Bography said in this blog: “do the varieties disprove the PRAYER made by Jesus. He was praying, not asserting.”
(see https://messianicjews.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/christianity-refutes-itself/#comment-346 )
So if Jesus was G-d. Why would he need to pray to G-d? Furthermore, did G-d pray to Jesus also? Or was it a one-way relationship between third-god and third-god?
A deeper look at the Real Messianic Jews 
103 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 24, 2010 at 1:56 am
uriyosef
The entire notion of Yeshu praying to God is inane when Christians say he is God. First, as you point out, what is the purpose of God praying to Himself. Then comes into play the notion of logic. If Yeshu prayed to God, it means that he is not God, and he spoke of himself as being lesser than God. This means, mathematically, if Y < G then Y cannot be equal to G. So which is it: Is Y = G or is Y not G? It cannot be both!
November 25, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Joseph
“Then comes into play the notion of logic.”
Logically locusts don’t rain down from Heaven either – what’s your point?
November 25, 2010 at 6:26 pm
uriyosef
Ridiculous analogy. You are admitting that Christianity goes against logic.
November 25, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Joseph
So you’re saying locust-rain is logical?
November 25, 2010 at 7:58 pm
uriyosef
You are using the usual Christian tactic of creating a “rabbit trail” when you don’t have an answer.
November 25, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Joseph
Actually, you didn’t answer my question about logical locusts!
November 25, 2010 at 11:00 pm
yash613
I can answer your question about logic…
Locust-rain is certainly unexpected, but there is nothing illogical about it. It doesn’t happen every day, I agree.
On the other hand, if I said that 1+1+1 = 1, then that’s illogical.
You are a smart kid, Joseph, I’m sure you can see the difference.
November 25, 2010 at 11:08 pm
uriyosef
OK, since you insist, give me the passage (Chapter&Verse) which you claim says that locusts “rain down from Heaven”. I will check the Hebrew to see what the actual text says about the locusts.
November 28, 2010 at 4:47 am
uriyosef
So, Joseph, where is the passage from which you seem to deduce that locusts “rain down from Heaven”? The Hebrew word for locusts, אַרְבֶּה (arBEH) appears in the Hebrew Bible 24 times. I really don’t have the time to look up 24 passages on a treasure hunt for that phrase. Unless you can come up with the passage, I’ll have to conclude that you either got it from a mistranslated version or that you simply made it up.
November 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Joseph
Oh yeah, they didn’t rain down, good point. Still, the point of the plague that it was a miracle. I could substitute the locust-rain idea for the sun standing still for a day, or for barren women giving birth, etc etc – the point remains.
November 28, 2010 at 10:22 pm
uriyosef
Relevant definitions from “The New American Heritage Dictionary”:
logic – Valid reasoning, especially as distinguished from invalid or irrational argumentation.
miracle – An event that appears unexplainable by the laws of natiure and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.
mystery – Something that is not fully understood or that baffles and eludes understanding.
Joseph, somehoe you are attempting to equate these three terms and, as you can see, they are different. So, the bottom line is that you still have not addressed what yash and I have pointed out concerning some aspects of Christian theology.
November 28, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Joseph
So how can a miracle be logical? The point of a miracle is that it defies logic, otherwise it wouldn’t be a miracle, just a happy coincidence.
November 28, 2010 at 10:38 pm
uriyosef
Miracles are neither logical nor illogical. As the definition states, a miracle is something that defies the laws of nature. The laws of nature are not necessarily things that people would consider as logical, unless those people have a superb understanding of the laws of nature. Examples from the field of Physics would be the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. (Yes, I am a physicist…LOL)
November 29, 2010 at 12:02 am
Joseph
“Miracles are neither logical nor illogical. As the definition states, a miracle is something that defies the laws of nature.”
Indeed, which is why the source of miracles – ie Hashem himself – defies the laws of logic in his very essence and nature.
If God’s essence were able to be dissected and analysed as Yash suggests, God could not be the source of logic-defying miracles.
The fact that his being escapes logical descriptions means that his works can also be considered miracles, for who is like Hashem, enthroned on high (Psalm 113:5).
November 29, 2010 at 4:35 am
uriyosef
Joseph, you are contradicting yourself.
God is infinite, period! Since He is infinite there is no way to define Him other than how He defines Himself in the Hebrew Scriptures. He says that He is One and there is no other god beside Him (e.g., Isaiah 42:8. 43:10-11. 45:5-6, 46:9, to name a few). When Christians such as you ascribe to an infinite God the attribute of being a triune godhead, you destroy not only His absolute infinite nature, you also violate His own definition of Himself. The absolute infinity cannot be subdivided into component parts.
November 29, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Joseph
” The absolute infinity cannot be subdivided into component parts.”
Exactly – hence the inseparable unity of the godhead. That is why Paul can write to the Colossians (Col 2v9):
“In Him dwells all the fullness of the godhead”
November 29, 2010 at 7:38 pm
uriyosef
“Exactly – hence the inseparable unity of the godhead.”
So where were Pappa and the Spook when Junior was a fetus in his Mommy’s womb? Was the triune godhead in her womb?
November 29, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Brock
Just poking my head in to say I’m really looking forward to the continution of this discussion! Some months ago I was the only Gentile at a shabbos meal and someone (not me!) brought up the concept of the Trinity (IIRC, the original context was whether Trinitarians could be considered Noachides) and someone else (not me, either) brought up the question of whether the Trinity is like the sefirot. The rabbi then said that none of the children had understood one word of the last ten minutes of the discussion, and he took the conversation back to the week’s parsha. 🙂
I may mix in later, but not tonight.
November 29, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Joseph
Sure – that’s the point!
November 29, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Joseph
“Was the triune godhead in her womb?”
Sure – that’s the point!
November 29, 2010 at 10:20 pm
uriyosef
As an answer to my question: “Was the triune godhead in her womb?”, Joseph wrote: “Sure – that’s the point!”
