Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (including a recent video by Rabbi Asher Meza)

1. Rabbi B.–“God’s sinlessness is inherent to His very nature – He cannot sin because sin, by definition, means going against His will.”

   In answer to that, I would ask you, then, if God wills something to be so, would He build into it something or anything that is not in keeping with His will and righteousness–His inherent sinlessness? So if God is bringing Messiah, as Scripture clearly states, and if Messiah is the “LORD our righteousness” how can Messiah reflect anything other than what the will of God is? Would God bring a Servant who is unrighteous into the world and say–“Look, here is ‘My’ defintion of what it takes to please me”? Hardly. Why would God hold a man of sin up as the perfect example and Messiah of mankind? I say He wouldn’t, because by both of our definitions there is no unrighteousness in God. If the LORD is going to bring someone as His last act of Salvation for mankind, you can bet he is going to be someone who walks and talks and works according to the LORD’s will and that he will be blamesless and he will be “righteous”, otherwise He would certainly “not” be set up with an everlasting Kingdom. He will perform the will of God while calling on the name of His God.

   Do you know of anyone else to whom the LORD said, “Sit here at My Right Hand until I make your enemies your footstool”? And when, exactly did this “person” get to God’s right hand? From where did he come if not from this earth? It can only be one of two places–either this person was exalted at some point in his life, to the right hand of God, or this person already existed with God and was seated there. Or, it could, in fact, be both. He existed with God before God sent Him and He returned to God as God indicated in the Psalm.

2. We see here in 2 Samuel 22, that David is not speaking of himself, as those things were not true of him that he writes concerning his righteousness. David committed the sin of adultery, covetousness, and murder. It is the righteousness of the ultimate Servant, the death and resurrection of Messiah that David is seeing and praising God for. As far as we know, David never died and was resurrected, he never descended to Sheol and then ascended to God’s right hand:

   2Sa 22:1 And David spoke to the LORD the words of this song on the day when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.

   2Sa 22:2 He said, “The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer,

   2Sa 22:3 my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge, my savior; you save me from violence.

   2Sa 22:4 I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies.

   2Sa 22:5 “For the waves of death encompassed me, the torrents of destruction assailed me;

   2Sa 22:6 the cords of Sheol entangled me; the snares of death confronted me.

   2Sa 22:7 “In my distress I called upon the LORD; to my God I called. From his temple he heard my voice, and my cry came to his ears.

   2Sa 22:8 “Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations of the heavens trembled and quaked, because he was angry.

   2Sa 22:9 Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him.

   2Sa 22:10 He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet.

   2Sa 22:11 He rode on a cherub and flew; he was seen on the wings of the wind.

   2Sa 22:12 He made darkness around him his canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water.

   2Sa 22:13 Out of the brightness before him coals of fire flamed forth.

   2Sa 22:14 The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice.

   2Sa 22:15 And he sent out arrows and scattered them; lightning, and routed them.

   2Sa 22:16 Then the channels of the sea were seen; the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

   2Sa 22:17 –
   “He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters.

   2Sa 22:18 He rescued me from my strong enemy, from those who hated me, for they were too mighty for me.

   2Sa 22:19 They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the LORD was my support.

   2Sa 22:20 He brought me out into a broad place; he rescued me, because he delighted in me.

   2Sa 22:21 “The LORD dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.

   2Sa 22:22 For I have kept the ways of the LORD and have not wickedly departed from my God.
   2Sa 22:23 For all his rules were before me, and from his statutes I did not turn aside.

   2Sa 22:24 I was blameless before him, and I kept myself from guilt.

   2Sa 22:25 And the LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to my cleanness in his sight.

3. Rabbi Yisroel,

   Your 7th point is where you are most mistaken, as you will inevitably discover — either in this world, or in the world to come: Yeshua is the Eternally-Existent Word of God; not a “mere” human — was the snake on the pole Moses erected a snake, or was the snake BRONZE; merely in the “form” of the snake?
   There is a difference between Yeshua [the “bronze serpent”] and sinful humanity [the “serpents” which bit the Israelites, when they complained].

4. Dr. Brown
   To answer your question from post #550. Zechariah 14:9 tells us that on that day the Lord will be one and His name will be one.
   There are two issues here – one is the identity of the “Lord” – you insist that the one who inhabited the body that went by the name Yeshua of Nazareth IS the Lord – our argument is a matter of the identity of the Lord.
   A separate issue is the Lord’s name – what He stands for – is it practicing justice and charity or is it killing Jews under the banner of jihad.
   If The Creator of the world is exalted at the end of the age – to the exclusion of every last one of His creations – and to the exclusion of every last one of the inhabitants of His earth – then My God will have been exalted.
   If it turns out that My God desires that people go to Mecca as opposed to Jerusalem – I will be completely devastated – I will have totally misunderstood the will of my God – but that will remain a matter of God’s name – not a matter of the very identity of God.

5. And what is BRONZE, other than referencing God’s condemnation — the skies and earth turn to BRONZE whenever Deut 28 curses fall on His people (i.e.: the fury of God fell on Christ, the one which the Bronze Serpent represented — humans represented by serpents, since they listened to the serpent, in the garden)?

6. *correction: the earth turns to iron (my apologies)

7. Dan1el
   You asked earlier about our reverance for God’s word. Yes we rever it – not as God but as a gift from God.
   Moses broke the first tablets to demnostrate that nothing finite is intrinsically holy – even if it is a manifestation of God’s word.

8. Rabbi Blumenthal,

   Regardless: the Word, Himself, is not finite.

9. Rabbi Blumenthal,

   Besides, how can you put that spin on Moses’ breaking of the Tablets, arbitrarily, when Moses is later prohibited from entering the Promised Land on the basis of the very same sin — anger?

10. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    Thanks for your response to my question, which does, in fact, surprise me. Are you saying that the God of the Tanakh and the Allah of the Koran are one and the same? Is not this a specific question about the identity of God? Furthermore, would your devastation re: being wrong in terms of the will of God — meaning, how you lived every hour of your life until now — be any less than if you had wrong conceptions about who God is? Really, what you’re saying is no different than what you accuse me of in your earlier post.

