Jesus is not God

[IndigoChild5559]

And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely YHWH's anointed[משיח] is before him.
1 Samuel 16:6

משיח = messiah

Many are anointed: kings, priests, prophets.

In 1 Samuel 16, the prophet Samuel is reviewing all of Jesse's sons, knowing that one of them will be anointed King, but not knowing which one. In verse six, he looks at a son that is tall and looks kingly, and says basically, This has got to be the guy. But in verse 7 God tells him not to be deceived by appearances. At any rate, in the end, it is the youngest son, David, who will be anointed King.

So David was a messiah, small m. Many were messiahs, small m. Even Cyrus, the pagan, was a messiah, small m.

That is not the same as saying that any of them are THE Messiah, capital M. To confuse any of these with the one and only Messiah who is to come at the end of days would be a serious, serious mistake.

 

[Ebionite]

That is not the same as saying that any of them are THE Messiah, capital M.

Capital letters don't exist in Hebrew. In the Hebrew text hamashayach (the messiah) appears in reference to anointed priests. The reference in Daniel 9:25-26 doesn't use the definite article.

 

[firedragon]

Capital letters don't exist in Hebrew. In the Hebrew text hamashayach (the messiah) appears in reference to anointed priests. The reference in Daniel 9:25-26 doesn't use the definite article.

Of course capital letters don’t exist. The explanation was to differentiate between everyone called messiah and The Messiah.

Well, if you wish to think all of those called messiah are all The messiah Jews are still awaiting, or if they were all Gods incarnate or what ever it’s your wish. That would go to all anointed then. Great.

 

[Ebionite]

Of course capital letters don’t exist. The explanation was to differentiate between everyone called messiah and The Messiah.

The context of IndigoChild5559's post was the Hebrew Tanak, where that distinction isn't important.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course capital letters don’t exist. The explanation was to differentiate between everyone called messiah and The Messiah.


Well, if you wish to think all of those called messiah are all The messiah Jews are still awaiting, or if they were all Gods incarnate or what ever it’s your wish. That would go to all anointed then. Great.

There are no God incarnate prophesied in the Old Testament.

 

[firedragon]

There are no God incarnate prophesied in the Old Testament.

Thanks. True. Yet, may i know what you wish to state please? Im asking because i did not say the Old Testament has anything to do with a God-incarnate.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks. True. Yet, may i know what you wish to state please? Im asking because i did not say the Old Testament has anything to do with a God-incarnate.

Then you need to clarify your post:

Of course capital letters don’t exist. The explanation was to differentiate between everyone called messiah and The Messiah.

"Well, if you wish to think all of those called messiah are all The messiah Jews are still awaiting, or if they were all Gods incarnate or whatever it’s your wish. That would go to all anointed then. Great."

Sarcasm?

 

[Ebionite]

There are no God incarnate prophesied in the Old Testament.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14

עמנואל = fellowship/companionship with el

 

[shunyadragon]

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14

עמנואל = fellowship/companionship with el

explain? What are you claiming? Not specific a claim to justify the station of Jesus Christ. Jews of course do not accept the Christian interpretation, and it is their book in their language.

 

[Ebionite]

explain? What are you claiming?

El is sometimes used in reference to divine beings, so Isaiah's prophecy implies that divine beings may interact with mankind.

 

[shunyadragon]

El is sometimes used in reference to divine beings, so Isaiah's prophecy implies that divine beings may interact with mankind.

'Imply' or sometimes ]used in reference' does no mean much. I do not know Hebrew, but I have talked to Jews who are knowledgable, and to them it does not work. In fact in context it fits very well with an interpretation for the time of the scripture.

Relying on 'sometimes used in reference' or 'implies' can put 'El' in the context of polytheistic or henotheistic interpretations of the Old Testament.

 

[Ebionite]

'Imply' or sometimes ]used in reference' does no mean much.

It means that you've got no reason to be so sure of your position that it didn't happen.