Really?!?!?! OK, so my next 2 related questions are:
1. When Mommy changed Junior’s dirty diapers, did that include Papa & the Spook?
2. Whatever Mommy found contained in those dirty diapers, was that also the waste of Papa and the Spook?
November 29, 2010 at 10:50 pm
yash613
Brock, I wouldn’t want discussions about the Trinity at my Shabbat Table either, to be honest.
Since Joseph is unrelenting in his avoidance of the original question, I would love to hear if you have one, Brock? Thanks
November 29, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Brock
Oh, I didn’t mind at all, and I didn’t blame him; I’m just easily amused.
I would love to tackle your questions, but I have very limited time this week, and the Trinity really is a complicated subject, especially given that people tend to throw around a lot of terms without understanding that they have (more or less) precise theological meanings. And I really am not a theologian, either.
Also, please keep in mind that I’m a Catholic, so I’m going to be presenting what I know of the Catholic theology of the Trinity, which may not be exactly what Joseph or others at the RPP believe. There are also some differences between the Catholic and Orthodox conceptions of the Trinity (Google ‘filioque’ if you’re interested, but I’m not going to get into that).
Let me just start tonight with the whole ‘mystery’ thing, because I can already see problems about that. ‘Mystery’ in Catholic theological parlance generally denotes a supernatural truth that our human reason cannot fully understand. We may be able to understand some of it (especially if God specifically reveals it to us), but definitely not in all fullness.
The nature of God, for example, is a mystery. We know that He is One God and that He created all things, but His true ultimate nature is so far beyond us that we humans, no matter how smart or spiritual, are never, ever, in this world or any other, going to understand Him totally.
AFAIK, Judaism would agree with that.
Also, I have heard, but have not confirmed, that in the LXX ‘mysterion’ is used to translate the Hebrew ‘sod’.
November 29, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Joseph
Sorry Yash – let me answer:
“So if Jesus was G-d. Why would he need to pray to G-d? Furthermore, did G-d pray to Jesus also? Or was it a one-way relationship between third-god and third-god?”
Jesus prayed to God because – although fully divine, he allowed himself to have some human limitations so that he could be like us. That meant he was spiritually needy as a human, although he was in fact God himself.
I wouldn’t say God prayed to Jesus, as prayer is a specifically human action. As far as I’m aware, angels don’t pray, demons don’t pray, God doesn’t pray, animals don’t pray and fish don’t pray – only those in human form can pray. Prayer is a human form of communication with God. So yes, Jesus prayed to God because that was how he communicated with God. Whilst you couldn’t say God “prayed” to Jesus, he certainly did communicate with Jesus, even speaking messages from Heaven (a rare occurence).
Prayer is never a “one-way relationship” – prayer is the way we communicate with Hashem enthroned on high.
November 29, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Joseph
Sorry Yash – let me answer:
“So if Jesus was G-d. Why would he need to pray to G-d? Furthermore, did G-d pray to Jesus also? Or was it a one-way relationship between third-god and third-god?”
Jesus prayed to God because – although fully divine, he allowed himself to have some human limitations so that he could be like us. That meant he was spiritually needy as a human, although he was in fact God himself.
I wouldn’t say God prayed to Jesus, as prayer is a specifically human action. As far as I’m aware, angels don’t pray, demons don’t pray, God doesn’t pray, animals don’t pray and fish don’t pray – only those in human form can pray. Prayer is a human form of communication with God. So yes, Jesus prayed to God because that was how he communicated with God. Whilst you couldn’t say God “prayed” to Jesus, he certainly did communicate with Jesus, even speaking messages from Heaven (a rare occurence).
Prayer is never a “one-way relationship” – prayer is the way we communicate with Hashem enthroned on high.
November 29, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Joseph
“1. When Mommy changed Junior’s dirty diapers, did that include Papa & the Spook?
2. Whatever Mommy found contained in those dirty diapers, was that also the waste of Papa and the Spook?”
Sure – in that God took upon himself human characteristics and human limitations – including the need for excretion. The imagery shouldn’t shock you, after all God “vomits” people out of the land in Torah. Defecation is actually the more natural means of excretion.
November 30, 2010 at 2:19 am
uriyosef
“The imagery shouldn’t shock you, after all God “vomits” people out of the land in Torah.”
Really?!?!?! I think this is yet another one of those figments of your imagination. Please provide the Chapter&Verse citation where the Torah says this.
November 30, 2010 at 3:04 am
yash613
Congratulations, Joseph!
I am so glad we finally got an answer out of you 🙂
There are two responses that I would like to point in your direction, courtesy of Rabbi Blumenthal.
1. G-d became man??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXCZeFWRV3w
2. Why Jews are so turned off by the trinity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCZHwjbhF0
November 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Joseph
Well – you have the land vomiting them out – this is clearly caused by God. Iit is the power and majesty of the incarnation that God humbled himself for us in this way.
November 30, 2010 at 4:13 pm
uriyosef
“Well – you have the land vomiting them out – this is clearly caused by God.”
So I was right; you made up this one too…LOL
“It is the power and majesty of the incarnation that God humbled himself for us in this way.”
Show me a place in the Hebrew Scriptures, Chapter&Verse) where God tells us that He will incarnate Himself. After all, according to Amos 3:7, He wouldn’t keep that secret from His prophets.
November 30, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Joseph
“Show me a place in the Hebrew Scriptures, Chapter&Verse) where God tells us that He will incarnate Himself”
Well you have your own Bible so it’s a shame you want other people to look things up for you 😉
But alright then:
“the LORD looked and was displeased
that there was no justice.
He saw that there was no one,
he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;
so his own arm achieved salvation for him,
and his own righteousness sustained him.
He put on righteousness as his breastplate,
and the helmet of salvation on his head;
he put on the garments of vengeance
and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak. “
What’s his arm? His head? How can God wear a helmet, a breastplate and a cloak?
How did God’s arm achieve salvation?
Because he allowed a nail to go through it, surely.
November 30, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Joseph
“So I was right; you made up this one too…LOL”
Yes, I mis-remembered and mis-quoted it, rather than making it up.
