Friday, February 12, 2016

Should the Jewish People Have Expected a Divine Messiah?

It's not uncommon for modern Orthodox Jews to assert that the idea of a Divine Messiah goes completely against Scripture.

But is there really no basis in Scripture for a Divine Messiah?

Let's look at few passages and find out.


Perhaps a good place to start is with the Book of Daniel where, after describing the white-haired "Ancient of Days" it describes yet another Divine figure:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.  He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed,” Daniel 7:13-14

The Rabbinic interpretation of this passage is that this "son of man" is the Messiah:

“Rabbi Alexandri said: Rabbi Joshua Ben Levi pointed out a contradiction. It is written, "in its time" [will the Messiah come], whilst it is also written, "I [the Lord] will hasten it"! – If they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not [he will come] at the due time… Rabbi Alexandri said: Rabbi Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, "And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven" (Daniel 7:13); whilst [elsewhere] it is written, "[behold, thy king cometh unto thee…] lowly, riding upon an ass" (Zechariah 9:9)! – If they are meritorious, [he will come] "with the clouds of heaven"; if not, "lowly and riding upon an ass"” BT, Sanhedrin, 98a.
Now for the interesting part:  the Rabbinic interpretation also says that this "son of man" is a manifestation of HaShem.  In Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Bahodesh (see note at bottom), it is explained that the plural "thrones" in Daniel 7:9 should not be construed as two powers in Heaven but rather as conveying the idea that the same G-d can have various manifestations (e.g. as a young man of war or as an old man).  The upshot:  there is a Rabbinic basis for viewing the "Son of Man" as both Messiah and G-d Himself.


The Messiah was to suffer and die:
“ I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.  My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.  For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.  I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.  They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture,” Psalm 22:14-18  (see also Isaiah 53)
And then be resurrected:

“For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption,” Psalm 16:10
 Destined to be King of Israel because He is the "Son of God":

“Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.  I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” Psalm 2:6,7


This Kingly Messiah is called "the Mighty God":

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace,” Isaiah 9:6
And this term "Mighty God" is a title that applies only to G-d Himself:

“A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God,” Isaiah 10:21


This Kingly Messiah first had to come in humble fashion:

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey,” Zech. 9:9
But will one day be recognized as G-d Himself:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me [note: the speaker here is HaShem], the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son,” Zechariah 12:10

The evidence has been there all along!  Yeshua is present throughout the Torah!  : )




“I am the Lord, you God (ADONAI Elohekha)” (Ex. 20:2).
Why is this said?
     For this reason.  At the sea he [God] appeared (to them) as a mighty hero (gibbor) doing battle, as it is said:  ‘The Lord is a man of war” (Ex. 15:3).
     At Sinai he appeared (to them) as an old man (zaqen) full of mercy, as it is said:  “And they saw the God of Israel, etc.” (Ex. 24:10).  And of the time after they had been redeemed, what does it say?  “And the like of the very heaven for clearness” (ibid.).  Again it says:  “I beheld till thrones were placed” (Dan. 7:9).  And it also says:  “A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him, etc.” (Dan. 7:10).
     (Scripture, therefore,) would not let the nations of the world have an excuse for saying that there are two powers (shetei rashuyyot), but declares:  “I am the Lord, your God” (Ex. 20:2) –
     I am he who was in Egypt and I am he who was at the sea.
     I am he who was at Sinai.
     I am he who was in the past and I am he who will be in the future.
     I am he who is in this world and I am he who will be in the world to come, as it is said:  “See now that I, even I, am he, etc.” (Deut. 32:39).  And it says:  “Even to old age I am the same”  (Isa. 46:4).  And it says:  “Thus said the Lord, the King of Israel, and his redeemer, the Lord of Hosts (ADONAI tzeva’ot):  I am the first, and I am the last” (Isa. 44:6).  And it says:  “Who has wrought and done it?  He that called the generations from the beginning.  I, the Lord, who am the first, etc. [and with the last I am as well]” (Isa. 41:4).
     R. Nathan says:  “From here one can give an answer to the heretics (minim) who say: ‘There are two powers (shetei rashuyyot).’  For when the Holy One, blessed be he, stood up and exclaimed:  ‘I am the Lord, your God’ (Ex. 20:2), was there any one who stood up to protest against him?
     If you should say that it was done in secret—has it not been said:  “I have not spoken in secret, etc.” (Isa. 45:19)?  “I said not to the seed of Jacob” (ibid.), (that is), to these (alone) will I give it.  Rather, “they sought me in the desert” (ibid.).  Did I not give it in broad daylight (pangas)?  And thus it says:  “I the Lord  speak righteousness, I declare things that are right” (ibid.),” Schafer, The Jewish Jesus, pg. 57, quoting from Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Bahodesh


  1. Daniel 7:13-14... I am scared, literal beast are running in the street!

    Psalm 22:14-18 I don't recall David having his hands and feed dug (Not pierce). Have you ever heard (Like a lion?) I am sure you did but worth mentioning that this psalm has nothing to do with the messiah!