    In any case, I concur with this statement of yours: “If The Creator of the world is exalted at the end of the age – to the exclusion of every last one of His creations – and to the exclusion of every last one of the inhabitants of His earth – then My God will have been exalted.” Amen! That is affirmed in Rev 5:13-14, where every created being worships God and the Lamb.

11. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    Wouldn’t it be more in keeping with Scripture to say that Moses allowed the Israelites’ sins to anger him to the point of breaking God’s Commandments — once, when Moses transgressed God’s Commands, and struck the rock, instead of speaking to it, and another time, when He LITERALLY broke the Commands? That is another way to spin it that is more integral with Scriptural story.

12. Rabbi B.,

    Here’s another example of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob being equated with the Angel of God. Israel makes no distinction between the God who was his shepherd and the angel who redeemed him from all evil:

    Gen 48:15 And he blessed Joseph and said, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,

    Gen 48:16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”

13. Dr. Brown
    In response to post # 560

    You ask me if the God of Tanach is the same as Allah of Islam. I am not familiar with Islamic theology so I cannot answer your question – but I get the gist of what you are driving at. If I understood you correctly – you are asking me how I could equate a god who demands that his followers blow themselves up in order to kill innocents – with a God who holds every human life precious to Him.

    Again, I take the liberty of assuming that I understood your question.

    Your question blurs an important distinction – the distinction between idolatry, which relates to the act of worship (and I refer here to the act of self-negation and complete submission that is only appropriate towards the Master of all existence) – and between every other part of our lives before God.

    I will bring two Scriptural concepts forward to support my contention. First – When it comes to idolatry – God did not rely on the agency of Moses or on our ability to interpret His word to teach us this commandment. He chose to teach it to us as a national unit – directly – Himself – before He gave us the first book of Scripture. The Torah highlights this truth in Deuteronomy 4:35 – by saying that we were granted a complete knowledge of this matter – something that is not paralleled with the other commandments. Second – the act of idolatry is consistently portrayed as an act of adultery that violates our covenant with God – also not found with the other commandments.

    It is theoretically possible to come to a complete understanding of God’s will – to have a full depth of understanding into the justice that God desires, a complete grasp of the kindness that God loves, and a full awareness of the holiness that God demands – and still be an idolater.

    It is also possible to get everything wrong – not understand the justice, kindness and holiness that God wants and not be an idolater.

    You see – when God prohibited idolatry – He did not just say “don’t worship the sun and the moon” – but He also said – don’t use anything to represent Me (Deuteronomy 4:15). In other words – even when worshiping the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob – who abhors murder and immorality and who loves kindness and justice – but we direct ourselves towards something from finite existence – it is idolatry. It doesn’t make a difference what we believe about this something – it is still idolatry.

    On the other hand – if we never heard of Abraham Isaac and Jacob – and our sense of God’s will is inaccurate (which it is for every human being – though for some more than for others) – but our worship is directed completely away from all finite existence – towards the Master of all finite existence – then we have not committed spiritual adultery and we are not idolaters.

    Back to your question, I don’t know what Moslems worship – but if their worship is directed away from every finite existence towards the infinite Master of all existence – then when Israel’s God is exalted – they will not be shamed as idolaters.

    In response to the second part of your post – last time I checked – the lamb is created by God – walked God’s earth and breathed His air. I am well aware that we can call finite “infinite”, and call created “Creator”, and call a man “divine” – and attribute all of these to “mystery”.
    This is not Jacob’s portion – Jeremiah 10:16, Isaiah 45:19

    Re

14. Dr. Brown
    Every version of the Medrash that you quoted in post #504 that I was able to find – does not use the words “My entire essence”. Which version are you using?

15. Rabbi Yisroel,

    Obviously, the title “Lamb of God” is a “function”/role (not that He is a literal, actual lamb), causing the LORD to pass over; not allowing “the destroyer” (whose job is to kill all the “firstborn” — i.e.: those who are merely flesh-born, of Adam; who are not born “AGAIN” {a second time} “of water and Spirit” [John 4]).

    “Blessed are those who take part in the first resurrection; over these, the second death has no power” [Rev 20:6]).

    “For our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ:” [1 Co 5:7].

    Lamb of God is a function.

16. Rabbi Yisroel,

    I.E.: Your comment proved that you had “missed” the point.

17. Dr. Brown,

    You wrote earlier that calling christianity idolatrous “…is a…slap in the face of millions of God’s people, who through Yeshua have turned from idolatry to the lifelong service of the Creator and King of the universe”

    I believe – correct me if I’m wrong – that you consider the christianty practiced by Roman Catholics and most Eastern Orthodox denominations to be at least marginally if not overtly idolatrous.

    What do you make of the fact that far many more millions (I believe Catholics and Orthodox, even today, outnumber Protestants by about 2 – 1) of God’s people who – through Yeshua – have turned from their ancient pagan idolatry to an even more isidious form of Jesus-oriented idolatry which even by your standards only masqueades as worship of the one true creator of the universe?

    I’m sure you will tell me that they are not really christians…and I’m sure those many more numerous millions of God’s people would consider that a slap in the face.

18. Yehuda,

    I would definitely say there are idolatrous elements (to say the least) in their worship, for sure, so yes, you could bring that charge against me that I’m slapping millions of professing Christians in the face with that accusation. As to the exact numbers and proportions, that’s debatable, but yes, you are correct in what you write. I accept that!

19. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    I”ll respond to your different posts in one. The version I was using was the citation of the midrash in the ArtScroll Siddur. What is the exact text that you have in Hebrew? I assume we’re thinking of the same wording, but let’s be sure. What’s the midrashic citation?

    As for Allah, I wasn’t thinking about suicide bombers but rather how he is revealed in the Koran — similar in many ways to Yahweh but clearly different. That was my point. Suffice it to say that you would be as devastated as I would be to learn that Allah was the one true God — it certainly is not the case — and it has to do with God’s true essence along with His will.

    Re: the Lamb, that’s why I put the citation in the text. You would doubtless read it as a created being and I would not.