Remember it is a blog debate, not my PhD thesis! (and we’re both busy people no doubt)
But if I ever do write a PhD I’ll let you proofread it first, Uri 🙂
November 30, 2010 at 9:29 pm
uriyosef
Joseph, I asked for a Chapter&Verse citation, which would have taken much less time to post than this passage from some mistranslated version of the Hebrew Scriptures. My Bible is the Hebrew Bible, not any translated nor mistranslated version of it. So, please provide me with the citation so that I may look it up in the original language and see if it really says what you are inferring.
November 30, 2010 at 9:32 pm
uriyosef
“But if I ever do write a PhD I’ll let you proofread it first, Uri ”
Thanks for the “vote of confidence”. I’ve proof-read a few rather significant documents over the years, so I have a lot of experience in that business… 😉
November 30, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Joseph
Sure – Isaiah 59:16-20:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1059.htm
November 30, 2010 at 11:30 pm
uriyosef
“Sure – Isaiah 59:16-20”
OK, now we’re getting somewhere. First of all, whether you realize it or not, Mechon-Mamre unfortunately uses the JPS(1917) translation. So, first let me tell you a little story about this translation and why Christian missionaries favor it.
The likely reason this translation appeals to Christian missionaries becomes evident upon reading the Preface to more recent JPS editions. For example, the following passage is quoted from Page xvii of the Preface to the JPS (1985) English-only edition titled TANAKH – THE HOLY SCRIPTURES (added emphasis is mine):
“With the rise of Protestantism in Europe, scholars within the movement set themselves the task of making the Bible available in the various vernaculars of the time. By 1526 the first parts of two notable translations began to appear: Martin Luther’s in German and William Tyndale’s in English. The latter, by way of several subsequent revisions, became the King James Version of 1611. The more modern English versions – such as The Holy Scriptures by the American Rabbi Isaac Leeser (1855), the (British) Revised Version (1881-1885), the American Standard Version (1901), the Jewish Publication Society’s The Holy Scriptures (1917), and the (American) Revised Standard Version (1952) – made extensive use of the King James.”
Although the JPS originally had every intention of producing a new English translation of the Hebrew Bible, the ongoing World War 1 (1914-1918) and a lack of financial resources prevented the full project. Instead, the JPS started with the most widely used Christian translation, the KJV, and modified it by replacing the “King’s English” with the American vernacular and correcting the most blatant instances of mistranslations of a Christological nature; yet many mistranslated texts were missed in that process. Consequently, with the exception of these changes, this makes the JPS (1917), in effect, a “clone” of the KJV.
Now that we got this straightened out, let me tackle the passage itself, and I really need to focus on only two Hebrew words in it to show you where you are mistaken.
The first word, וַתּוֹשַׁע, is from v. 16, and the second word, יְשׁוּעָה, is from v. 17. Both words derive from the verb לְהוֹשִׁיעַ, which means “to rescue (from a dangerous or perilous situation, such as warfare)” in it’s many applications in the Hebrew Bible, and NEVER in the Christian sense of “a savior from sin”. So, in light of this explanation, the first word would be correctly translated as “and (it) rescued” (the “it” refers to God’s “arm” in the verse), and the second word would be correctly translated as “(a) rescue” (in the verse it refers to the helmet, “a helmet of rescue”).
So, the JPS(1917) uses “salvation”, just as the KJV does. And here are the two verses from the KJV, which are almost identical to those from the JPS(1917):
Isaiah 59:16-17(KJV) – 16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. 17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.
So, Joseph, don’t get fooled by the word “salvation” here, it means “rescue from danger”, not “saved from sin”.
November 30, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Joseph
Uri I linked there primarily because it had the original Hebrew text there. I’m not interested in the JPS translation, I thought it was useful but I don’t know the bias of the translators.
I’m not particularly interested in the meaning of salvation here (rescue from danger/save from sin) – I think both meanings have their value. Particularly when you consider verse 20, which mention those who turn from sin. It’s actually the tagline of this blog.
However, we’re talking about a God who incarnates himself, and this is the text I draw your attention to.
November 30, 2010 at 11:35 pm
uriyosef
Slight correction of typos in the 6th paragraph above.
The first word, וַתּוֹשַׁע, is from v. 16, and the second word, יְשׁוּעָה, is from v. 17. Both words derive from the verb לְהוֹשִׁיעַ, which means “to rescue (from a dangerous or perilous situation, such as warfare)” in its many applications in the Hebrew Bible, and NEVER in the Christian sense of “to save from sin”.
November 30, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Joseph
Sure – but what was God doing, donning all this armour?
December 1, 2010 at 12:49 am
uriyosef
“what was God doing, donning all this armour?”
Did you ever hear the terms “metaphor” or “figurative”? This is poetic language in which the prophet uses metaphors as a way for us humans, with finite brains, to understand God’s actions.
How can you physically don righteousness as a coat of armor?
How can you physically put on a helmet of rescue?
What physically are garments of vengeance?
What physically is a coat of zeal?
Joseph, the passage you quoted has nothing to do with the incarnation of the Infinite God into a finite body of a man. You really have no clue about what this chapter is all about.
December 1, 2010 at 5:39 am
Joseph
“Joseph, the passage you quoted has nothing to do with the incarnation of the Infinite God into a finite body of a man. You really have no clue about what this chapter is all about.”
Ease up there, Uri!
“How can you physically don righteousness as a coat of armor?
How can you physically put on a helmet of rescue?
What physically are garments of vengeance?
What physically is a coat of zeal?”
Surely this a massive hint of God actually taking human form, by describing divine aspects in human terminology.
“This is poetic language in which the prophet uses metaphors as a way for us humans, with finite brains, to understand God’s actions.”
Indeed. That’s why we speak of God’s incarnation as “the Word become flesh” – all the rich language and powerful concepts God uses physically manifests themselves in Yeshua.
In the Bible, whenever God breathes, watches, or even speaks, this is an “anthromorphism” – God expressing himself to humans in human terms. He is not obliged to do this, for he owes us nothing. It is only natural, therefore, that God should actually take on human form.
Why does the Torah say that Jacob wrestled with God (hence “Isra-el“), despite him having apparently wrestled with a man?