    Psalm 16:10. I don't see Jesus saying "I say to the Lord, “You are my Lord; apart from you I have no good thing.”"
    Apart from you god, who is also myself, I have nothing good!

    Psalm 2:6,7 Jesus never ruled over all the earth! Lets talk about it when he actually does it.

    Isaiah 7 starts with Rezin, then Isaiah 9:10 says

    And the Lord strengthened the adversaries of Rezin over him, and his enemies He shall incite.

    And the tense is present (has been born), not future.

    Isaiah 10:21 Yes Israel turns to G-d, not to Jesus :)

    Zech. 9:9 You mean two donkeys as Clint Eastwood? Read the context, it talks about war and a victorious king!

    “The Lord will save the dwellings of Judah first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem’s inhabitants may not be greater than that of Judah. 8 On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord going before them. 9 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.

    This again look like war Peter...

  2. Is that what you mean Gene, Full of holes?

  3. Well said, tradition can be blinding at times, but if one will consider even the possibility, it is not hard to see or to come to a different conclusion. Good luck with these boys, they have their mind made up.

  4. "Son of man (בן אדם)" means HUMAN BEING in Hebrew, not God! lol Ezekiel is called a son of man throughout the book of Ezekiel. He wasn't a god, lol. Unbelievable!

    Daniel says "one *like* a son of man (human being) going to the `Athiq Yomin". What the hell does that prove!? Unbelievable!

    In my discussion with "Carlos", I call him out on his quote of Psalm 22: "Psalm 22 does not, in any way, state that the Messiah would be tortured to death. See how you take a beautiful prayer of King David and twist it into something it is not. You should be ashamed to read such idiocy into these holy verses."

    Remi's reply suffices for the rest, I just wanted to add a few comments in there. Shame on you, Peter, you should know better than to quote statements of the Sages which don't at all say anything about them believing in a man-god messiah, and then saying "see, they believe in a man-god messiah". Shame on you.

    Why would one of the Sages who ascended into Heaven with two others be called "Aher (אחר)" meaning "another" after he became a heretic after that trip until later on when he repented? Because ד and ר look almost the same, yet if you read "...HaShem is one (אחד)" by making the ד a ר, then you get "...HaShem is another", as if to say there is another besides Him. That's why they called him "Another" after he became a heretic for a period of time. So yeah, they wouldn't have said the messiah was a man-god, you idiot. Sorry for the name calling, I usually don't do it, but this post is extremely idiotic and I just can't refrain...

    1. Btw, Aher (or Acher if you mispronounce ח), became a heretic temporarily because he saw magnificent angels and went insane. As I said, and it is important to note, he later repented. Rabbi `Aqiva was the one of the three who made it out unscathed and enlightened.

    2. A. Michael,

      RE: "He wasn't a god, lol. Unbelievable!"

      So in Daniel 7, there are plural thrones, one for the Ancient of Days, one for the Son of Man. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael references these 2 thrones and references how the heretics would say that these 2 thrones must mean that there are 2 powers in heaven. The Rabbinic response to these heretics is that, while there are 2 thrones, it should not be construed that there are 2 powers in heaven but rather there is 1 single G-d who can make multiple manifestations. So the Rabbis are arguing that the Son of Man is one of the many manifestations of HaShem.

      Now, you scoffed at the view that the Son of Man is G-d Himself. But since this view is taught by the Rabbis, you are really scoffing at them.

      By the way, this view, the view that the Son of Man is Divine, is a far older view than this medieval notion taught by Rambam that HaShem cannot take a human form. In the early days, the Rabbis had no problem with the various appearances of G-d in human form in the Torah.

      So laugh all you want but no that you are laughing at authoritative Rabbinic teachings.



    3. "So the Rabbis are arguing that the Son of Man is one of the many manifestations of HaShem."