    Last night, I read through Deut 4 once again, on my knees, in communion with my Father, asking Him again if I was missing anything in the text in the terms of the points you are trying to make. I can only say with God Himself as my witness that I live in full obedience to His commands there against idolatry (recognizing, of course, that there are subtle idolatries of the heart — hidden pride and the like — that could be there without my knowledge and for which I constantly seek His mercy and transforming grace).

    Again, please do feel free to continue to interact with others on these points but I will do my best to get back to our earlier discussion and your last lengthy post.

20. Dr. Brown

    Thank you for your candid response.

    1) Then I’m not sure why you consider the “slap in the face charge” to be especially significant in the context of this discussion since it would seem to be implicit in the nature of theological disagreement.

    2) I also suspect – and I admit that I don’t know enough about the subject for it to be more than a suspicion – that based on the very subtle ways you have circumscribed your theology in the course if this dialogue, that a sigificant percentage of professing protestants would also run afoul of your your theological parameters as well. For example, you have objected more than once to the formulation “Jesus was God in the flesh”

    What percentage of average middle American protestants do you think would have a problem with that statement?

21. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    From #506

    You never answered these questions from #506:

    1. “So, as you said, you are to worship Him every waking moment — how, then, are you to read Daniel 7, if you say you cannot imagine His Likeness (not that He doesn’t have an Image or Likeness; just that you believe in imageless worship of the God Who definitely has an Image)?”

    2. Is there a death penalty involved (meaning, is it truly enforced; if not, it is proven that your idea that only “imageless” worship of God is acceptable) for the imagining of God’s Image while worshipping Him?
    i. You said that you must worship 24/7.
    ii. You said that to imagine His Image is the improper way to worship Him.
    iii. This means that there is NO MOMENT (during your “24/7 worship” of Him) that you are allowed to read Daniel 7, since His Image is found in it.
    iv. If you do read, is this (God-forbid) “sin” of “idolatry”, then, punishable by death (as all idolatry is — under the Law)?
    v. Is Daniel 7 inspired? Does the inspired Scripture (God-forbid) cause the (God-forbid) “sin” of “idolatry” in His people?
    vi. Is there a death penalty for reading Daniel 7, then?
    vii. Is there historical precedent for this penalty?
    viii. Is there some sort of Rabbinic prohibition that you can quote for us, therefore, against reading Daniel 7 (which is part of the TNK, which you call a “Gift”)?
    ix. Is this “Gift of God” (God-forbid), then, a curse?

    3. If the above is not true, then, isn’t your postulation (only imageless worship is acceptable; that “Sinai was the way God taught us to worship Him”; that “Moses worshipped Him as if imageless — which He did not, having seen God’s form {which, I believe was through Yeshua}) disproven?

    Please respond to these very important questions.

22. *correction: 2. Is there a death penalty involved (i.e.: is it truly enforced; if not, isn’t it disproven that your idea that only “imageless” worship of God is acceptable?)

23. Yehuda,

    1) I’m simply wanting people to feel the gravity of what they’re claiming, especially as they interact with me and, on the one hand, will acknowledge my devotion to the God of Israel and then, on the other hand, call me an idolater.

    2) It’s just your suspicion. It is true that Jesus is “God in the flesh,” but that statement can readily be misunderstood, and the New Testament is much more nuanced in what it states. Please read Hebrews 1 and John 1:1-18 for more on this.

    Thanks again for your gracious posts.

24. Dr. Brown

    “It is true that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’..”

    1) In post x97 (the first digit is hard to make out) I asserted that Jesus disciples claimed to have spent “…three years in the presence of God in the flesh…”

    You responded to that assertion a few posts later saying that

    “Again, you grossly misunderstand the incarnation”

    2) Later in post x62 you said “And I remind you that the New Testament is very careful about the language used. It is “the Word” who became flesh, not “God” who became flesh, since the latter could readily be misunderstood. And this Word was God and yet was with God.

    So both you and the writer of John seem to have a problem with the formulation of “God became flesh” and prefer the “word became flesh” because the former could easily be misunderstood

    Although a few words later you state the “word was god”

    I took a little Math in school.

    If a = b and “a became flesh”, then “b became flesh”

    and how might ” b became flesh” is true, why is it a “gross misunderstanding” as well as “easily misunderstood”?

25. To clarify my last question:

    If ”God became flesh” is true, why is it a “gross misunderstanding” and in what problematic way might it be “easily misunderstood”?

26. Yehuda,

    Have you read John 1:1-18 yet? Also, have you read vol. 2 of my series on Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus where I address this in detail?

    As I’ve mentioned a number of times here, this is not the thread to discuss the question of the Messiah’s deity, and I’m trying to phase out of that discussion here (which we’ve had many times before online), hence my hoping that you’ll first understand the larger debate and the key truths on which we stand before continuing the discussion. Also, see above, some of my posts to Eli Cohen, where I mention that he is close to understanding things but not quite there. And perhaps some others can answer your specific questions here as well.

27. Yehuda,

    Very quickly, to answer your last question, it would give the impression that God ceased to be God, or that He ceased to sit enthroned in heaven and fill the universe, as if He was some so-called god like figure like Zeus who came down to earth. So, the eternal God remained fully God, sitting enthroned in heaven, filling the universe with His presence, touching us by His Spirit, while pitching His tent among us in the person of His Son.

    “God in the flesh”? Yes, if rightly understood; no, if wrongly understood.

    I do hope this helps.

28. Dr. Brown:

    I have read John 1: 1-18 and I have read your posts to Rabbi C and Rabbi B.

    I have not read your book.

    From my perspective, both John and the posts you mention do little if anything anything to clarify the apparent seeming self-contracdictions I’ve asked about. They merely repeat them, sometimes using slightly different words.

    I understand that you have phased out of this element of the discussion, but perhaps, as you suggest, some of the others here would care to address the questions I posed above I would ask that if they are so inclined, that they try to frame the responses with specificity to those elements I quoted above. In particular I am interested in knowing:

    1) why “the word became flesh” is a more appropriate and nuanced expression of what you believe than “god became flesh”?

    2)How “god became flesh”, while a true statement, could be easily and incorrectly misunderstood, despite the fact that the “word is god”.

    I thank you all for your patience.

