Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ben_Masada said:
Hi Reen12. What do you make of Exodus 4:22,23? "Israel is My Son;
**so let My Son go, that he may serve Me." Jesus was Jewish. That’s how Jesus was son of God: As part of the People of Israel. That’s also how I take "seeing the Son of God as seeing the Father. And how coming to the Father only through him or anyone else of the People of Israel. **
Click to expand...
OK, Ben, thank you for your reply. I appreciate it.
What is your view on the following, please:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat of the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [John 6:53]

How do you evaluate this statement - on the part of Yeshua of Nazareth, given the
words of Leviticus 7: 26-27:

Wherever you dwell, you shall not partake of any blood, be it of bird or of animal.
Every person who partakes of any blood shall be cut off from his people.

Do I understand correctly that the blood of an animal is said to contain the
life of the animal? How does this reality then compare with Yeshua saying:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat of the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [John 6:53]​

If blood = life, according to the law of* kashrut*, then Yeshua was commanding
that blood be consumed to have union with the very life of godhead.
And when he announced this, he made no reference to blood - under the
appearance of wine.

How would you address this issue, Ben? The Christian author, C.S.Lewis,
said that any explanation of Jesus that tried to depict him as simply a
good man did not comport with the things that Jesus said, on occassion.
Lewis stated that one of two realities was the case:.
Either Jesus of Nazareth was God, or he was a lunatic.
No third option would fit the facts.

Even the relatives of Yeshua thought him out of his mind.

When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” [Mark 3: 21]

What rabbi would have spoken of drinking blood?
Commanding a complete reversal of the law of kashrut,
and a violation of same.

Thanks, Ben.

reen12
 
**What interpretation about the infallibility of the Pope could sound a more logical interpretation, Catholic or Protestant? Of course, Catholic. Is the Tanach Catholic or Jewish? Obviously Jewish. What could be a more logical interpretation, Catholic or Jewish? You must know the answer. **

So then you admit that no proof which we site could change your mind because you only accept Jewish interpretation which obviously will agree with your own.

e.g. you disagree that Emmanuel meaning “God with us” could possibly mean the Incarnation of God. While I completely understand that taking that way would cause you a crisis of faith, are you even open to the possibility that Jesus is Emmanuel, “God with us”?

The answer is no for three reasons: First, Jesus was not the only one to be sacrificed on the cross. Thousands were, according to Josephus. Excuse me but what is the logic in this
Second, incarnation of God as a man is totally impossible in Judaism. But is it totally imposible ,because God is neither Jewish nor Christian.
Jesus was Jewish. And third, the text in Isaiah 8:8 relates the term “Immanuel” to Judah, making it impossible for anyone to assume that he could be Jesus. how can Immanuel refer to Judah, if Judah is not God?

Can you pray and ask God to reveal to you"if" Jesus is Emmanuel and be completely open to the answer? After all if Jesus is Emmanuel then He is a co-religionist that you would want to know. If he is Yeshua ha Meshiah wouldn’t you like to know that. Some Jews prior to Jesus were looking for an individual who was the Messiah, didn’t they?

**Prayer won’t help in this case, but only research in the Word of God. Especially prayers made with the intent to make God change His mind as if He were like a man. That was not not my meaning or intent at all. Pray to the G_d of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob and ask him to reveal the truth to you, not to change his mind
The idea that Jesus was Immanuel did not come to you by prayer but by Church teaching.**That is correct but that does not mean that it is wrong.

So in a sense both Israel and Jesus could be Messiah. I am only asking, can you be entirely open to the possibility and can you pray to learn the truth? If you have already made up your mind that Jesu could not be Messiah, then it will not be revealed to you & all our arguments will continue to fall on deaf ears!

**Reason is the word. You cannot appeal to the feelings of a man who has a mind of his own. The way to his heart is through his mind. So then Abraham’s God appealed to Abrahams faculty of reason when he asked him to sacrifice his son, of course not! Is your reason superior to God’s knowledge. It was not to your ‘feelings’ I was appealing. Feelings can deceive but can God deceive? Are do you believe that God revelas himself only through reason. If so then you deny most of the miracles of the Old Testament, e.g. crossing of the Red Sea, crossing of the Jordan, Elsha’s multiplication of loaves, God picking David as king. All of these and many more defy reason & logic at least at the time. **
 
reen12 said:
OK, Ben, thank you for your reply. I appreciate it.
What is your view on the following, please:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat of the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [John 6:53]

How do you evaluate this statement - on the part of Yeshua of Nazareth, given the
words of Leviticus 7: 26-27:

Wherever you dwell, you shall not partake of any blood, be it of bird or of animal.
Every person who partakes of any blood shall be cut off from his people.