      Hilarious. No, that's YOU and the rest of the Christendom arguing.

    4. Yeah, nice try Peter. We know you agree with those Rabbis.

    5. Beware of consensus.
      -Rabbi Daniel Lapin

    6. "Beware of fake quotes on the internet". Rabbi Akiva

    7. Peter said: "So in Daniel 7, there are plural thrones, one for the Ancient of Days, one for the Son of Man. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael references these 2 thrones and references how the heretics would say that these 2 thrones must mean that there are 2 powers in heaven. The Rabbinic response to these heretics is that, while there are 2 thrones, it should not be construed that there are 2 powers in heaven but rather there is 1 single G-d who can make multiple manifestations. So the Rabbis are arguing that the Son of Man is one of the many manifestations of HaShem."

      I just read this in the course of my studies last night. It just so happens I learned this, the Aramaic text, Ibn Ezra, Metzudat David, Metzudat Tzion, and of course Rashi. I read them all on all these verses. You know the two pillars mean?

      One pillar is for HaShem judging the nations, and the other is for "tzedaka", righteousness or charity, to Israel. The Human Being (son of man, ben adam) is the Messiah who comes before HaShem to carry out both of these decrees.

      Peter also said: "Now, you scoffed at the view that the Son of Man is G-d Himself. But since this view is taught by the Rabbis, you are really scoffing at them."

      The Sages never said anywhere and obviously not in the text you quoted that God is the "son of man"! It's not there, you read it into there when it says NOTHING about it!
      Son of man in Hebrew means human being. And in Exodus, it states that "God is not a man...NOR A SON OF MAN", the same Hebrew phrase "ben adam", son of adam/man, i.e. human being, is used there to say that which God is obviously not. Do you get it yet? Again, unbelievable!

      -A. Michael

    8. Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings (ben adam), who cannot save.

    9. Jason wrote: Beware of consensus.
      -Rabbi Daniel Lapin

      Gene wrote: "Beware of fake quotes on the internet". Rabbi Akiva


      (Mine wasn't from the Internet.)

  5. Forget it. They believe that it is Jesus because the non testament said so! The high priest never saw Jesus coming back on the clouds of heaven. This is a false prophecy and you worship a false prophet!

    1. This website has been seized by anti-missionary blasphemers of the Lord Jesus Christ. Too bad, the inane repetition of Gene and Remi makes it increasingly irrelevant to readers

    2. Merciless, it's impossible for anyone to "blaspheme" a false god, a dead idol. In fact, to turn the tables on you, for you to call a long dead creature "Lord" is to blaspheme the true G-d.

      And there's only one such G-d - the True G-d of Israel. He has no helpers, no "second persons" next to him. No impostors need apply.

    3. Why can't you skip over our blaspheming comments? Do they convict you too much?

      It also seems like you don't think Peter, Jason, and occasionally Dan do a good enough job against our arguments. They respond to pretty much everything, and they all leave the argument, like us, believing they've won it. Therefore, why not let the readers decide for themselves?

    4. Thanks for the comment Merciful! We are doing a good jobs guys. Let's keep the good work Yĕrubba`al and throw that idol down!

      So because Gideon broke down Baal's altar, they gave him the name Jerub-Baal that day, saying, "Let the lord (baal) contend with him."

    5. Also Merciful, it's Peter's website. The day he asks us to leave, we will (I can't talk for Aaron or Gene but I think they would). But I think it will remove the purpose of the comments section...

    6. Gene, you surely can't be so simple as that. The word "blasphemy" is a perfectly valid term for anyone of any religious persuasion to use. It's relative to the context in which it being used. "Blasphemy" to a Hindu is desecration of their gods, false gods or not. To a Christian, desecration of Jesus, false or not. To a Jew, desecration of Abraham's God, false or not. To a Muslim, desecration of Allah, false or not. To say "It's impossible to blaspheme [any god except the one I believe in]" is to argue silly semantics and to insist that linguistics serves your religious opinions - anyone who may disagree, from any other viewpoint, can't use the word "blasphemy." Any Christian who says "Hindus can't use the word 'blaspheme' because they're not talking about Jesus" is a laughingstock, as is any Jew who insists that Christians can't use the term because they *are* talking about Jesus.