29. Yehuda,

    Please do read vol. 2 as you have the opportunity, especially sections. 3.1-4. Also, please see my post immediately above yours. I hope it clarifies some things for you.

30. Yehuda,

    Thanks for your patience too! And I do hope that, as you continue in this discussion, you will do so with an open heart and mind.

31. So why was it necessarily, a “gross misunderstanding” for me to have said that the disciples claimed to have been in the presence of “god in the flesh”, unless you are presuming that anytime an Orthodox Jew quotes those words, he must be presumed to understand them in a Zeus-like fashion.

    We are very well aware that you understand them to mean something dramtically different than a Zeus-like deity. But you also mean them to mean something dramatically beyond what you believe Abraham, Moses, or others you believe “saw” god to have experienced.

32. Yehuda,

    I said it was a gross misunderstanding because of the way Orthodox Jews commonly misunderstand and misrepresent what I believe. The fact that you find John 1:1-18 to be unclear says a lot, although I don’t fault you for that.

    You do say that you and other Orthodox Jews understand me to mean something dramatically different than the Zeus-like equation, yet other comments posted here by your fellow religionists, along with many others I have heard through the years, say the opposite. As for your last statement, I would not say “dramtically beyond.” Rather, it was a dramatic extension of what Moses or Abraham or others experienced in the Tanakh.

    With that, I do hope to bow out of this discussion for now. Thanks!

33. “…The fact that you find John 1:1-18 to be unclear says a lot,…”

    The fact that you feel one must read, accept, and clearly understand John 1:1-18 in order to understand this “dramatic extension” of the Tanakh says alot to me as well.

    All the best.

34. Yehuda,

    I’m quite happy to leave you with John 1!

    All the best to you.

35. Oh, one last note. I fully believe that those who embrace all of Tanakh in spirit and in truth can do nothing other than embrace Yeshua as our Messiah. By “dramatic extension” I mean nothing more than God dramatically and gloriously finishing what He started.

36. “Oh, one last note. I fully believe that those who embrace all of Tanakh in spirit and in truth can do nothing other than embrace Yeshua as our Messiah.” – Dr. Michael L. Brown

    Perhaps it has been said, but I suppose an idolized man probably would not be doubted or tested sufficiently. He would be accepted/worshipped prematurely, with insufficient or shallow reasons. It is hard to imagine that you could find a man truly worthy of worship. A worthy man could hardly be called a man. Is it possible? They say Jesus was worthy. And they weren’t talking about his physique or anything visual – even if there are visual signs of suffering.

    In the case of Jesus, he was tested quite a bit. Perhaps many still have questions. What test’s would YB like to see – just for the thought of it? In what ways did Jesus critically fail in YBs opinion?

    Or, in what ways was Jesus different from God? (in attitude and behavior particularly – not the physical/etc. differences)

37. Dan1el

    To respond to your question from post #571 – and a general statement to bring more clarity to this discussion. (As an aside – for me the goal of this discussion is to bring as much clarity to the matter as I can.)

    As a Jew – I am in a covenantal relationship with the Creator of heaven and earth. He calls Himself the “God of Israel” and he calls us “My nation”. The most foundational element of my relationship with God demands that I do not submit myself to anyone in the way I submit myself to Him. When God sealed this covenant with us, He made it very clear to us that such an act of submission/worship of any other entity aside from Himself would be the deepest violation of our covenant with Him. He also made it clear to us – how we are to identify Him in worship – and how we are not to identify Him in worship. He did all this before He gave us the first page of Scripture.

    Let us stop right there for a minute – after Sinai, and before we read the first page of Scripture.

    How would we look at a claim such as the one you present about Yeshua? There is no question we would identify the worship/submission that you are encouraging as the very act that God defined as the deepest violation of our covenantal relationship. There would be no way that we could look at it any differently.

    Now let us take the book. But before we open it – let us remember that it was given to us in the context of the covenantal relationship that already tied us to God. It was given to us AFTER God already made clear to us who and how He wants us to worship. Let us now jump ahead to the “ancient of days” mentioned in Daniel 7. Let us note that this passage is not being presented as a teaching on the nature of God (as is Isaiah 40:18) and it is not being presented as a teaching on how we are to direct our worship (as was the revelation at Sinai). This being the case – we understand that the physical description of God is being used as a metaphor to help us understand God’s interaction with mankind that is being presented there. The Scriptures use such metaphors for entities other than God. In Psalm 98:8 – the rivers are described as “clapping their hands”. Am I to assume that the rivers have hands? As clearly as I know that the rivers don’t have literal hands – I know just as clearly that the God that I am bound to in a covenantal relationship has no form.

    There is no way I can read Daniel 7 (or Genesis 18, Exodus 24, Isaiah 9) as a directive to go and do what God Himself explicitly and directly taught me not to do.

    Let me take this one step further. I am advocating that you read the Jewish Bible in the covenantal context that God placed it. If you would read the book in its proper context – you would never dream of justifying the worship you are advocating. But even if we put the Sinai covenant aside (for argument’s sake) – you still would not see your worship in this book unless you approached it with an affinity for Jesus.

    Before Jesus came to the world – no one ever claimed that the Jewish Scriptures advocate worship of a divine Messiah. Even the apostles who lived with Jesus and heard him teach for three years didn’t see this concept in the Jewish Scriptures. They saw Jesus’ death as a contradiction to the belief that he was the Jewish Messiah – not as a confirmation.

    So let’s recap – God made it clear who it is that we are to worship. Everyone who read the Scriptures before Jesus came along – had no questions about this matter. So are we to overturn the understanding that God made abundantly clear – on the basis of an interpretation that no-one saw in the text until 1) they had already committed their hearts to Jesus, 2) the facts of Jesus’ suffering and death left them with no choice but to reinterpret the Scriptures in a way that they could still maintain their devotion.

    Why is it that of all the texts that you use to justify the worship that you are advocating – not one of them has God put His finger on it and say – here – look here in order to learn how to direct your devotion – not one! Yet when we focus on those texts where the Divine Author clearly pointed and said – here is where I present a teaching on worship – the perception that we were taught at Sinai is only confirmed and reconfirmed?