Why does the Torah say God walked in the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve heard him walking in the cool of the day?
December 1, 2010 at 6:05 am
yash613
Good questions, Joseph. How about I answer your questions with more questions?
Could you also say that G-d is a fire, like in Deut 9:3 or 4:24? Should we worship all flames now?
Should we also pray to bears and lions since G-d is described as such in Lamentations 3:10?
Do you really want to open yourself up to those possibilities?
(Also, if G-d really did want to turn Himself into a man, how do we know which man it is? Why just Jesus? Should we give any man the benefit of the doubt if they claim to be G-d? See Charlie: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/a-brief-history-of-charlie-and-the-charolites/ …and before you go down the miracle path, make sure you have watched this video here: https://messianicjews.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/wise-comments/ )
December 1, 2010 at 10:32 am
Joseph
“Do you really want to open yourself up to those possibilities?”
In Exodus 3, God appears both as a fire and as an angel, it does not mean God is fire or God is man – we must not worship either.
However, in the Hebrew Bible, God specifically details what type of man he will be: where he will be born, how he will be born, at what time he will be born, what he will do, and how others will treat him.
That’s how we know Jesus is God incarnate, but yes I accept there were other instances of God appearing as a man or angelic being, such as in Genesis and Exodus as we’ve discussed.
Clearly though it is possible for God to take human form. If he didn’t want us to get the idea that he could, he should never have spoken to us in our language. As soon as God speaks, he is communicating with humans in a “human” way. That doesn’t mean his ways are not also divine, as God can do anything, and he owes us no explanations.
December 2, 2010 at 12:14 am
yash613
Joseph, if G-d were to come down as a man, would He expect us to recognise this man as G-d? If G-d wanted us to recognize men as Him, then wouldn’t He have avoided saying things in the Tanach such as “G-d is not a man”? Especially since you are suggesting that the penalty for not recognising this man as G-d is eternal damnation in hell – we would expect that G-d would make it very very clear to us. And yet, at best, it is extremely unclear.
You haven’t answered my question as to why jesus as opposed to any other man?
December 1, 2010 at 3:21 pm
uriyosef
“Why does the Torah say that Jacob wrestled with God (hence “Isra-el“), despite him having apparently wrestled with a man?”
Yash dealt with your other question; I’ll take this one. Does your Christian “Old Testament” not include the Book of Hoshe’a? Or, maybe you never actually read it except the one favorite missionary so-called “proof text” Hoshe’a 11:1.
Yet, just one chapter after that so-called “proof text” you will find the following passage [I added some names for clarification]:
Hoshe’a 12:4-5 – (4) In the womb, he [Ya’aqov] seized his brother’s [Eisav’s] heel, and with his strength he [Ya’aqov] strove with AN ANGEL.
5. He [Ya’aqov] strove with AN ANGEL and prevailed; he wept and beseeched him; In Bethel he shall find Him, and there He shall speak with us.
So, Joseph, with whom did Ya’aqov wrestle? Do you think that Hoshe’a lied, or that he is a false prophet? Or, perhaps, that you know better than he did?
December 1, 2010 at 3:23 pm
uriyosef
Aside from the above, would you like for me to list for you all the biblical passages where God says He is not a man, and where He also says that He does not change? They seem to be missing from your copy of the Christian “Old Testament”.
December 1, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Joseph
Uri – we agree that God is not a man, nor is God fire.
I am arguing that God can choose to take on the form of a man – this doesn’t stop him from being God.
Thus, I am in full agreement with you when you say God does not change, and God is not a man.
December 1, 2010 at 4:36 pm
uriyosef
Joseph, When God tells us that He’s not a man nor does He change (which includes taking on the form of a man), He does so for a very good reason. Looking like a man and acting like a man can cause people to worship any man – just look at some of the idols of the pagans – and this would be idolatry. Read Deuteronomy 13 and pay close attention to what it teaches – it warns the Jewish people of exactly what took place in the first century CE.
So, no Joseph, God would NEVER even choose to take on the form of a man.
December 1, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Joseph
“So, Joseph, with whom did Ya’aqov wrestle? Do you think that Hoshe’a lied, or that he is a false prophet? Or, perhaps, that you know better than he did?”
You prove my point – God can appear as a man and as an angel.
Maybe Moses was lying when he wrote in Bereshit 32:
וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב, לְבַדּוֹ; וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ, עַד עֲלוֹת הַשָּׁחַר
note the “ish” = אִישׁ
And then in the same passage, Jacob says:
וַיִּקְרָא יַעֲקֹב שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם, פְּנִיאֵל: כִּי-רָאִיתִי אֱלֹהִים פָּנִים אֶל-פָּנִים, וַתִּנָּצֵל נַפְשִׁי
So, two questions:
1) Why did Jacob call the place Peniel? (bearing in mind that he explains “I have seen God face-to-face)
2) Why was Jacob renamed Israel? (bearing in mind the angel tells Jacob that he has wrestled with both God and man).
December 1, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Joseph,
It does not say Jacob wrestled with G-d and a man, and he prevailed. It could say he wrestled with G-d or gods and men (not a man), and he prevailed. Who were all of the men he wrestled?
I say he wrestled the angel of G-d’s presence that has G-d’s name in it. I can’t type out a full explanation because of hand problems, but if you are willing to look at my site under “about G-d: seeing G-d” near the beginning of my book, I think you will find arguments you might not have read before. I suppose you prefer to argue with the world-famous (or at least internet-famous) Uri Yosef, but I have some arguments that you should consider also.
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
December 1, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Joseph
“I say he wrestled the angel of G-d’s presence that has G-d’s name in it. ”
Then Jacob should have been called Isra-malach and not Isra-el.
December 2, 2010 at 12:17 am
yash613
In Exodus 3, God appears both as a fire and as an angel, it does not mean God is fire or God is man – we must not worship either.
And yet, Joseph. You DO worship the man/’god’, Jesus. Why is it ok to worship him?
December 2, 2010 at 1:20 am
Kenneth Greifer
Joseph,
What does Israel mean in Hebrew? You didn’t answer why he was called Israel for wrestling with G-d or gods and men, not a man, and prevailing. Please explain the name and why it says “men”.