      Secondly, with regard to Merciful's comment, the blog isn't getting shut down. Let's not think so highly of ourselves, eh? Although Peter has in the past stated his stance against moderating comments, what you guys devoting so many hours of your lives to this blog is going to push toward is merely comment moderation, not shutdown. Personally, I think he should have started some months ago, and I would urge him to it - because Merciful is right, the constant din of "Sinner sinner sinner sinner sinner!" is ridiculous, and damages the quality of the site overall.

    7. I admire Peter for not screening comments and putting up with all of ours, which might be quite annoying at times.

    8. Anonymous,

      We're doing the Lord's work by voicing the opinion of the Torah, unadulterated and freely. Do you know how many Jews were even killed for speaking out against Christianity in the not so distant past? Even sometimes for just being Jews, which is an act of defiance towards the Christian desire to convert all Jews, who have been totally defiant over the centuries since the cancer of Christianity spread throughout the western world.

      Peter may censor comments, but I applaud him for not doing that and for mostly responding to what we write, as annoying as that might be sometimes. As I told Merciful above, if you're so strong in the faith of Jesus, there's no need to be swayed by discussion in the comments. The only reason someone would fear this is fear of losing people to the truth of what we speak. Maybe you're responding because you see many of our points are irrefutable, and that when it comes to the facts, the belief in Jesus is being dismantled too well.

    9. Whether his stance is "admirable" is secondary, in my opinion. The constant back-and-forth repetition of the same-old, same-old, by angry people with nothing better to do than to stack up ten or twenty comments on every post needs to be filtered - not so much to censor your dissenting opinions as to improve the ratio of useful content to the pages and pages of "static" through which users must scroll.

      Moreover, if the goal is, as Remi says, explicitly shut down the site, moderation seems appropriate. Any website, about any topic at all, that doesn't at least cut down on *overt attempts to destroy it,* when such a mechanism is readily available, is kind of asking for its own destruction.

    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    11. Anonymous said: "Whether his stance is "admirable" is secondary, in my opinion."

      As was it secondary in my argument. My main argument is that you must find it threatening to your beliefs to have opposition, even when the opposition is mostly regularly answered by Peter and like minded readers. You totally ignoring this point indicates to me that it's the truth.

      You said: "by angry people"

      I'm not angry, where did you get this idea from? You must not understand that Jews argue, and it doesn't require anger or hatred, unlike what it must mean to you. This is reflected in Israeli society. Here, the guy who honks his horn at you on the road will easily be the same one to get out of his car and help you when he sees your car break down. From my experience with most people in America, they smile at you, but are likely to bad mouth you behind your back, or you find out later they don't like you. That's dishonesty.

      You said: "Moreover, if the goal is, as Remi says, explicitly shut down the site"

      He didn't say that. Either you misread what he said, or you're intentionally trying to make a false argument, or you have no reading comprehension. You tell me which one it is.

    12. I do not want that website to close. But those who come should be able to know the other side of the medal. I loved it when Christians come to Gene's blog. Why do you want aeberybody to agree with you? One of the reason why I came in the first place is because there is not many "christians" in Gene's blog right now. It's silly if everybody agrees! I think X is right. Me too! Me too, Me three!

      Quite boring. Only sects only accept their point of view, like the JW. If you cannot be challenge, then what's the point to have a blog. Isn't it what too many people are trying to do? Everybody should agree with me! Even if I do not think that I will make you change your mind, it's good to know others opinion. And if someone comes to this website, he has the two sides and can decide fairly which makes more sense.

    13. "Gene, you surely can't be so simple as that. The word "blasphemy" is a perfectly valid term for anyone of any religious persuasion to use. It's relative to the context in which it being used."

      Anonymous, since the owner of this site claims that he "follows Torah" and that he himself is "not part of Christianity", my accusation of blasphemy is based on Torah and on the only faith that observes it - Judaism. What other religions consider to be "blasphemy" is totally irrelevant.

  6. Here is why Christian cannot be neutral about Jesus:

    I would like to first say that most Christian accept Jesus as the Messiah before checking his claims of messiah-ship. Mostly they are raised as Christian or accept Jesus as their Lord and saviour before studying the Bible. Thus, they accept the authority of the New Testament first before they examine if Jesus is really the messiah.

    And what does the New testament say:

    Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. Luke 17:1-2

    So basically, it is better to commit suicide than doubting Jesus as the messiah.

    And what is the consequence of such a denial, on top of being seen as a Judas by your family and friends who all believe in Jesus?
    But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

    Hell. (And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night)

    Furthermore, 1 John 2:2 says "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son."

