JW's 46 Questions to Trinitarians

[calamity]

Realistic interpretations of Jesus:

1. He is a fictional character, a composite of several roaming preachers of the day.

2. He's a real dude who preached but none of the hocus-pocus is true

3. He nor anyone like him ever existed; it's all made up.


Pick one.

 

[RAMOSS]

But did they really see the Holy Spirit as an entirely different person,or a manifestation of God in the world?

Judaism does not.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Judaism does not.

Are you Jewish? If so,please explain your view of "Spirit of God".

 

[RAMOSS]

Are you Jewish? If so,please explain your view of "Spirit of God".

I am Jewish. The 'Holy Spirit' is merely God , and is reference most often when God is in the creative mode. The orthodox codify this into the concept of the Shekhinah. In Hebrew, the term Ruah ha-Kodesh is feminine in form. It is also used for the term for 'divine inspiration'... I am personally skeptical that anybody can show their inspiration is actually 'divine'.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

I am Jewish. The 'Holy Spirit' is merely God , and is reference most often when God is in the creative mode. The orthodox codify this into the concept of the Shekhinah. In Hebrew, the term Ruah ha-Kodesh is feminine in form. It is also used for the term for 'divine inspiration'... I am personally skeptical that anybody can show their inspiration is actually 'divine'.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[calamity]

I am Jewish. The 'Holy Spirit' is merely God , and is reference most often when God is in the creative mode. The orthodox codify this into the concept of the Shekhinah. In Hebrew, the term Ruah ha-Kodesh is feminine in form. It is also used for the term for 'divine inspiration'... I am personally skeptical that anybody can show their inspiration is actually 'divine'.

I can understand why people think creativity is a divine inspiration though. I sometimes feel like I am pulling a solution or a story or even a response to a customer right out of the ether.

I certainly am not consciously coming up with those flashes of brilliance. In fact, I am so used to solutions for difficult problems coming to me from out of the blue, that I often do other things while my brain crunches out the numbers because I know answers are being generated in the background.

 

[Logicman]

He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. -- Is 7:15-16.

The two lands mentioned are Aram ruled by Rezin and Israel ruled by Pekah. If the boy was "eating curds and honey", that meant he was a youngster c 720 BC. Hence,it can't be Jesus. And Immanuel is merely a theophoric name, just like Hezekiah means "Strength of God", but he wasn't able to throw an entire universe together. He barely was able to hold out against Assyria.

Only Isaiah 7:14 was mentioned in Matthew chapter 1 as a prophecy about Jesus, not 7:15-16, etc. So those are not applicable.

There is also the concept of "dual fulfillment" in prophecy, as is explained in the link below.

https://sounddoctrineministries.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/the-dual-fulfillment-of-prophecy/

That being noted, what is interesting to me is that you are unable to identify this very important child in Old Testament Judaism. There was no one named Immanuel that we know of back then. No one born to Ahaz or Isaiah or anyone else that we know of that rose to a level of importance.

While it was not strictly "blaspheny" to claim oneself to be Messiah, the Sadducees -- dependent on Rome's protection and patronage, were rather skittish about peopleclaiming to be sent by God to liberate them. Not to mention, the Jewish concept of Kumrah (making a 'Hedge around the Torah") starts around this time, when laws are interpreted to be even more restrictive than what they actually say. So even a messianic claim could be construed as blasphemy

I don't believe the high priest was incensed about Jesis claiming to be the Messiah as was his claim that he was the Son of God. From Matthew 26:

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy!

Evidently, at that time in history, and quite possibly based on Daniel 7:13-14, there was a belief among the pharisees that the Messiah would also be the Son of God.

 

[RAMOSS]

Only Isaiah 7:14 was mentioned in Matthew chapter 1 as a prophecy about Jesus, not 7:15-16, etc. So those are not applicable.

There is also the concept of "dual fulfillment" in prophecy, as is explained in the link below.

https://sounddoctrineministries.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/the-dual-fulfillment-of-prophecy/

That being noted, what is interesting to me is that you are unable to identify this very important child in Old Testament Judaism. There was no one named Immanuel that we know of back then. No one born to Ahaz or Isaiah or anyone else that we know of that rose to a level of importance.



I don't believe the high priest was incensed about Jesis claiming to be the Messiah as was his claim that he was the Son of God. From Matthew 26:

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy!

Evidently, at that time in history, and quite possibly based on Daniel 7:13-14, there was a belief among the pharisees that the Messiah would also be the Son of God.

This is what is known as 'Reading out of context , mistranslated, to shoe horn a prophecy into place'. If you read it in context, something you are unable to do so, that passage is not about someone 600 years in the future at all. There is also the issue of taking the idiom 'Son of God' out of cultural context. For example, David was a Son of God when he was made King over Israel. In Psalm 2:6-7, it says of David.

6"But I have enthroned My king on Zion, My holy mount."
7I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you.

This means he was favored, and was given a special role by God.. and the idiom was ancient,and well known during that time (among the Hebrews at least)

 

[Logicman]

This is what is known as 'Reading out of context , mistranslated, to shoe horn a prophecy into place'....

Ramoss, you spew this nonsense every time up. Get a new dog.

 

[Gina]

Moderator's Warning:

Closed for review. Do not open a new thread on this topic.