    One more question. Again – the perception we were taught at Sinai would have us identify the worship you are advocating as idolatry. You are arguing that we modify our perception of reality that God taught us at Sinai – on the basis of your interpretation of Scripture. Now there are certain passages in Scripture that are very clear and direct. They teach us to keep the Sabbath, to observe the festivals, and to abstain from certain foods. I don’t see you (and I don’t mean you personally – I am talking about the general attitude of followers of Jesus towards God’s holy Law) taking any of these clear and open commandments seriously. So how can I believe that it is your loyalty and submission to this book that has you advocating the worship that you advocate? How do you expect me to take your argument seriously? It should be obvious to you as it is obvious to me that it is your devotion to Jesus that is producing your interpretation of Scripture and that it is not your interpretation of Scripture that is producing your devotion to Jesus.

38. I think it’s more than telling that once we read of Messiah being installed on Mt. Zion and the earth miraculously is regenerated to a very great extent, and we see the promises to Israel being fulfilled during that time, there is nothing more said in the First Testament from the mouth of the LORD. However, there is the beginning of and the closing of the Millennium outlined for us in the last book of the New Covenant. It appears to me from the mouths of His prophets that He leaves everything in the hands of Messiah during the Millennium.

    Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    There are no prophesies where the LORD sticks His head back into the picture, no lifting of the curtain and peeking back into the affairs of mankind. Apparently the LORD is absolutely certain that everything is in good hands. He finally has “the Man after His own heart” installed where He wants Him; on His Holy hill of Zion, where “He has placed His name there forever.”

    This seems to be the last statement the LORD makes concerning the Mighty Elohim whose Kingdom is an everlasting one and who has all authority handed over to him at the beginning of the millennium and beyond into eternity:

    Zec 14:9 –
    And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one and his name one.

    Now it all makes sense. It seems that Messiah and the LORD started out as echad and that it’s now come full circle on into eternity. “For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.”

    Amen.

    I’ll check in on the conversation as it continues. My prayer is that it has born some fruit in helping others to think critically and honestly about the scarlet thread that is the bringing of Messiah beginning in Genesis and continuing throughout the entirety of Scripture.

    It is obvious from all the evidence presented from the mouth of the LORD, Himself, that the truth has prevailed. God is not the author of confusion, He is the author of our eternal salvation.

39. Dan1el
    You (and Dr. Brown) keep on going back to what you perceive as my lack of understnding of your position as some type of reason why you dismiss my words.
    I don’t follow the logic – the fact that you don’t understand my position does not motivate me to drop the discussion – it only encourages me to continue and attempt to bring more clarity to the table. I see no reason to state “you don’t understand my position” – instead I attempt to articulate what it is that I think could help you understand my position – and hope that the truth will do its work. Why do you find it important to keep on stating that I don’t understand your position?
    Furthermore – while I may not understand the fine nuances of the precise tehological formulations that you use to justify your position to yourself (formulations that I believe most Christians cannot understand or repeat – thus by your own definition – your brothers and sisters in faith are idolaters – which doesn’t seem to bother you) – but the caricatures that you and Dr. Brown present as to my misunderstadning of your position – 1) not realizing that the lamb of revelation is a reference to Jesus 2) not realizing that you believe that Jesus was not created only begotten (I don’t understand the difference – but I learned the words)3) not realizing that your belief in Jesus does not mean that God ceased being God – are innacurate. I understand all of these. The fact that you find the need to magnify this acusation (that I don’t understand) gives the impression that you ran out of real arguments – an impression that I think you are trying to avoid.

40. Sheila
    a response to post #588 (I realize that there are other posts of yours that I have not answered – I will try to get to them – although I don’t know when)
    You speak of the fruit of this discussion
    Allow me to recap
    This part of the thread began with Bo in post #155. The first argument he proposed (picked up by some others) was that since God could do anything – He could make Himself into a man as well. I think that one product of this discussion is that some of you now realize how ridiculous this argument sounds to a Jew who is committed to the worship of the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe that another product of this discussion is that some of you may be coming to realize how central the teachings that God presented to us before He gave us Scripture are to this discussion – contrary to the impression that one would get from reading missionary literature.
    I learned from this discussion – that although you use the formulation 100 percent divine 100 percent human – and you don’t advocate worship of half of Jesus’ person – you still recoil from identifying Jesus as a human (at least some of you do) That’s something I wasn’t aware of.
    So all in all – although this discussion has been lengthy and tedious – there has been some clarity that has been gained from this discussion.

41. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    I really am bowing out of this part of the discussion (for quite a few reasons), but let me clarify one question and to add one important point.

    1) With regard to why I and others say that your failure to understand our position is a valid reason not to dialogue, it is more that your failure to understand our position (or, stated better, your total misapplication of Deut 4 with regard to our position) makes fruitful dialogue all but impossible. If I thought you were a Yisroel Blumenthal who, say, was a Hindu Jew who who wrote for the Hindu Alive website and every time you posted, I wrote, “But in your article on Krishna you wrote this, and now you’re saying something very different,” until we agreed on who you were, we would have no fruitful dialogue. So, for me, in all candor, as long as you think there’s the slightest application of the warning in Deut 4 to what I believe and how I worship, we are at a similar impasse, and it seems that our best attempts to enlighten you here are ineffective. In any case, time is also against me, and I need to determine where and how I can spend that time.

    2) As I mention at length in vol. 2 (but for the benefit of others here), the Tanakh speaks of venerating/serving the Lord and His Davidic king — and ultimately, the Messiah — side by side, which we as followers of Yeshua fully embrace.

    As I wrote there:

    — Many times in the Psalms, the LORD and his anointed king are described in equally exalted terms, and similar reverence is required for both. Consider these following clear parallels: In Ps 83:19, God is “the Most High over all the earth,” while in Ps 89:28, it is the Davidic king, designated significantly as “firstborn,” who has been appointed “the most high of the kings of the earth.” In Ps 86:9, “all nations will bow down” to the LORD, yet in 72:11a, the foreign kings will bow down to the Davidic king. 1 Chr 29:20 is even more to the point: “and they [i.e., the people] bowed down and did obeisance to the LORD and to [David] the king.” So also in Ps 2:11a and 100:2, the rulers and peoples are exhorted to “serve the LORD,” while in 18:44b and 72:11b it is the Davidic king that they must “serve.”