    So if you deny Jesus, as per the new testament, you are an anti-Christ.

    Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 1John 4:1-2

    The new testament tells you you can test if someone is from G-d, does not allows one to test Jesus claims.

    What else can I say? That as per the New Testament, it's all about believing. You have eternal life if you believe in the son. As Jesus said " "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me." John 20:29 And "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 18:3.

    So a Christian is not ask to wonder if Jesus is really the messiah, but to accept it. If you have doubt, you should fight those doubts! So the Christian put the cart before the horse by accepting Jesus as god and saviour before really checking if he is as James 1 say "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. "

    So the good Christian who doubt if a prophecy is really fulfil must believe and have faith that Jesus is who he says he is, in Jesus name on top of that!

    "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him" Proverbs 18:3

    Finally let examine Exodus 23:8 ""Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the innocent."

    This does not talk about Jesus, of course. But Christians who accept Jesus as their lord and saviour have the reward of Heaven as a bribe. On top of that they have the punishment of hell if they refuse Jesus as their saviour. This is, in a way equivalent to a bribe, thus they have been blinded and cannot see the Hebrew Scripture for what it really say.

    1. Exactly right. What is ironic, is that there are xtians/messianics who say that you have to prove it from the Tanakh first, to be a "good Berean". Yet, they reject the whole context of the Tanakh and take little bits and pieces totally out of context both textually, culturally, and religiously, and read it as if some European or American in recent history wrote it, and make it mesh with their views.

      Christians have virtually NO complete understanding of Tanakh, whatsoever. They don't understand the time periods, who was talking to who, they don't understand the events around prophecies - nothing. Not only that, they don't read commentaries or the statements of the Sages about verses and whole sections of Torah, because they say they were written by "rabbis who reject our idol", etc. Therefore, they have NO understanding and couldn't even if they were able to read anything in context and with understanding - which they're almost never able to do.

      -A. Michael

  7. Peter, and the rest of the believers, I would suggest not to brag. After all to the likes of Remi and Gene, we are wating for Yeshua to come for over 200 years. To them the burden is on us. Maybe we should listen to them?

    1. This is a great point, Dan. This is why I try to steer conversations toward the manuscripts. At the end of the day, both camps have manuscripts, translations, and traditions (in that order).

      First, the youngest apostolic manuscripts are 500 to 1000 years older than the oldest rabbinic manuscripts. If apostolic writings are subject to legend and scribal edits, how much more the rabbinic!

      Second, what do the apostolic writings say in the original languages? How Gentiles used these Jewish writings to persecute Jews is irrelevant. Likewise the accusation that Yeshua is a carved image (e.g. idol). Even the trinity doctrine, like all doctrine, is an effort by man to explain certain passages.

      Third, if you accept the authenticity of these ancient apostolic texts, Yeshua was seen alive after death and an appeal is made to the eyewitnesses. If one denies the apostolic account how much more the rabbinic.

      There is no requirement to accept trinitarianism or idol-making in the apostolic writings. These are merely red herrings intended to make their author feel better about the rabbinic writings.

    2. Dan,
      Aaron likens עבודה זרה to the word idolatry.

      Does this phrase occur in Torah or just the rabbinic writings? If so, where? (I don't have a way to search the Bible for Hebrew words.)


    3. (Does עבודה זרה occur anywhere in the Tanakh?)

    4. We HAVE listened.
      Jesus/man-god/idol/sinner/ personal insult, repeat
      Jesus/man-god/idol/sinner/ personal insult, repeat
      Jesus/man-god/idol/sinner/ personal insult, repeat
      Jesus/man-god/idol/sinner/personal insult, repeat
      ....droning on.....

  8. (I don't have a way to search the Bible for Hebrew words.)

    Anybody has?

    That would be great! blueletterbible is limited.

  9. I searched, and the exact term עבודה זרה ("foreign worship") isn't found in Tanakh, because it is a Rabbinic term that sums up all idolatrous worship, used for ease of understanding.

    In Tanakh, idols and false gods are called אלילים (false gods), אלהים אחרים (other gods), עצבים (roughly translated as "depressions", "anxieties"), בושות (shames), and likely others, these are all I can think of off the top of my head.

    Jason's attempt to say idolatry isn't mentioned in Tanakh is stupid and deceitful because עבודה זרה sums up the worship of anything other than HaShem, bar none. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. This term sums up ALL those terms in the Tanakh and more.

