Jesus hidden in Bereshit and the Feasts! Answering the comments.

Do we need to surrender and accept the secret messages? Join Jono and Jason as they consider the different elements of this message and see if there really is a valid argument for submitting to a hidden agenda.

You can find the related comment here.

You might also like


  1. elskid says

    @ servingfaithfully YOU SAID: We can listen to those who used to believe the NT but didn’t bother going to their Father for answers

    A) that would be impossible for your to know.
    B) the most painful thing I ever did was LEAVE MY CHURCH.

    It took me FIVE PAINFUL years to finally sum up the courage to do so. AND when I did, it was not because I was right and they were wrong. OH NO! It was simply because my questions were, not only, NOT answered but caused considerable problems with the leaders, the biggest of which was their apparent guilt about something. They just acted guilty. They were uncomfortable with my hesitancy to accept their WEAK answers.
    I used to ask my wife; “Why would they respond like that?” “There has to be a better answer than that” “Why are they so freaked out?”

    I DID pray… for FIVE STRAIGHT YEARS… and after I left the church I used to walk my dog 2 or 3x a day and WEEP as I prayed for an answer. It was INCOMPREHENSIBLE to me that what started out as simply academic discussion had lead to a complete breakdown of my trust in the church which I helped build, lead ministries and teach in for over 10 years!!

    OH NO!! You don’t get off so easy saying “we didn’t pray”. That is just and excuse so YOU can continue to hold on to YOUR doctrine.

    At this point, I would swear in a court of law that, not only did I “pray”, but it was probably some of the most fervent, tear soaked prayers I EVER prayed and, TODAY, looking back, I would say God DID ANSWER my prayers. It was trust in HIM, and HIM alone, that lead me OUT of christianity. I thank him DAILY and ask for forgiveness that I reject His direction by staying in the church so many years after I knew I should LEAVE.

    You can blame us and question our christianity and use anti-semitism to ward off the information here, but those attacks are nothing but defensive measures used by ANY group who does not have the courage to study the material/information and provide a reasoned defense.
    The main thrust of most christians is usually personal attacks and endless repetition of NT verses.
    It did not work when I was IN the church and it certainly won’t work NOW.

  2. Mary R says

    This thread was in no way time spent in vain for anyone who wrote. Thank you Trent, Andrew, David, Bob, and others for the amount of time you took to respond to Servingfaithfully. It is clear to see that there are two sides here and your responses only helped to cement my walk in Tanakh even more so. Jason commented that many people have lost friends and family by turning to YHVH/Tanakh alone as was stated in this thread and as I too have experienced. Leaving 40+ years of Christian, fear based, doctrine certainly wasn’t easy since the fear of hell and losing salvation was what kept me from venturing out in the first place. Then I thought, how could The Creator really punish me for wanting Him and no other? The journey has been and is worth the tough times just to be free from the bondage of fear and control.

    In Servingfaithfully’s last post, as of this writing, s/he wrote “-We can listen to idolatrous Judaism (or you can) but YHVH says He has blinded them.” I wondered where YHVH said this in the Tanak as I know it is spoken of numerous times in the NT. In my quick search, the only time I saw it referenced to was in Isaiah when he was talking about the worship of idols preventing the idol worshippers from seeing and their hearts from perceiving…not that YHVH Himself blinds the people, but the falseness people choose to believe in is what blinds.

    Regarding history and the “curse” as a side note, has offered a free course about when the Northern Tribes were taken into exile and has offered it more than once through Tel Aviv University.

    And regarding the thinking at the time of the second Temple, Dr Miryam Brand of has found numerous evidence/documents of the shift in thinking that began to take place in order to try and make sense of sin and evil and why bad things happen to good people. Understanding that that was also when the priesthood became corrupt and had an agenda it is clear to see that mainstream religions are still trying to provide “clear” and “comforting” solutions (possibly with an agenda) rather than absolute trust in YHVH regardless of a heaven or hell, comfort or affliction, reward or punishment…just pure TRUST.

    Thanks to Jono and Jason for providing this educational opportunity

  3. servingfaithfully says

    Ok, if you want to address the specific issues and stay on topic, lets just forget Yeshua for a moment and discuss the Messiah of the Tanak. You agree that it is the one in Dan 7, Ps 2 and 2Sam. But you don’t agree that it is the one in Isa 9, 50, 53?
    What about the one in Zech 12? Who is both “Me” and “him”? Who does the text say it is?
    Who is the man sitting with Abraham in Gen 18? Who does the text say it is and what is his title? And how can this be?
    In Jonah 2:9 what is the Hebrew actually saying? What is being declared that would coincide with everything above?