Do I understand correctly that the blood of an animal is said to contain the
life of the animal? How does this reality then compare with Yeshua saying:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat of the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [John 6:53]​

If blood = life, according to the law of* kashrut*, then Yeshua was commanding
that blood be consumed to have union with the very life of godhead.
And when he announced this, he made no reference to blood - under the
appearance of wine.

How would you address this issue, Ben? The Christian author, C.S.Lewis,
said that any explanation of Jesus that tried to depict him as simply a
good man did not comport with the things that Jesus said, on occassion.
Lewis stated that one of two realities was the case:.
Either Jesus of Nazareth was God, or he was a lunatic.
No third option would fit the facts.

Even the relatives of Yeshua thought him out of his mind.

When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” [Mark 3: 21]

What rabbi would have spoken of drinking blood?
Commanding a complete reversal of the law of kashrut,
and a violation of same.

Thanks, Ben.

reen12
Click to expand...
**Reen12, as a result of my researches in the NT, I have come to the conclusion that only 20 percent is real of coming from and about Jesus. The other 80 percent are made out of interpolations either by the gospel writers or the Church. And either for lack of knowledge of Jewish culture and customs by the Gentiles who wrote the gospels or as a result of Church conspiracy.

In other words, Jesus was Jewish, and a Jew would never speak about the need to eat of his flesh and to drink of his blood to have life. Therefore, Jesus was no lunatic. Lunatic were those who came up with that idea.**
 
Ben_Masada said:
It means you don’t know what you are talking about. If you cannot answer a simple straightforward question, I think it would be much easier to say you don’t know.
Click to expand...
You seem not to understand whatImeant, my friend.
1- The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was not defined before Jesus came into the world.
2-I am saying that it was not possible to define that doctrine because it wasn’t obvious to the Jews even though it was there.
3- I read a Jewish story where Moses was allowed to to foresee Rabbi Akiva’s teaching which the latter said was derived from the Law, and Moses was astonished to learn it, because it was not among the things he had understood until then that could be derived from the Torah! The teaching in question couldn’t be defined before Rabbi Akiva arrived.
4- If such was the case with Rabbi Akiva, it certainly can be the case with other teachings, could it not?
5- I think you are prejudiced against the Catholic Church because that teaching was discovered after the Jewish authorities had banned all those who declared themselves to be disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they called the Messiah. It already was present in Gen. 1, 1-3, though not obviously… also in Ps. 110, thoughyou have refused its possibility…
 
Now in another thread I challenged you to find me one verse from the TaNaKH in favour of Sola Scriptura, Ben, and your reply was Deuteronmy 4, 2.
I then read that verse at home, and all it said was not to add to, nor remove from, the TEACHINGS from God. Not the “Scriptures”, but the “teachings from God”.
Being a Jew, you must have learned at one point that in Jewish Tradition it is taught (quite consistently) that there is the “Written Torah” AND the “Oral Torah”, and also that it is a grave thing if a Jew denied the very existence of the “Oral Torah”. You must have learned it at some point in your life, or haven’t you?
 
Lapell said:
Now in another thread I challenged you to find me one verse from the TaNaKH in favour of Sola Scriptura, Ben, and your reply was Deuteronmy 4, 2.
I then read that verse at home, and all it said was not to add to, nor remove from, the TEACHINGS from God. Not the “Scriptures”, but the “teachings from God”.
Being a Jew, you must have learned at one point that in Jewish Tradition it is taught (quite consistently) that there is the “Written Torah” AND the “Oral Torah”, and also that it is a grave thing if a Jew denied the very existence of the “Oral Torah”. You must have learned it at some point in your life, or haven’t you?
Click to expand...
You should be able to understand that if we are not supposed to add or to subtruct from what is written, it means "sola escritura. And with regards to Written and Oral Torah, I don’t reject Oral Torah, but my loyalty is to Written Torah. Mine is Biblical Judaism.
 
Ben_Masada said:
You should be able to understand that if we are not supposed to add or to subtruct from what is written, it means "sola escritura. And with regards to Written and Oral Torah, I don’t reject Oral Torah, but my loyalty is to Written Torah. Mine is Biblical Judaism.
Click to expand...
Does Tradition (Oral Torah) necessarily add to or subtract from what is written (Scriptures)?
 
Ben_Masada said:
**Reen12, as a result of my researches in the NT, I have come to the conclusion that only 20 percent is real of coming from and about Jesus. The other 80 percent are made out of interpolations either by the gospel writers or the Church. And either for lack of knowledge of Jewish culture and customs by the Gentiles who wrote the gospels or as a result of Church conspiracy.