    Interestingly, names like "Ish-ba`al" (man of ba`al) were changed to "Ish-bosheth" (man of shame), since idolatry, worshiping anything other than HaShem alone, is the ultimate shame. You can see this throughout the Tanakh, especially Samuel and Kings.

    1. It would be helpful to look some of these terms up in context so we can see how they apply to the apostolic writings. Any verse references are appreciated. If you continue to assume sarcasm or playing stupid from me, you're mistaken. Honest pursuit of information here. The charge of idolatry, however you mean the term, is serious.

    2. If you think God is human or finite in any way, shape, or form, that "god" isn't the actual God who created the universe.

    3. Still would like to see the correlation between the AW and idolatry as seen in the Torah (verse references please).

      I owe you a response on John 1:1, which I assume you're referring to with that last comment.

  10. So you're saying you'd like verse references in both the "AW" and Tanakh?

    1. I'm not looking for anything exhaustive, but to start, an example or two of where AW verses conflict with Tanakh verses. I read Gene's blog post on this but don't remember anything irrefutable. Thanks for this and for the Hebrew searches you did.

    2. Jason, it's not very hard - do you own homework. Look up ANY instances in the Greek Testament where Jesus is given worship or where he was called G-d or where it was implied that he is a deity in any way or places he says that without him no one can know G-d or that only he knows G-d or that his murder somehow forgives sins or where he forgives sins himself, and you'll see conflicts with Tanakh.

    3. Almost forgot - and look up the false prophecies made by Jesus too.

    4. Yeah, it's very easy, and obvious. I just took John 1 at random, because I remember reading it as a Messianic years ago and remembering what it contained.

      I wouldn't mind taking a deeper look at sources in each, though.

    5. You can also translate... and the word was a god.

      Revelation 22. Jesus says "I am the alpha and the omega" But again, some say that it's G-d speaking.

      And Romans says that every knees will bow to Jesus. Compare to Isaiah that say every knees will bow to G-d.

      If Jesus is not G-d, then you break the first commandment. If Jesus is G-d, then you don't, but it's nowhere found in the Tanakh. I think, as per the NT it's arguable both way, but I think none can stand if you compare with the Hebrew Bible.

  11. Hey Gene,
    I put together a quick Python (2.7) script to save you some time. Just trying to help :)

    1. Thanks, Pete. (Your Mac has Python 2.7 by default.)

  12. print "Please answer the following questions about what the missionary said:"

    print "Was a rabbi mentioned? (Y/N)"
    rabbi = raw_input("> ")

    if rabbi == "Y":
    print "Is the rabbi orthodox?"
    orthodox = raw_input("> ")

    print "Was there a challenge to English grammar or word choice? (Y/N)"
    english = raw_input("> ")

    print "Is a specific verse requested?"
    specific = raw_input("> ")

    print "Could this be considered a general inquiry? (Y/N)"
    general = raw_input("> ")

    if rabbi == "Y" and orthodox == "Y":
    rabbi2 = "That quote misrepresents the rabbi's views... "

    if rabbi == "Y" and orthodox == "N":
    rabbi2 = "That rabbi teaches against the virtual consensus on that text... "

    if english == "Y":
    english2 = "The Tanakh is written in Hebrew not English... "

    if specific == "Y":
    specific2 = "The Tanakh teaches that Christianity is idolatry... "

    if general == "Y":
    general2 = "Read this for the answer: "

    if rabbi != "Y" and english != "Y" and specific !="Y" and general !="Y":
    print "If you want to carve an idol or pretend not be bowing to a man-god, I can't help you. "
    print rabbi2 + english2 + specific2 + general2

    1. (Blogspot hosed the spacing, so if you actually try to run that you'll need to indent the line(s) under if and else statements 4 spaces.)

    2. That's good, Jason, quite clever:)

    3. Thanks, Gene. What are friends for? :)

  13. I am not Jewish, but I have heard great scholars assert that the rabbis of old (before Rashi) believed that the Messiah would have a divine identity. The Targums identity the "Word" as being the entity through which the world was created. Why then was there such a change of mind since Rashi? It seems to me that since then Jewish authorities collectively decided to believe in a non-divine Messiah as a bold sign of rejecting Yeshua. How would you guys see it?

    1. Fabio,

      I think you hit the nail on the head. It all comes down to a rejection of Yeshua. They changed their Theology to accommodate a rejection of Yeshua.



    2. Thanks for the prompt answer!!