    Lastly, as for calling michael and tovia “adulterers/idolaters”, the BIBLE calls them this. Jonah 2:8 tells us how they are looked at by YHVH. I don’t need to refrain from saying anything that the Bible says whether you think I should or not. If you are following those who follow idols, that is your own problem. The outcome, according to the Bible is not favorable. Talmud is idolatry, I don’t care how its dressed up!

    Deut 28:15 However, if you do not obey YHVH your God and do not carefully follow all His commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these CURSES will come on you and overtake you.
    28 YHVH will afflict you with madness, BLINDNESS AND CONFUSION OF MIND.

  4. David says


    You’re assuming too much again and putting words in my mouth. Daniel 7 is speaking of the messianic figure, yes. Psalm 2 is most likely speaking to King David and the evidence is 2 Samuel 7 when King David is told his house and kingdom will be established forever. Now, it is possible for Psalm 2 verse 12 to be something about the messianic figure to come but it doesn’t have to be. What I was showing you is that due to 2 Samuel 7 we know that King David was promised an everlasting kingdom not an everlasting, god-man heir.

    As far as Isaiah 9, I’m guessing you’re referring to verses 5 and 6 speaking? Most Jewish scholars believe this to be about Hezekiah but let us say it is about the messiah to come. What does it this prove to you if this is about the messianic figure to come in the future? Isaiah 50 is with in the middle of the servant songs of Isaiah, which also includes Isaiah 53, and is most assuredly about God’s servant, Israel.

    Zechariah 12:10 reads, “I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication: and they shall look towards me, concerning whom they have pierced and they will mourn of him as one morons for an only son…” I think you’re probably focusing on this single portion. The “Me” is obviously the God of Israel but you seem to be drawing a conclusion that He is also the “him”. We seem to have a disagreement in the translation of this verse. This doesn’t mean that a messianic figure is God as you seem to be implying here. I think the text clearly puts a distinction between the “Me” and the “him”.

    The man in Genesis 18? Do you mean the “men”? There are three men who sit with Abraham. The men are always called men and God is always called by His name in these verses. There is never a point that says the “men” are God, which again is what you’re implying with your questions. The title given to the men is lord and I’m unsure why you’re asking “how can this be?” like it is some strange thing not found in the Tanakh. You’ll have to delve deeper here to really explain why you’re so fascinated with Genesis 18 and the title of the men.

    Jonah 2:7-9 reads “When my soul fainted within me I remembered YHVH: and my prayer came to You, into the holy temple. They that guard lying vanities forsake their loyalty, but I will sacrifice to You with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that which I have vowed. Salvation belongs to YHVH.”

    Truly beautiful if you ask me. What is being declared? It is being declared that Jonah is remembering who gives salvation, he is praying and overing a sacrifice of “thanksgiving”. That is what is happening. An amazing verse.

    Again, I don’t follow the Talmud or is this directed as some other person? I look at the Talmud just like I look at any other commentary. It is simply that in my eyes. It seems to be odd that you would call others adulterers and idolaters though as you are the one who is breaking the first of the ten commandments of not putting another upon the face of the Most High God. You’re no different than those in Rome who placed a man in the place of god with the emperors.

    You should heed that verse that you wrote in closing. Beware chasing after vain things like god-men.

    In closing, I wish you would forget Yeshua entirely as it would be you breaking from your idol and give you a clear path to come home to the God of Israel, YHVH.

    Again, apologies for any grammatical or spelling errors above. Cheers.

  5. David says


    I also want to let you know that I am done responding with you at this point as you still are not capable of responding to anything directly in my other posts. You’ve attempted to hijack each point and create other branches that really leads down a path of lunacy on your part. I’ve given you ample time to respond in kind and humbly but you’ve refused the entire time. I think what I have written is good start for you and maybe you should go back to the Word of God and continue to study and pray. If you are correct then blessings be upon you and if I am wrong woe to me for chasing after vain things. My prayer is that I always serve the One True God of Israel with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength. I will continue to do that as much as possible and allow His Word found in the Tanakh guide me along the way.

    I am done. Farewell.

  6. Bob M says

    Would some christian please answer this?

    1) According to Scripture, what is the list of things that happened as the result of Adam bitting that apple?

    2) According to christian doctrine and or the NT, what did jesus’ death accomplish?

  7. Mary R says

    Servingfaithfully, Am I to assume you believe I and others who have left Christianity (and Jews) are “NOT hearkening to the voice of YHVH, our God”? And therefore in extreme disobedience so as to deserve “all these curses”? And is leaving Christianity, or not “accepting Yeshua”, my(our) demise because we have no way to YHVH without a sacrificial system and the ONLY answer is Yeshua’s blood?

    If this is what you are implying, in hopes of helping us not to make a grave mistake, then I would need to know where Tanakh talks of a sacrifice for willful/intentional/deliberate sin? From my 13 years of Hebrew study, I have come to learn that there is no sacrifice for intentional sin. And that YHVH (Himself) wants the sacrifice of our lips: Hosea 6:6, Hosea 14:3, Ps 51:16-19, Ps 119:108, all of which are pre-Yeshua.