Kenneth Greifer
December 2, 2010 at 1:21 am
Kenneth Greifer
Joseph,
Maybe he should have been called Isra-anasheem.
Kenneth Greifer
December 2, 2010 at 2:44 am
yash613
Welcome back Kenneth! Great to have you here and you bring up some fantastic points
December 2, 2010 at 5:29 am
uriyosef
“You prove my point – God can appear as a man and as an angel.
Maybe Moses was lying when he wrote in Bereshit 32:
וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב, לְבַדּוֹ; וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ, עַד עֲלוֹת הַשָּׁחַר
note the “ish” = אִישׁ
And then in the same passage, Jacob says:
וַיִּקְרָא יַעֲקֹב שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם, פְּנִיאֵל: כִּי-רָאִיתִי אֱלֹהִים פָּנִים אֶל-פָּנִים, וַתִּנָּצֵל נַפְשִׁי
So, two questions:
1) Why did Jacob call the place Peniel? (bearing in mind that he explains “I have seen God face-to-face)”
The Hebrew word אֵל (el) is used in the Hebrew Bible in various contexts. It is used as a reference to God, it used as a reference to other gods (idols), and it is also used to refer to something powerful and strong (e.g., Psalms 36:7, 90:11).
Likewise, the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים (elohim) is used in the Hebrew Bible in various contexts. It is used as a reference to God, it is used as a reference to other gods (idols), it is used as a reference to people who represent God (e.g., Mosheh in front of Par’oh [Exod 7:1], and judges [e.g., Exod 22:7,8, Psalms 82:6]), and it is also used to refer to angels (e.g., Psalms 95:3, 96:4, 1Chronicles 16:25).
Finally, the Hebrew word אֲנָשׁים (anashim), which is the plural of אִישׁ (ish), is used in reference to angels (e.g., Genesis 18:2,16,22, 19:5).
Given all these possibilities, and the fact that Hosea 12:4-5 states Ya’aqov wrestled with an angel, it is evident that the אֵל and אֱלֹהִים are not references to God, but rather to an angel.
“2) Why was Jacob renamed Israel? (bearing in mind the angel tells Jacob that he has wrestled with both God and man).”
See answer to 1) regarding wrestling with אֱלֹהִים (elohim = an angel here); and regarding the wrestling with אֲנָשׁים (anashim), men (Hebrew text has the plural, not singular), that refers to Eisav and Lavan.
December 2, 2010 at 10:41 am
Joseph
“Likewise, the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים (elohim) is used in the Hebrew Bible in various contexts. It is used as a reference to God, it is used as a reference to other gods (idols), it is used as a reference to people who represent God (e.g., Mosheh in front of Par’oh [Exod 7:1], and judges [e.g., Exod 22:7,8, Psalms 82:6]), and it is also used to refer to angels (e.g., Psalms 95:3, 96:4, 1Chronicles 16:25).”
So if angels can be equated with “elohim”, what’s your objection to Yeshua being equated with “elohim”?
It seems like your definition of “elohim” could easily apply to Jesus.
December 2, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Joseph,
I guess you forgot to answer me or you don’t want to. That’s ok. Have you ever noticed Deut. 5:4 says G-d spoke to Israel face to face, but Deut. 4:12-15 says they heard a voice , but they saw no form or image. “Face to face” could mean G-d spoke to them in reality and not in a vision or a dream. I have more explanations in my chapter called “about G-d: seeing G-d” if you want to see more information about this.
I guess you might ignore my comment, so I won’t expect an answer.
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
December 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Joseph
“It does not say Jacob wrestled with G-d and a man, and he prevailed. It could say he wrestled with G-d or gods and men (not a man), and he prevailed. Who were all of the men he wrestled?”
Not “or men”, but “and men”.
But these aren’t mentioned! Do you know who they are?
“I say he wrestled the angel of G-d’s presence that has G-d’s name in it”
What was the angel’s name?
If it was Gabriel, Jacob would have been named Isragabriel.
If it was Michael, Jacob would have been named Isramichael.
The angel was El, so Jacob was named Israel – he who wrestled with God.
December 2, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Joseph,
Jacob asked the angel it’s name, and it did not give it’s name. It doesn’t matter really. Exodus 23:20-22 mention the angel with G-d’s name in it. Isaiah 63:9 mentions the angel of G-d’s presence. Deut. 12:5,11, and 21 among other quotes mention G-d putting His name certain places, which I think means His presence. If His name was in an angel, then that angel could be the angel of His presence.
In a way, you could say Jacob saw G-d face to face when he called the place “G-d’s presence” Peniel because he spoke to G-d whose presence was in the angel face to face (in reality, not a dream or vision), and in a way you could say he wrestled G-d, but really the angel with G-d’s presence in it. Do you really believe that someone could beat G-d in a wrestling match?
I think G-d could speak to people directly through this angel without it saying “thus says the L-rd” because G-d was talking through it’s mouth.
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
December 2, 2010 at 4:27 pm
uriyosef
“It seems like your definition of “elohim” could easily apply to Jesus.”
What’s your point? You claim that Yeshu was both divine and human, yet there is no such a creature ever defined or described in the Hebrew Scriptures, neither is the term אֱלֹהִים (elohim) ever used in the Hebrew Bible to describe a “dual creature” (one that is both one being and another being) – it is always used in reference to a “singular” being.
Joseph, I realize how hard you are trying to defend your mistaken belief by claiming that it is based on what the Hebrew Scriptures teach, but really now, all you are doing is trying to force a square peg into a round hole, and that just won’t work.
In the absence of a valid answer to my last question, here are my next two (related) questions to you.
Luke 2:21 speaks of Yeshu being circumcized on the eighth day.
(1) Given your belief in a triune godhead, does this mean that not only Yeshu but also Papa and the Spook were circumcized?