I do not know Hebrew, but I have talked to Jews who are knowledgable, and to them it does not work. In fact in context it fits very well with an interpretation for the time of the scripture.

Hearsay. There's no way of testing their knowledge.

Relying on 'sometimes used in reference' or 'implies' can put 'El' in the context of polytheistic or henotheistic interpretations of the Old Testament.

Henotheism is consistent with the first commandment of Exodus 20 against other Elohim and with the references to the plurality of Elohim in Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 3:22.

 

[firedragon]

Then you need to clarify your post:

Of course capital letters don’t exist. The explanation was to differentiate between everyone called messiah and The Messiah.

"Well, if you wish to think all of those called messiah are all The messiah Jews are still awaiting, or if they were all Gods incarnate or whatever it’s your wish. That would go to all anointed then. Great."

Sarcasm?

Brother. Just backtrack a few comments.

Cheers.

 

[shunyadragon]

It means that you've got no reason to be so sure of your position that it didn't happen.

Hearsay. There's no way of testing their knowledge.

Bold is most definitely true.

I do not have to be certain of any position. Uncertainty is the best position when it comes the interpretation of ancient scripture.

Henotheism is consistent with the first commandment of Exodus 20 against other Elohim and with the references to the plurality of Elohim in Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 3:22.

True.

 

[Ebionite]

I do not have to be certain of any position. Uncertainty is the best position when it comes the interpretation of ancient scripture.

True enough, but to then argue as if you're certain is overstating your position...

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Isaiah 7:14-16

The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
Daniel 8:20

Alexander the Great circa 330 BCE?

 

[shunyadragon]

True enough, but to then argue as if you're certain is overstating your position...

No, my argument is you are overstating your position. If you read my posts carefully that is most definitely the case.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Isaiah 7:14-16.

The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
Daniel 8:20

Quoting scripture of questionable multiple interpretations. Again so what?!?!?!!?

Alexander the Great circa 330 BCE?

Maybe, but historically it is not doubted that both Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ existed in about the time the historical references claim, but Divine and supernatural claims of the historical figures is not accepted by historians, which is justified based on the lack of evidence now and in the past,.

 

[Ebionite]

No, my argument is you are overstating your position. If you read my posts carefully that is most definitely the case.

Stop deflecting. Here's what you initially said:

There are no God incarnate prophesied in the Old Testament.

Sounds pretty definite to me. Then you said:

I do not have to be certain of any position. Uncertainty is the best position when it comes the interpretation of ancient scripture.

So if your position isn't based on the interpretation of ancient scripture, then what is it based on?

 

[Ebionite]

No, my argument is you are overstating your position. If you read my posts carefully that is most definitely the case.

Since this isn't supposed to be a debate thread I've created a new one:

Where's the devil?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Capital letters don't exist in Hebrew. In the Hebrew text hamashayach (the messiah) appears in reference to anointed priests. The reference in Daniel 9:25-26 doesn't use the definite article.

You are right. In English we fortunately have capital letters to denote proper nouns. However, you can still get the same from context in Hebrew. There are many messiahs, but only one Messiah that will come at the end of days and rule during the messianic era.

My biggest problem with the Christian understanding of Daniel 9:25-26 is that you guys randomly choose the date you begin the count on, and although everyone agrees that the weeks are not literal, you guys assign a random literal exchange rate. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. It doesn't prove that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[Ebionite]

My biggest problem with the Christian understanding of Daniel 9:25-26 is that you guys randomly choose the date you begin the count on, and although everyone agrees that the weeks are not literal, you guys assign a random literal exchange rate. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. It doesn't prove that Jesus is the Messiah.

What's significant is the covenant and sacrifice:

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease
Daniel 9:27

For this is my blood of the new testament[diatheke], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26:28

diatheke =covenant
The blood of the old covenant was symbolic of the practice and consent of the people. Exodus 24:6-8

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13