    Both God and his anointed king are worthy of praise (see Ps 67:4, where the peoples are called on to extol God, and 45:18b[17b], where it is the king whom they will extol forever), and both are clothed with “glory and honor” (cf., e.g., Ps 96:6 with 21:6). Of the royal king it can be said: “All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him” (72:11); for “I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted (‘elyon) of the kings of the earth” (89:28[27]). “I will set his hand on the Sea, and his right hand on the River” (Ps 89:26[25]), and “[I will establish] his throne as long as the heavens endure” (89:30b[29b]). “Therefore peoples will praise [him] forever and ever” (45:18b[17b]).

    God’s “son,” the Davidic king, was quite an exalted figure! Is it any wonder that the Scripture declares that in the Messianic era, the people “will serve the LORD their God and David their king” (Jer. 30:9)–

    For me, however, my worship is undivided, since I recognize that, as Yeshua said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.” (John 12:44-45)

    Yes, we adore and honor Yeshua, but it is because He is the very image of God, the one who makes the Father known. It is seamless and glorious, and for the religious Jews I know who have come to faith, the farthest thing from idolatry.

    Obviously, you’ll want to respond to this post, but unless there’s a change in my schedule, I’ll allow others to interact further with you on this and will get back to your other, earlier post.

42. Rabbi B.,

    Regardless of “when” the Scriptures were compiled, as by Moses and written again by Ezra, that is not the focus of them. If God chose to begin our revelation of Him in Genesis then I think that’s where we should “all” begin. Do you deny that anyone at all could “find God” just from reading His Scripture? That appears to be one of your foundational expositions on what is believed to be the Word of God and the Revelation of Him as given to the entire world. That is, that we cannot truly “know Him” without the Talmud and the extra Biblical writings.

    And if you will say, “Well the Jews did, in fact, fail in taking the knowledge of the One True God to the ends of the earth–then I will say, “One Jew succeeded!”

    That neither you, nor Rabbi Cohen has read the New Testament Scriptures from beginning to end is obvious. We know the First Testament Scriptures inside and out, but you have made it clear to me (and possibly some others) that you still have not read what is the foundation of our faith, otherwise the scope and magnitude of our discussions would bear evidence to it. The evidence is missing.

43. Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal,

    1. Let’s pretend for a moment that your tradition were actually legitimate; that your (old) “Covenant” relationship with God would be violated by you worshipping Him while imagining some Image (even by reading Daniel 7 — because His Image is in it): when you become a partaker of the New Covenant, you will be released from that, since the New Covenant is “NOT like” the Old One [Jer 31:32].
    “Your eyes will see your Teacher” [Is 30:20], and (Is 30:21 seems to be referring to this “New Covenant”, in that there is a “Law” being “written in the heart/mind”) Isa 30:21 “And thine ears shall hear a Word behind thee, saying: ‘This is the Way; walk ye in it,’ when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left”; and this is exactly what Yeshua brought to the table — the New Covenant where we see our Teacher [John 14:19], and we hear Him [John 10:4] giving Law [James 4:12]!

    2. What if we were to question it?
    “Sinai was the way God taught us to worship Him — imageless worship”. Is that a true statement?
    i. You said Jews are to worship 24/7.
    ii. You said that to imagine His Image is the improper way to worship Him (i.e.:”contrary to “Sinai”); idolatry.
    iii. This means that there is NO MOMENT (during your “24/7 worship” of Him) that you are allowed to read Daniel 7 (since His Image is found in it, and you would imagine His Image), during your 24/7 worship.
    iv. If a man DID read Daniel 7 (and imagine the Image of God during worship), would this (Lord-forbid) “sin” of “idolatry” carry the penalty of death (as all idolatry does — under the Law)?
    v. Is Daniel 7 inspired? Does the inspired-by-God Scripture (Lord-forbid) cause the (Lord-forbid) “sin” of “idolatry” (incurring the death penalty)?
    vii. Is there historical precedent? Is there a Rabbinic prohibition that you can quote for us, therefore, against reading Daniel 7?
    viii. If the aforementioned were all “yes”, then would you say that the “Gift” of the TNK were a (Lord-forbid) curse?

    Moses was more of a worshipper than anyone in Israel in those days, and Moses saw His Form [Num 12:8]; does it not prove that the idea that “only ‘imageless’ worship of God is acceptable” is false — that “Sinai is the way God taught us to worship Him” is a false postulation?

    If the death penalty has never been enforced for the aforementioned, is it truly “idolatry” to worship God while considering God’s Image (He definitely does have One, as described in Daniel 7; Isaiah 47; Genesis 1:26).

    3. Seeing The Form of God:
    3A. Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and 70 elders of Israel “beheld the God of Israel [Exodus 24].
    Exo 24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel;
    Exo 24:10 and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His Feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness.
    Exo 24:11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His Hand and they beheld God, and did eat and drink.
    3B. God says no one can see His “Face”, lest they die.
    Men are made in His Image and Likeness — and the
    3C. Image and Likeness Daniel saw appeared “as” a human — with a white beard and a white head of hair.
    3D. Men are called His children (ofcourse, this is more on a spiritual note — there are sons of God and sons of satan; Cain was “of the evil one”, because he received the teachings/words of satan, to whom he submitted, and obeyed, as a son does his father [1 John])
    Is man made in the Image and Likeness of God?
    Is it said of any other creature that they are made in His Image and Likeness?
    Why would you have a problem with seeing any sort of relation between man being made in His Image and Likeness, and Him being portrayed with a white beard and white hair?
    3E. Isaiah 46 seems to very concisely compare our making after His Image and Likeness to the way Bel and Nebo (idols made in the image and likeness of animals) were made in the similitude of the animals of burden, after which they were made.
    He says those animals cannot even withstand holding the idols (they are too heavy for the animals after whose likenesses the idols have been fashioned); then, He puts Himself in the place of the beasts of burden carrying their idols — “I have made, and I will bear; yea, I will carry, and will deliver.” He very clearly says that we are made in His Image and Likeness.
    Isa 46:1 Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth; their idols are upon the beasts, and upon the cattle; the things that ye carried about are made a load, a burden to the weary beast.
    Isa 46:2 They stoop, they bow down together, they could not deliver the burden; and themselves are gone into captivity.
    Isa 46:3 Hearken unto Me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, that are borne by Me from the birth, that are carried from the womb:
    Isa 46:4 Even to old age I am the same, and even to hoar hairs will I carry you; I have made, and I will bear; yea, I will carry, and will deliver.
    3F. Jacob/Israel saw God face-to-face, and was surprised to have lived [as Ex 33 says no man can see Him and live]. God must have a Face, then, just like man who is made in His Image. Why did so many people who saw God think they were supposed to die; and even God says man cannot see Him without dying — yet, so many men DID see Him!?