(2) Since you believe that Yeshu is God in human form only (i.e., fully God who looks like a man but without human nature and frailties), the עָרְלָה (orlah), the foreskin, which was removed in the process of circumcision, was a part of the divine nature of Yeshu and was, therefore, also divine. What happened to this piece of the divine? Was it discarded and did it decay, or did it survive somewhere as yet another (a fourth) part of the godhead?
December 2, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Uri Yosef,
The arguments you are using about the circumcision and diaper changing have not worked for two thousand years. Even though I am on the same side, sort of, I think you are using very weak arguments that don’t deal with the quotes in the Hebrew Bible that Joseph bases his beliefs on. I am trying to argue from the Hebrew Bible, and I try my best to avoid arguments about the trinity and baby pooping stuff. Have these arguments ever convinced anyone to change their beliefs?
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
P.S. On Messiah Truth, you can put down my ideas, but here I can put down your arguments without you and your friends censoring me.
December 2, 2010 at 5:02 pm
uriyosef
“But these aren’t mentioned! Do you know who they are?”
Didn’t you read my earlier post. If you read the Book of Genesis as thoroughly as you would have us believe, the two men with whom Ya’aqov contended (the Hebrew verb לִשְׂרוֹת [lisrot] can mean to strugle, to strive, to contend, and even to be a ruler) were Eisav and Lavan.
“What was the angel’s name?”
There are literally countless numbers of angels. Most angels who appear in the many accounts of the Hebrew Bible are not named. Only three angels are named in the Hebrew Bible – Gavri’el, Micha’el, and haSatan (the last one is actually more a title than a name).
December 2, 2010 at 5:22 pm
uriyosef
Kenneth, In case you didn’t get the gist of my approach with Joseph, let me explain it. I am using a combination of arguments. I explain the Hebrew in the original passages to show the problems with the claims by the Christians, and I combine these with demonstations of the absurdity of some of the Christian beliefs about the nature of God.
“Have these arguments ever convinced anyone to change their beliefs?”
As a matter of fact, they have done just that when people start to use their brain and allow some logical reasoning to enter, because Christian beliefs that are claimed to be based on what the Hebrew Scriptures teach are, in fact, absurd and contradictory to what the Hebrew Scriptures teach/
December 2, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Joseph,
I think Israel might not mean one who wrestles with G-d. The angel said he will not still be called Jacob, but Israel, but that did not happen. He was still called Jacob and Israel after that. I think the quote says something like you will not be called Jacob again (still) when you have wrestled with G-d or gods and with men and you have prevailed. I think is a prophetic name about Israel the people in the future someday prevailing over gods and men. I think the name might really mean G-d will rule.
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
December 2, 2010 at 6:26 pm
uriyosef
“The angel said he will not still be called Jacob, but Israel, but that did not happen. He was still called Jacob and Israel after that.”
Kenneth, in Genesis 32:9 Ya’aqov’s name is, in fact, not formally changed since, as you pointed out, he is still called Ya’aqov (exclusively) after that. The actual name change is performed by God a little later on, at Genesis 35:10, after which he is regularly referred to as Yisra’el, and only incidentally referred to as Ya’aqov.
December 3, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Kenneth Greifer
I guess no one is going to answer my arguments about the angel of G-d’s presence and what face to face means.
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
December 3, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Joseph
(1) Given your belief in a triune godhead, does this mean that not only Yeshu but also Papa and the Spook were circumcized?
I’ve already explained to you my take on that! re. Yeshua and his bodily functions. And within Yeshua dwelled the fullness of the deity. (Incidentally the Zohar describes God as having a beard with 13 curls!)
“(2) Since you believe that Yeshu[a] is God in human form only (i.e., fully God who looks like a man but without human nature and frailties), the עָרְלָה (orlah), the foreskin, which was removed in the process of circumcision, was a part of the divine nature of Yeshu and was, therefore, also divine. What happened to this piece of the divine? Was it discarded and did it decay, or did it survive somewhere as yet another (a fourth) part of the godhead?”
That’s silly, I’ve never said every part of his body was divine. Otherwise every time his skin flaked, he would be losing his divinity too. The divinity was the essence of Yeshua = Yeshua’s body itself was not divine, rather Yeshua was divine and he had a human body.
November 25, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Joseph
Ah the mysteries of the Trinity!
I’ll answer your questions when you explain to me in detail the ten sefirot and how they all inter-relate yet form one godhead 😉
November 25, 2010 at 6:26 pm
uriyosef
I am not permitted to teach Qabalah to Gentiles. So you’ll have to look it up somewhere else.
November 25, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Joseph
Well then I’m not permitted to reveal the secrets of the Trinity. So there.
November 25, 2010 at 8:02 pm
uriyosef
The “secrets of the Trinity” are revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures – a triune godhead doesn’t exist…LOL And, btw, the Trinity is not mentioned in the Christian Testament either, so it must REALLY be a secret. Yet, without an oral tradition, every Trinitarian seems to have his or her own idea about what that secret is.
November 25, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Joseph
No it’s a tenfold one instead!
November 25, 2010 at 11:04 pm
yash613
Joseph, I hope you know by now that I am not the kind of guy who likes to ‘win’ a debate. I have established many times that I am a truth seeker.
When I ask a question, and someone has an answer to it, I expect to hear the answer rather than get it immaturely deflected with the kind of games we used to play in primary school “I know you are, but what I am I??”
If you have an answer to my question – then answer it, if you don’t, then just say you don’t.
November 25, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Joseph
My point is – it’s a divine mystery, something which you afford respect to in Judaism anyway. So a divine New Testament mystery shouldn’t seem surprising or illogical either.
November 25, 2010 at 11:24 pm
yash613
I am happy to discuss sefirot with you, I would just like an answer to my question first, if it exists.
I consider ‘Divine Mysteries’ to be a bit of a cop-out, to be honest. If I was presented something in Judaism called a ‘Divine mystery’, I would dig deeper, or ask someone else. I know my Rav has never said anything to me about any mysteries that we are not meant to know, understand, or make any sense of. So yes, I do find it surprising.
November 26, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Joseph
“I know my Rav has never said anything to me about any mysteries that we are not meant to know, understand, or make any sense of.”