In other words, Jesus was Jewish, and a Jew would never speak about the need to eat of his flesh and to drink of his blood to have life. Therefore, Jesus was no lunatic. Lunatic were those who came up with that idea.**
Click to expand...
Ben, While you have a point about the blood, when you consider that Jesus was a substitute for the Paschal Lamb eating His flesh in the form of bread makes perfect sense and since He is the Paschal lamb, he is a substituete for the Paschal feast which includes the drinking of wine which would not be considered unclean under the law of kasrut. Of course you are unable to accept this but it explains His use of the bread & wine as symbols & substitutes for his actual body & blood the eating of which would be unacceptable to Jew or gentile.
 
alan1941 said:
Ben, While you have a point about the blood, when you consider that Jesus was a substitute for the Paschal Lamb eating His flesh in the form of bread makes perfect sense and since He is the Paschal lamb, he is a substituete for the Paschal feast which includes the drinking of wine which would not be considered unclean under the law of kasrut. Of course you are unable to accept this but it explains His use of the bread & wine as symbols & substitutes for his actual body & blood the eating of which would be unacceptable to Jew or gentile.
Click to expand...
And on wht basis do you you discern that He did not really say what we believe He said?
 
Ben_Masada said:
You should be able to understand that if we are not supposed to add or to subtruct from what is written, it means "sola escritura. And with regards to Written and Oral Torah, I don’t reject Oral Torah, but my loyalty is to Written Torah. Mine is Biblical Judaism.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that all the branches of Judaism would be Biblical. Is there another kind of Judaism?
 
w_stewart said:
Does Tradition (Oral Torah) necessarily add to or subtract from what is written (Scriptures)?
Click to expand...
What you have not to add to nor substract from is not just the Scriptures. It’s… any of the teachings from God! That’s what the… Scriptures say!
 
Ben_Masada said:
You should be able to understand that if we are not supposed to add or to subtruct from what is written, it means "sola escritura. And with regards to Written and Oral Torah, I don’t reject Oral Torah, but my loyalty is to Written Torah. Mine is Biblical Judaism.
Click to expand...
Escritura is not necessarily everything that God taught. Some of what God taught might have been left out… and some of it may still be hidden in the Escritura, like not totally known by even the most learned of men.
 
Ben_Masada said:
You should be able to understand that if we are not supposed to add or to subtruct from what is written, it means "sola escritura. And with regards to Written and Oral Torah, I don’t reject Oral Torah, but my loyalty is to Written Torah. Mine is Biblical Judaism.
Click to expand...
It does not say not to add to or substract from “what is written”. Ben, but from “the teachings of God”. Lo que Dios ha ense~nado, ino solo escrito!
 
Ben_Masada said:
How could three be one when the three are not the same? I am a trinity. I am a son, a father and a grandfather. It is not the best analogy for the trinity but it is a trinity
Luke says that Jesus appeared to the disciples for 40 days after his suffering on the cross, showing them in many convincing ways that he was alive in flesh and bone, eating and drinking just like any other man, until the day he was taken up to heaven.

When or where did he leave that body behind? Catholics have told me that Jesus as the second person of the Trinity in Heaven exhibits the wounds of the crucifixion. How can he exhibit the wounds of the crucifixion without a body? If the other two persons of the Trinity are without body, how could the three be one? So, there is no such a thing as unity in trinity. I am sorry to rain on your parade.

Ben: :)🙂
Click to expand...
 
w_stewart said:
Does Tradition (Oral Torah) necessarily add to or subtract from what is written (Scriptures)?
Click to expand...
No, the Oral Torah neither adds nor subtracts from the Written Torah. It builds fences around the commandments. Just as Jesus did with the commandments not to kill and not to commit adultery. (Mat. 5:21,22, 27,28)
 
alan1941 said:
Ben, While you have a point about the blood, when you consider that Jesus was a substitute for the Paschal Lamb eating His flesh in the form of bread makes perfect sense and since He is the Paschal lamb, he is a substituete for the Paschal feast which includes the drinking of wine which would not be considered unclean under the law of kasrut. Of course you are unable to accept this but it explains His use of the bread & wine as symbols & substitutes for his actual body & blood the eating of which would be unacceptable to Jew or gentile.
Click to expand...
**Jesus was not the substitute for the Paschal lamb. The substitute for the Pascal lamb was Israel, the Suffering Servant. Then, why Jesus? Do you think he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans? How about the blood of the others? Josephus says that the Romans crucified thousands of Jews in the same manner. Why deny the others and enhance only the crucifixion of Jesus? **
 
Ben_Masada said:
No, the Oral Torah neither adds nor subtracts from the Written Torah. It builds fences around the commandments. Just as Jesus did with the commandments not to kill and not to commit adultery. (Mat. 5:21,22, 27,28)
Click to expand...
My question was rhetorical but nonetheless, I got what I intend to get.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top