    And if we NEED a sacrifice for “un”intentional sin, then what happened to all those people who died before making it to the Temple with their sacrifice? Although I still see the sacrifice of our lips as being the most important sacrifice.

    There is, however, very strict warnings about having any other god but YHVH. That YHVH gives people over to the desires of their hearts, he lets them go in their folly so much so that they can no longer perceive the truth: Isaiah 44:18

    Just another thought; if the Temple wasn’t destroyed until @40 years after the death of Yeshua (the final sacrifice) wouldn’t this “final” sacrifice have taken immediate effect? This type of question and others, along with numerous inconsistencies in the NT have also led me to discover that the NT writings came many years AFTER the death of Yeshua with very little or no knowledge of who the authors were. Paul NEVER even knew Yeshua, but he had a dream (so did Mohammed, etc.).

    Someone once told me to read just the words of Yeshua. Yeshua used the Tanakh and directed his followers to look to YHVH. Even the famous “Lord’s Prayer” is to “Our” Father. The verses where he is considered to be god is inconsistent with the majority of his teaching. So what would Yeshua do?…He’d direct people to his Creator, teach from the Tanakh and instruct others to do the same…which is just what we are doing. Pretty difficult to think YHVH is going to zap me (us) with a curse for wanting Him and Him ONLY.

  8. Mary R says

    David states a very important fact and one that needs to be pounded into the minds of brainwashed, indoctrinated people: The Messiah of Tanakh was NEVER nor IS EVER to be God! An anointed man with a specific mission, yes, but not God. There have been numerous Messiahs = Anointed ones, yet no one has ever turned them into God…until one brilliant man with an agenda, along with his mother, came along (Constantine). And oh! I believe Contstatine had a vision too!!! Amazing how generations have been led by individuals who have had “visions” (and it’s not just christians) and how strong those beliefs are…just by one man’s “vision”!…we call these people “cult leaders” today.

    The God of Tanakh spoke to a nation and provided that nation with an instruction book. Compiling another book that distorts the original and then attach it to the original, say that this attachment is now the truth and the original is no longer valid is nothing more than a slap in the face of YHVH by totally replacing Him with a man-god as a savior and his people being looked upon with disdain…so anti-Semetic…so sad.

    So, Servingfaithfully, if your leader is Jewish, then diligently study Tanakh and Hebrew. But if your Jewish leader is the “man” you call God, and you want to adhere to the book that was attached to the original, then I suggest you tear off that attachment and adhere to that god of yours and leave those who believe in the Original be because they cannot mix…we will not forsake the God of Torah/Tanakh for another.

  9. servingfaithfully says

    Since I won’t hear back from David, I’ll not direct this to him. Again, I have offered the answers, it seems they are being ignored. Ps. 2 cannot be King David or King David’s (human) heir, or any earthly king. Why? Read what is given to this “son” and how it confirms Dan 7. In Dan 7, we read of this same heir. He is in the throne room, not on earth. He came “on the clouds of heaven.” What man has ever been described like this? None, only YHVH (Nahum 1, Jer 4, Isa 66, Ps 68, Ps 104). And if we want further confirmation of the unique non-human nature of this “son”, read Dan 2:44.

    44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

    “a rock cut out of a mountain BUT NOT BY HUMAN HANDS.

    When will this kingdom be set up? “IN THE TIME OF THOSE KINGS”

    Zech 12 tells us very clearly that YHVH is “Me” and he has been pierced. The piercing is causing the mourning. The piercing happened to “me” and also happened to “him”. Where else do we go in scripture to confirm? All of these testimonies have 2 or 3 witnesses in the text. So where is another description of one who gets pierced? (Isa 53)

    My point with Gen 18 is to answer the above point as well. How can YHVH be the one pierced? How is it possible that YHVH is both “me” and “him” and people will mourn over that piercing and why? What is unique about a first born son? What is his inheritance and how does that relate back to Ps 2 and Dan 7 and Dan 2?

    I know David won’t continue conversing but for heaven’s sake, David. Can you read? The other 2 left the scene, headed for Sodom. Only ONE remained sitting there with Abraham.

    Gen18:22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before YHVH.
    Gen 19:1 The two messengers arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city.

    Three came, two left and the One who remained was YHVH. To confirm this fact, READ on:

    23 Then Abraham approached Him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not THE JUDGE OF ALL THE EARTH do right?”

    26 YHVH said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

    27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

    “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

    29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

    He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

    30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

    He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

    31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

    He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

    32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

    He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

    33 When YHVH had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

  10. servingfaithfully says


    You asked in your previous post where else in scripture does it say that YHVH blinds people for their disobedience. I showed you in Deut 28. Good job with your study. No one should accept something without another witness so you question of Isaiah 6 reveals your integrity with the text.