Therein lies the difference – your religious mystery is oft concealed to those who aren’t sages, but that doesn’t stop it from being a mystery still – every bit of much as the New Testament has mysteries.
November 28, 2010 at 1:09 am
uriyosef
Hmmm… Yet the Hebrew Scriptures teach us the following:
Amos 3:7 – For the Lord God does nothing unless He has revealed His secret to His servants, the prophets.
One would therefore expect that, if there were such a very important “secret/mystery” as a triune godhead consisting of Papa, Junior, and the Spook, our prophets would have been told about it and, as spokespersons for God, they would have transmitted that information to us in clear and plain language that we can understand.
November 28, 2010 at 3:20 am
yash613
Joseph – there is no religious mystery concealed. I understand why you are trying to insist there is (as a way to avoid answering the initial question in this post that you have not as yet answered), but perhaps you can enlighten of what has been concealed from me?
And if you don’t know what it is – then how do you know it exists? Every thing I have ever asked my Rav (including the sefirot that you mention) he has explained to me candidly without brushing over the details. Do you experience that in your church? If you do, then you should ask your pastor the questions I have posted above. I would love to hear what he says. Thanks
December 10, 2010 at 1:01 pm
bography
Uriyosef, have you heard the one about the shochet who made a very good living; he lived off the tips.
November 28, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Joseph
“And if you don’t know what it is – then how do you know it exists? Every thing I have ever asked my Rav (including the sefirot that you mention) he has explained to me candidly without brushing over the details.”
So then you’d know that the idea of a complex unity of the godhead is very Jewish.
Don’t just take my word for it:
November 29, 2010 at 2:58 am
yash613
Joseph, to the uneducated person, a book like that looks pretty good for your case. The title seems to suggest what you want it to (kinda like how missionaries use the Jewish Bible) however, have you ever read this book?
I personally have not, but if you try and equate the Kabbalistic sefirot to the pagan-christian idea of trinity, then you either dont understand Kabbalah, trinity, or both.
Either way, I am still waiting for you to answer my question….it is right there at the top of the page, and you have now posted 12 comments without actually answering the questions in the post!
Do you have an answer or don’t you?
If you don’t – just say so!
If you do, why won’t you say it? Does the answer not satisfy you? Or does it sound too ‘un-Jewish’?
December 9, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Brock
Right, discussions have been proceeding apace and I’m still very short of time. However, if you don’t mind my responses in slow motion, I’m happy to give my position on these matters.
“I personally have not, but if you try and equate the Kabbalistic sefirot to the pagan-christian idea of trinity, then you either dont understand Kabbalah, trinity, or both.”
Yash, I am very intereseted in knowing what you know about the Trinity, and I mean traditional Trinitarian theology. You’re implying you know plenty about it, but this post started with references to “third-god and third-god” – yet this idea is explicitly against orthodox Trinitarian theology. Were you just being rhetorically rude or are you unaware of traditional Christian doctrine on the Trinity?
December 9, 2010 at 11:15 pm
yash613
Brock,
I am not a Christian Theologian, nor a Catholic which seems to be the team you bat for. So our understanding of matters are not really going to line up either way.
Here is a very simple difference, which while simple in nature, exemplify a major difference between sefirot and the trinity:
Jesus is a part of the trinity. People pray to Jesus.
Gevurah is a part of the sefirot. No one prays to ‘Gevurah’, its a non-sequitur.
Make sense?
December 10, 2010 at 12:09 am
Brock
“I am not a Christian Theologian, nor a Catholic which seems to be the team you bat for. So our understanding of matters are not really going to line up either way.”
Agreement is not required for understanding. If you don’t understand what Christians actually believe about the Trinity, how can you hope to argue against it?
Although there appear to be some parallels, and although I am interested in learning more about kabbalah, I myself am not claiming that the sefirot are exactly analogous to the Trinity, so you needn’t bother debunking that idea to me.
December 10, 2010 at 12:14 am
yash613
Brock, in all honesty – I have no interest in proving anything to you, or arguing with you at all.
Christian/Catholic theology doesn’t excite me nor interest me in the slightest. Please don’t be offended by this, its just something I care little about. (In the same way I care little about cricket although it is like a religion to others).
December 10, 2010 at 12:55 pm
bography
Hey Yash, don’t hit my religion for a six.
December 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Brock
“Christian/Catholic theology doesn’t excite me nor interest me in the slightest.”
“So if Jesus was G-d. Why would he need to pray to G-d? Furthermore, did G-d pray to Jesus also? Or was it a one-way relationship between third-god and third-god?” <– questions about Christian theology
Why on earth are you asking questions about Christian theology, and then claiming you’re not interested in Christian theology?
December 12, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Brock,
It is stupid for Jewish people to argue about the trinity being illogical because one person can’t pray to another person of the trinity or whatever arguments they use. The only arguments that matter are in the Hebrew Bible.Does it describe a trinity or not? Can those quotes be explained in non-trinitarian ways or not? Opinions about the trinity making sense or not don’t matter.
You are wasting your own time discussing the trinity if it never existed in the Hebrew Bible.
Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/
See my article on “about G-d: plural proofs” for more information.
December 12, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Brock
Well, Kenneth, you don’t understand much about traditional Christian beliefs about the Trinity, either.
“The only arguments that matter are in the Hebrew Bible.Does it describe a trinity or not? Can those quotes be explained in non-trinitarian ways or not?”
Are you aware that Christianity has traditionally taught that while the nature of the Trinity may be foreshadowed and hinted at in the Hebrew scriptures, that this doctrine was a revelation of the New Covenant?
In fact, the general opinion amongst most Christians is that God intentionally kept His Trinitarian nature unrevealed until after the fact that He is One God had been hammered home for couple of thousand years or so, because its premature revelation would indeed be a temptation to polytheistic misunderstandings.
I didn’t read very much of “about G-d: plural proofs” because the first two sentences attributed to Christians one heresy, one ambiguity, and one entirely incorrect assertion. That’s a lot for two sentences, so I won’t waste my time.
December 12, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Brock,
If I said something wrong, then please let me know. I can’t learn if you don’t tell me.