    4. If you “already knew” our beliefs, then, why even mention “a lamb is a created being” — knowing that it really was “aside from the point”? Please don’t bring empty accusations against me. If you can answer the questions being asked (without making the matter cloudy) that would be good — if you answered it point-by-point, too (especially #2).

    5. You ask why we don’t adhere to the Laws: a) We’re in a the New Covenant; b) We are not bound to the letters of Laws, because we died with Yeshua, and our spirits have been raised with His (resurrection) — thereby, we have been released from the mizvos (as even Rabbi Schochet teaches you to believe will happen in the future; we observe the Law after a deeper level — again, even as even Dr. Schochet teaches in that same video).
    There are some believers (who don’t understand the New Covenant) who do believe in keeping the Law — such as Bo (that is another discussion altogether).
    I, myself, think the Law is great; I just am dead to it to be joined to Messiah. That being said, I’ve experienced the deep pleasure and acceptance of the Father when I decided, “my Father advised against me eating that” (because of the trust in my heart); however, doctrinally-speaking, I am against forcing anyone to keep Torah: we should be seeing God (not all do), and He relays commands, Himself (face-to-face). This Covenant is not like the Old one given to your fathers; the commands are “written” (by the blessed God) inside of us.

44. Dr Brown-

    When discussing that nature of the trinity, prior to the advent of the man from Nazareth, G-d’s nature was percieved as spirt, ethereal, singular, solitary, infinite etc., from the Jewish point of view.

    From the Christian point of view, derived much later, you have God the father, God the son (pre-incarnate) and God the holy spirit.

    Then upon the incarnation of God the son into humanity, the hypostatic union was “born” now, God the son is 100%god and 100%man. correct?

    So now, the godhead consists of God the father, (God the son, Jesus the man) and God the holy spirit. So we have a change in the godhead? If Jesus is a hypostatic union is this not adding humanity (or human nature) to the godhead? It is my understanding that Jesus did not give up his humanity upon his accension.

    It seems to me problematic to change the nature of G-d by adding to it human nature for you truly dont have a singular god nature at that point but a hybrid god-human nature.

    Your thoughts?

45. Dr. Brown
    Being that you are bowing out of the discussion – I will take the opportunity to have the last word – but of-course I would much prefer that the discussion go on.
    1) – if I understood your point about my lack of understanding – you are saying that I am failing to understand plain English – so we cannot communicate. I happen to feel the same frustration with your arguments – you point to someone who walked and talked like a human – and you deny that he is a human – I am still willing to try to break the impasse.
    You insist that I put aside Deuteronomy 4 in this discussion – How would you read it if I were to tell you – I refuse to discuss anything further with you until you put aside Isaiah 53 and acknowledge that it is not relevant to this discussion. Would you see that as an invitation to dialogue?
    If it is so obvious to you that Deuteronomy 4 is inapplicable – why didn’t you articulate it in your 5 volumes?
    One question – would you not agree that after the Sinai revelation – and before the first page of Scripture was given to us – that if someone were to advocate the worship you are advocating that we would have no other way of seeing it – but as idolatrous?
    2) As for your second point – I am surprised you bring it up here – I have pointed out in Contra Brown – that every single expression of worship and veneration that Scripture uses towards teh Messiah – is also found towards the nation Israel – and actually a few more – it is obvious that these expressions are not meant to direct our religious worship. If you have a response to my argument – it would be nice if you could share it with the public.

46. Sheila
    You misunderstand my position. You don’t need to read the Talmud and traditions in order to understand that idolatry is prohibited. – but you need to acknowledge the weight of Sinai.
    God did not choose to begin His revelation to us with Genesis – He chose to begin His revelation to us at Sinai – He only gave us Genesis AFTER He taught us who to worship and who not to worship.
    Another correction – both Rabbi Cohen and myself have both read the Christian Scriptures from cover to cover several times.

47. Dan1el
    I believe I answered your points – but out of respect for your patience and perseverance – I will try to go through your piece point by point (I won’t have time to finish now – but I’ll start)
    I’ll jump ahead to #2
    It is permitted to read daniel 7 because if you read it in its correct context (after Sinai) it would not occur to you to assume that the passage is teachingtaht God has a form – just as it would not occur to you to assume that a river has hands on the basis of Psalm 98:8 – so while reading Daniel 7 I worship God without imagining Him possessing a form. This being the case there is no prohibition against reading Daniel 7.
    You ask if there is a death penalty for imagining an image while worshipping God – there is no way that the courts could see what is in a person’s heart so the practical death penalty would not apply – but it would be a violation of the covenant between God and His people. Would you not agree that if a person were to believe that any other person aside from Jesus is God incarnate and worship that person as a fourth member of the Godhead – that it would be a violation of the covenant between God and Israel? Do you realize that this is true eve if the worshiper mistakenly applies a Scriptural passage to back up the worship?

48. Daniel- You are not in a new covenant. A)The new covenant is for the house of Judah and Israel. You are neither. B) The days of the new covenant has not arrived. Do ALL know the LORD from the least to the greatest? no. C)New covenant does not mean New Torah. The Jewish people still are under the law! Ezekiel 11:19 And I will (A)give them one heart, and put a new spirit within [a]them. And I will take the (B)heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a (C)heart of flesh, 20 that they may (D)walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be (E)My people, and I shall be their God. 21 [b]But as for those whose hearts go after their (F)detestable things and abominations, I will (G)bring their conduct down on their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.

49. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    Yes, I really am trying to bow out of this part of the discussion, at least for now, but I will provide very brief answers so as to avoid bringing things to a screeching halt.

    1) No, I’m not saying you’re failing to understand plain English. I’m saying you’re failing to understand a profound spiritual concept, and since all our attempts to help you understand don’t seem to avail – you may feel a similar frustration to us – I’m convinced that prayer for revelation and insight is the best path to follow.

    2) I insist that all your questions re: Deut 4 are not valid, and to the extent you keep raising questions based on and making arguments based on it, we are like ships passing in the night. More importantly, I’m telling you that until you understand that Deut 4 is not relevant, you’re making clear that you don’t understand what I believe. How else can I express that? The parallel with Isa 53 is not valid, since I do not endlessly challenge your rejection of Yeshua based on that passage alone.

    3) I do not accept the premise of your question about the Sinai revelation, since I don’t see it as separated from what comes before it and what comes after it but rather as confirming of what comes before and preparing the way for what comes after it.

    4) My short answer to your point in Contra Brown is that, in fact, the clear association of the worship/service of Yahweh with the worship/service of the Messiah goes beyond anything said of Israel, as the examples I cited indicate, especially when found in the same sentence or verse.

    Again, I do hope that others can continue the dialogue with you here, and I’m looking forward to continuing this dialogue during our times of offline interaction.

50. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    His Form
    A. Are you not subtracting from Torah in saying “God has no Form”?

    Why does God so often compare Himself to a human, rather than a cat fish? A centipede? A possum? A vulture? Why does He, instead, make very strong statements about His Image and Likeness when He speaks of its affinity to that of the human’s, such as in the following?

    1. Genesis 1:26, 27
    Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
    Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

    2. Isaiah 46:1-4
    Here, it alludes to His Image being similar to the human’s: in the manner after which Bel and Nebo (idols made in the image and likeness of animals) were made to look like the animal which they represent, we are made after His Image & Likeness.
    Next, He says those animals grow wear from carrying those idols; then, He puts Himself in the place of the beasts of burden and humans in the place of the idols, saying — “I have made, and I will bear; yea, I will carry, and will deliver.” He very clearly says that we are made in His Image and Likeness, affirming Genesis 1:26, 27.
    Isa 46:1 Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth; their idols are upon the beasts, and upon the cattle; the things that ye carried about are made a load, a burden to the weary beast.
    Isa 46:2 They stoop, they bow down together, they could not deliver the burden; and themselves are gone into captivity.
    Isa 46:3 Hearken unto Me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, that are borne by Me from the birth, that are carried from the womb:
    Isa 46:4 Even to old age I am the same, and even to hoar hairs will I carry you; I have made, and I will bear; yea, I will carry, and will deliver.

    3. Exodus 24
    Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the 70 elders saw His “FEET”. Now, that should narrow it down to what HE may look like: He must have FEET — can’t be a Form without feet; can’t be dolphin-like, without feet. At LEAST this narrows it down, right?

    4. Daniel 7
    Talks about that Form, saying that it looks like a man — confirming Genesis 1:26, 27.

    5. James 3:9
    In the New Testament , people are asked why they bless God, but turn around and curse men who are made in the Image and Likeness of that very same God?

    I think it takes a significant amount of effort to deny the obvious linkage, here — the question is “why?” The only reason why is because you are attempting to hold to some self-imposed religious belief; you took a verse of Scripture, made a doctrine out of it (“at Sinai, God told us to worship Him imagelessly” — which He never actually said; He merely said, “YOU did not see any Image; therefore, do not fashion an idol and say it looks like Me, since I know you are prone to doing that sort of thing”: herein, your belief is an addition to Torah, already); how you must strive against reason to deny that at Sinai, Moses saw God’s Form, and worshipped Him! Moses — a man who truly worshipped God (something that could not be said for the majority of the Israelites, whom God called “stubborn rebels”, who He wanted to wipe off the face of the earth, and start a new nation out of Moses’ loins) did so in a fashion which included his seeing God’s Form. I would prefer to worship like Moses — someone who God preferred above the majority of the rest of his kin (people who angered Him, and who, in the final analysis, WERE rejected, dying in the wilderness) — worshipped, seeing His Form.

    Now, on the other hand, you are here wanting me to listen to what you think about worshipping God — a thought which is so contrary to a plain reading of Scripture. If we listened to you, wouldn’t I have to rebuke (Lord-forbid) Moses?

    Metaphors
    B. You can’t compare a metaphor of something which OBVIOUSLY does not have hands — a river — ‘s metaphor to one of God (Who you, yourself, admit is mysterious — and, more than that, Who has left very large clues as to what He might and might not look like): you are lumping an OBVIOUS metaphor (river’s “hands” — though, I wouldn’t be surprised to find one day that a river properly has its own sort of “hands”) together with another “illustration” which isn’t of necessity meant to be metaphorical (or, may not be as far-fetched as a river having hands (i.e.: to look at a human is to look at a similitude of God — humans having been made in His Image and Likeness [Gen 1:26, 27]), since there is ample Scriptural precedent to cause me to believe that men look like God, and vice-versa.

    C. Fourth Member?
    If someone made the assertion “this being is the 4th member of the godhead”, I would merely ask them to prove it to me in the TNK or in the NT.
    Neither the NT nor the TNK ever gives provision for a fourth member of the Godhead — could you please point one out, if you think there is?
    On the other hand, the TNK makes ample room (with its mysterious references to God appearing to man, without man dying — whereas, He says “no man can see Him without dying”) for what we recognize as “the three members” of the single/”Echad” God: the Father, the Father’s Spirit, and the Father’s Son [the Word].
    Neither the TNK nor the NT speak of anything else; we are merely picking up where TNK left off — neither adding nor subtracting from TNK.
    God is called Echad, rather than Yachid.
    God said, “let US make man in Our Image”.

    I’m sorry if I’m re-hashing questions you’ve dealt with before; it’s just that they’re so basic and foundational that I can’t imagine that you’ve sufficiently answered them: it really looks like you have missing pieces in your puzzle; we have those missing pieces.

Comments are closed.