• 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!

Messianic Christology

Intojoy

Member
NO IT DOESN'T!

This is about YHVH! And the fact that no man has done these things. In other words it is saying name a man, or his son, who has done these things. None but God can do them.

Pro 30:1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

Pro 30:2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.

Pro 30:3 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.

Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst, tell?

Pro 30:5 Every word of Eloahh is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

*
Amen. Yeshua is Yahweh
 

Intojoy

Member
Christian mistranslations again - trying to make Jewish verses fit a later Christian idea.

Isa 9:5 For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.

Isaiah 9:6 For is born a child, a son given to take the rule/government upon his shoulders; and his name is called Wonderful Adviser, Mighty Warrior, Father of future generations, Ruler/keeper/prince of peace.

Isaiah 9:7 To increase the government/empire and the welfare/safety/peace of the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to strengthen the justice and righteousness, from this time, and to eternity. Zealously YHVH of Hosts will do this.

Note that he is still recording and this is present tense - Things are going to be different this time - FOR - this son has been BORN.

*
And - IT AGAIN - continues on talking about what it is actually about - this war.

Isa 9:11 Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together;

Isa 9:12The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth.

Edit - Forgot to add - I did say I studied this stuff, and kept all of the research. It just takes time for me to find the pertinent information.

I noted you made a reference to - The Branch, - again associating him with Jesus.

Somewhere I have the verses NAMING - The Branch - and it isn't Jesus. I will post that as soon as I find it - after dinner.


*
You're just failing on so many levels here. Gonna call you ingldead
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
You're just failing on so many levels here. Gonna call you ingldead

I get such a kick out of this kind of reply - from people that cannot rebut my information.
rolling_on_the_floor.png


*
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I understand your arguments but the Hebrew plural "you" is used. That's not even debatable.

The sign of the virgin birth goes back to what the hearers would have plainly understood - Gen 3:15.

The singular you is changed to the plural you at that point of Isaiah's dialogue with Ahaz. The reason Ahaz received aid was due to the Davidic Covenant and not because Ahaz was a godly King, he was an idolator.

You're arguments are based in your pre conceived philosophical prejudice and betokens unworthy scholarship as evidenced in the willful ignorance concerning the Hebrew plural you.

LOL! A Jew has already explained his language to you! LOL!

*
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
If you really don't believe in the divine origin of scripture, where has it been changed?

Furthermore buddahead, how is it that the bible has not changed in the last 5-600 years? I don't think it's changed ever. But just to humor you a bit and to take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, just where in the last 1000 years has there been a bungling as buddah's words have been bungled since 600 BC?
If you inspect the original language texts of Christianity (and thus, Judaism), there are literally hundreds of thousands of differences when comparing the various readings across all of the copies, for instance. There is great evidence of change, even among the selection of books for inclusion in the canon, from centuries before Christ, and for centuries after Christ as well. You can even witness differences even among the varied English translations.

The message of Christianity does depend on fidelity to what the Christian god actually said word-for-word, because the end-reward for most of orthodox Christianity (salvation) depends on faith in the message of those words. Since the Christian disciple cannot verify for himself the events and much of the claims which were recorded and upon which he is required to believe, he is dependant even moreso on blind faith. Therefore, things like verification of source, author, transmission, dating, translation, etc. matter a great deal when it comes to Christianity, because one change can alter the object of the Christian's faith, and potentally cause the loss of his end-reward.

On the other hand, the early Buddhist does not depend on the fidelity of the recorded words to the originals or what Buddha actually said word-for-word 2,400 years ago or so, because the end-reward in Buddhism (enlightenment) does not depend on belief, but on personal practice. The Buddhist disciple is expected to test for himself what was recorded, and to practice and trust what works (that is, what he directly knows for himself through personal experience). E.g. It doesn't really matter for us as Buddhists to have faith and believe that the Buddha himself actually taught the Four Noble Truths regarding suffering. It matters far more that we personally understand and know suffering and its resolution directly for ourselves; whether or not the Buddha said those words himself is mostly irrelevant. Therefore, things like source, author, transmission, etc. are decidedly less important to Buddhism, and those qualities are not required.
 
Last edited:

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
NO IT DOESN'T!

This is about YHVH! And the fact that no man has done these things. In other words it is saying name a man, or his son, who has done these things. None but God can do them.

Pro 30:1
The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

Pro 30:2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.

Pro 30:3 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.

Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst, tell?

Pro 30:5 Every word of Eloahh is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

His Son's name is Yeshua

As usual you are misreading the text.

It is basically saying - try - you CAN NOT name a man or his son that can do these things. Only YHVH can do them.

No Jesus in these texts.

EDIT - Forgot to add - that - name a MAN, or his son - should also be a clue that this is not YHVH - or any later Jesus.

They knew the name of their God. They are talking about human men and their human sons - whom CAN NOT do these things.

*
 
Last edited:

Intojoy

Member
If you inspect the original language texts of Christianity (and thus, Judaism), there are literally hundreds of thousands of differences when comparing the various readings across all of the copies, for instance. There is great evidence of change, even among the selection of books for inclusion in the canon, from centuries before Christ, and for centuries after Christ as well. You can even witness differences even among the varied English translations.

The message of Christianity does depend on fidelity to what the Christian god actually said word-for-word, because the end-reward for most of orthodox Christianity (salvation) depends on faith in the message of those words. Since the Christian disciple cannot verify for himself the events and much of the claims which were recorded and upon which he is required to believe, he is dependant even moreso on blind faith. Therefore, things like verification of source, author, transmission, dating, translation, etc. matter a great deal when it comes to Christianity, because one change can alter the object of the Christian's faith, and potentally cause the loss of his end-reward.

