rather that God tells prophets when He is making analogies, similes, etc. “Now the two X’s you saw represent Y and Z. . . “ there is none of that in the passage under discussion. “Before this CHILD” not “ISRAEL” is old enough to eat honey . . .