Kenneth Greifer
December 12, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Uri Yosef
Brock wrote:
“In fact, the general opinion amongst most Christians is that God intentionally kept His Trinitarian nature unrevealed until after the fact that He is One God had been hammered home for couple of thousand years or so, because its premature revelation would indeed be a temptation to polytheistic misunderstandings.”
Brock,
If that, indeed, is the general opinion amongst most Christains, then it further demonstrates how they ignore most of their Christian “Old Testament” and pay heed only to those so-called “proof texts” on which they base their beliefs. Here is one of those significant passages they apparently ignore:
Amos 3:7 – For the Lord God does nothing unless He has revealed His secret to His servants, the prophets.
The job of the true prophets of Israel was to reveal God’s “secrets” to the people – the record of which we have today, the Hebrew Scriptures. So, the various claims by Christians about mysteries and intentional non-revelations by God to His people really don’t fly, unless they are willing to consider that Amos was not a true prophet of Israel and that God lied to his servants, the prophets.
December 12, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Brock
Kenneth, if you’re serious, I’ll take the time. (Although this will have to by bit by bit – as I mentioned previously, I am short of time at the moment.)
1. “Christianity says that G-d is made up of three parts…” That’s the heresy. Traditional Christian doctrine insists that God has no parts and is absolutely simple.
2. “… or three individual identities.” Ambiguous. You get points because, interpreted as colloquial English, this description of the Trinity might be getting somewhere near what a Christian theologian means by the Trinity, but it’s hard to say unless I know what you mean by ‘individual’ and ‘identity’. (I should add here that had you used the usual theological term ‘person’, I still wouldn’t be sure that you knew the correct theological meaning, because it’s different than the colloquial English meaning today.)
3. “Their main proof is one of the words for G-d in Hebrew (spelled alef lamed hay yud mem) because it is a plural word that can also mean ‘gods’.” That particular fact is not even close to “their main proof”; as I’ve already said, traditional Christianity generally holds that the trinuity of God was foreshadowed but not revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, and for a good reason.
December 12, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Brock,
You don’t have to give me a 100 page explanation of the trinity because that is a controversial subject to Christians who spent many years debating the subject until they settled on what is the accepted explanation now. Since you believe it is a mystery (I assume), then you might say that man-made explanations are not necessarily from G-d who I don’t think is a trinity anyway.
I think you expected me to give the currently accepted Christian explanation of the trinity in a few lines at the beginning of my book, but really people have whole books to explain what they believe the trinity is, and I am not going to go into that detail.
You did not like the first few lines of my book, so you stopped. I could read the first two lines of the New Testament and say this is a bunch of lies too and stop reading it. I don’t think you should read my book because your beliefs are not really based that much on the Hebrew Bible anyway.
I prefer to base my beliefs on what the Hebrew Bible says and not on what Christians tell me G-d is, so you have given me enough of an explanation of the trinity thankyou.
Kenneth Greifer
December 12, 2010 at 10:43 pm
yash613
“Why on earth are you asking questions about Christian theology, and then claiming you’re not interested in Christian theology?”
Good point Brock. I guess I wasn’t clear that those questions were more sophistry than interest.
December 15, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Brock
At least you’re honest about it – when presented with side-by-side quotes. You declined to answer directly when I asked if you were being rhetorically rude.
But how boringly pointless!
It does make it a little ironic that you and Kenneth complain about MJs ceasing discussions, given that when a discussion you started doesn’t conform to your favourite talking points, you yourselves are going silent.
And you’re admitting that you have effectively no interest in any discussion of actual Trinitarian theology, only in presenting your own straw-man version of it that you can easily knock down.
I’m really disappointed with both of you.
December 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Brock,
You want to discuss the trinity that you say is not in the Hebrew Bible, so why should I want to do that? First you would have to prove that the New Testament is legitimate somehow. Why should I accept the New Testament as true so that I should believe what it says about G-d? If the trinity is a new belief that some new prophets taught, then I need a reason to trust that they were prophets.
Kenneth Greifer
December 15, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Brock
“You want to discuss the trinity that you say is not in the Hebrew Bible, so why should I want to do that?”
Maybe you don’t want to, but Yash originally posted theological questions about the doctrine of the Trinity, not questions about the basis for belief in it. I began an answer, based on what educated Christians actually believe about the Trinity, and suddenly nobody’s interested.
“First you would have to prove that the New Testament is legitimate somehow. Why should I accept the New Testament as true so that I should believe what it says about G-d? If the trinity is a new belief that some new prophets taught, then I need a reason to trust that they were prophets.”
Correct.
December 12, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Kenneth Greifer
Brock,
About the trinity being hinted at in the Hebrew Bible. If you want to believe that it was a secret until the New Covenant came out, then that is your right, but that argument is not very believable to Jewish people.
Kenneth Greifer
December 12, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Brock
I understand perfectly that acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is logically dependent on acceptance of other Christian doctrines and that one would not expect a Jew simply to believe this doctrine upon its mere assertion by a Christian.
However, I would hope that you recognize that God can and does reveal new things about Himself that He had not revealed previously.
And that is relevant to your point as well, Uri: Christians believe that Jesus (among other things) was also a prophet of Israel. We have no problem with Amos 3:7.
December 12, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Uri Yosef
“And that is relevant to your point as well, Uri: Christians believe that Jesus (among other things) was also a prophet of Israel. We have no problem with Amos 3:7.”
Then why stop with Jesus? There was Mohammad in the 7th century CE – the prophet of Islam, and Joseph Smith in the 19th – the prophet of Mormonism. Do you accept the notion that God continued to reveal new things to them?
December 15, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Brock
Every religious community has its own criteria of who and what consists of valid new revelation and/or valid authority. In fact, the disagreements over these issues is one of the main markers of different religious communities, and they can be debated in great detail.
My point here, however, is merely that Jews accept the notion of new prophets, as it’s quite clear that Jews themselves accepted new revelation from different prophets at various points in time.
Therefore, although we may disagree that Jesus was a prophet
December 15, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Brock
Never mind that last sentence – I hit ‘post’ before finishing my edits.