On the other hand, the early Buddhist does not depend on the fidelity of the recorded words to the originals or what Buddha actually said word-for-word 2,400 years ago or so, because the end-reward in Buddhism (enlightenment) does not depend on belief, but on personal practice. The Buddhist disciple is expected to test for himself what was recorded, and to practice and trust what works (that is, what he directly knows for himself through personal experience). E.g. It doesn't really matter for us as Buddhists to have faith and believe that the Buddha himself actually taught the Four Noble Truths regarding suffering. It matters far more that we personally understand and know suffering and its resolution directly for ourselves; whether or not the Buddha said those words himself is mostly irrelevant. Therefore, things like source, author, transmission, etc. are decidedly less important to Buddhism, nor are those qualities needed.
No evidence
 

Intojoy

Member
I understand your arguments but the Hebrew plural "you" is used. That's not even debatable.

The sign of the virgin birth goes back to what the hearers would have plainly understood - Gen 3:15.

The singular you is changed to the plural you at that point of Isaiah's dialogue with Ahaz. The reason Ahaz received aid was due to the Davidic Covenant and not because Ahaz was a godly King, he was an idolator.

You're arguments are based in your pre conceived philosophical prejudice and betokens unworthy scholarship as evidenced in the willful ignorance concerning the Hebrew plural you.
^^
 

Timothy Bryce

Active Member
If you really don't believe in the divine origin of scripture, where has it been changed?

Furthermore buddahead, how is it that the bible has not changed in the last 5-600 years? I don't think it's changed ever. But just to humor you a bit and to take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, just where in the last 1000 years has there been a bungling as buddah's words have been bungled since 600 BC?

Wow.

Either this is extremely poor trolling or genuine garbage being displayed pretentiously.

I really hope it's the former.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Would you care to make an actual answer?

The guy on that site started out in Russia, only has a Jewish father, who was accused of being a Nazi spy and so fled.

Your guy did not know Hebrew, - he became Christian at 13, - and later took CHRISTIAN courses in Hebrew, Greek, and theology.

In other words he and his site are Christian, - and he has nothing up on actual Jews that understand Hebrew, - and their own texts.

*
 

Intojoy

Member
Would you care to make an actual answer?

The guy on that site started out in Russia, only has a Jewish father, who was accused of being a Nazi spy and so fled.

Your guy did not know Hebrew, - he became Christian at 13, - and later took CHRISTIAN courses in Hebrew, Greek, and theology.

In other words he and his site are Christian, - and he has nothing up on actual Jews that understand Hebrew, - and their own texts.

*
Dr Fruchtenbaum is a Hebrew scholar, a graduate of NYU and Jerusalem University. Your assessment about his origins are wrong. It's not my fault you have never heard of him.

The plural "you" is used by Isaiah in the virgin birth passage that you are unable to refute. Your anger about this is revealing. Why should anyone take your word on Messianic Christology Ingldead?

I certainly don't accept any of your baseless arguments here. I could take the time in love to look at all the statements you are making at some point God willing. But for time's sake Isaiah 9 is nuff for now.

It is you who has approached this topic with a preconceived philosophical prejudice.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Thank you for that. But where is the pregnant woman? Isaiah is with Shearushuv his son. Dr Fruchtenbaum of Ariel ministries says it goes back to Gen 3.
She's right there. Can't you see her?

I'm sure Dr. Fruchtenbaum is very learned. But he clearly has no justification for his opinion on this outside of his theological view that he needs to fit in the verse.
“And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭7:13-14‬ ‭ASV‬‬
http://bible.com/12/isa.7.13-14.asv

Isaiah switches to the plural you here. I'm told.
Right. He is talking to Ahaz as a descendant of the House of David, which includes many people. So he uses the plural.
A very interesting teaching from Fruchtenbaum is the Mathew 12 passage where Yeshua condemns the generation of Jews (first century only! Not all generations) of his day for committing the unpardonable sin. Nearly 99% of christiandom have resorted to guesswork on this. The evidence of a lack of Jewish scholarship.
i don't think anyone will take it seriously no matter how many gernations of Jews are being condemdned by Matthew, since its in the best interest of the author to create a problem with the villain so that people will follow the new religious leader.

Anyways, to keep it short, Frucht says that in first century Pharisaic Judaism there were certain miracles that the elders taught only Messiah could perform when he comes. In Mt 12 is one of the three messianic miracles, the casting out of a dumb demon.

The Pharisees brought this demoniac to Yeshua as a test case. The response of the people was they questioned "is not this the Son of David". Frucht points out that the elders claim that Yeshua is able to do this miracle only because of Satan and not because he is Messiah. Thus the unpardonable sin is the national rejection of the Messiahship of Yeshua by Israel while he was present, on the basis of demon possession. Frucht points out this judgement is for that generation only, the judgment of the withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom which shall be given to a future generation. And then he points to Hosea 5:15 claiming Yeshua returned to his place in heaven until the nation of Israel confessed their sin.
And Tumah teaches that second century Christendom required its believers to eat porridge made from rendered pig fat and burnt tree bark every Tuesday.
Obviously its true because it supports my theological belief that Christians are horrible cooks.

I realize this is offensive to Jewish people since the name Yeshua has been used to persecute Jews for centuries. But even if you don't believe that the gospels are authentic to the God of Israel at least you can appreciate an interpretation of the writings from a Hebrew scholar like Dr Fruchtenbaum.

Sorry for the long posts.
Its not offensive to me in the slightest, because I find it pathetic so there's nothing to make me feel defensive over.
Being a Hebrew scholar doesn't make the good doctor right. Apparently it just makes it easier for him to fool himself and others.
 
Top