    As for everyone else, when we do find other scriptures that verify and give more details (like everything I just wrote above about Messiah) we can’t then ignore what’s stated or pretend it’s not there. We have to allow that additional information to redefine our limitations we’ve put on Messiah. One verse does not define Messiah. All of them do ……. whether we like the information or not…… whether it fits our narrative or not.

    Mary, as to your other discussion on sacrificing, the sacrificial system never ever solved the sin problem. YHVH says it was for the purpose of “atonement”. Atonement is a “covering”. In fact, read Psalm 50. YHVH clearly says that YHVH does not need them but He does expect them. Why? obedience. But to those who are obedient He will show “yesha elohim”. YHVH will show (provide) salvation.

    If the sacrifice was the way, then your question about all those who didn’t make it to the temple either before or after, would not have salvation. So you’re right. But the text tells us that the sacrifice is not the salvation. The sacrifice is obedience and obedience is the key to be shown. In fact, it is no more clear than your own example of the sacrificial system continuing as long as the Temple stood….even after Yeshua was crucified. Sacrificing is nothing more than obedience.

    For intentional sin, there indeed is a sacrifice as clearly instructed in Lev 6

  11. Trent says

    SF you say ” Ps. 2 cannot be King David or King David’s (human) heir, or any earthly king. Why? Read what is given to this “son” and ….”

    Firstly, there is no *son* that you are referring to in Psalm 2. Not in the Hebrew at least.
    The translation trickery is detailed in this clip that allows you to understand that the phrase “kiss the son” is church bunk. Much like everything you base your churchy assumptions on. We have been trying to tell you that the english is distorted to promote your mangod cult.

    it will be interesting to see how you respond to the use of the word “bar” for the word son, especially when you hear the stats of its use in the Psalms and its meaning in Tanakh. Let the gymnastics begin 🙂

    One hour that might save you a life time of error.

    You need to get the basics in order, one step at a time before you pretend or claim to be all knowing, otherwise you might offend those trying to help you.

    You have shown that you totally misunderstand the sacrifices as well.

  12. servingfaithfully says

    trent, I’ve already responded to this nonsense that even you guys don’t believe.

    if you attended a “bar mitzvah” who would you be celebrating? Just like bet, resh could have always been bet, nun (or not, it really doesn’t matter since they both mean “son”) bet, resh, resh is the older form of the word translated purity. No one denies this. No one throws a fit if a scribe dropped a second resh. Why? Because it fits their narrative and to say that a nun could have been copied down as a resh, all of a sudden gets people up in arms.

    I suggest you get your theology from the rest of scripture……OF COURSE there is a son! You just don’t want there to be. That is the problem. You read the text and try to manipulate it so the outcome can be different than it’s been for 2500 years. Trent, I said 2500……not 2000…..the difference being that the markers of Messiah were believed before Christianity ever came on the scene. The very same rabbis that identified Isaiah 53 as messiah, are the same that wrote this down and are considered the sages of the jewish faith. It is the modern day idolaters that tell you differently.

  13. servingfaithfully says

    Ps 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
    4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.

    What regular human man is going to be given dominion over the works of YHVH? answer: NONE, only the Son of YHVH.

    Zech 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

    Another description. “Me” is pierced and “him”……as one mourneth for his ONLY SON… a king with only one son (firstborn) and that son was pierced (and that piercing also pierced YHVH) and the reason that son is pierced is for our transgressions….AND….the world will mourn over this piercing. Remember your argument, Ezek 18 cannot apply to a human man so take into consideration that Isaiah 53 cannot be a human man before answering nor can that one have any sin himself. Good luck with your candidates!

    Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

    So we’re right back to confirming Psalm 8 above and Psalm 2 that we’ve already discussed. “Dominion” is being given to this one and only. Isaiah 7 tells us who he is, Isaiah 9 tells us who he is, Isaiah 53 tells us who he is, Psalm 2, Psalm 8, Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Zechariah 12, and on and on and on and on.

    You can either listen to the Words of YHVH, not ignoring what is right there in the text, or you can listen to the words of adulterous people who have set themselves up with a narrative that must be held onto at any cost. This is not christian doctrine. Nothing I have written above in my posts are from the “christian bible” that you guys like to call it. ALL of what YHVH says predates christianity by centuries! All of these descriptions of Messiah are from the Tanak. The sages knew it. The Jews for centuries knew it. The Prophets knew it. And the guys on the scene “DURING THE TIME OF THOSE KINGS” knew it when they saw it come to pass.

  14. Trent says

    SF you say ” if you attended a “bar mitzvah” who would you be celebrating? Just like bet, resh could have always been bet, nun (or not, it really doesn’t matter since they both mean “son”) ”

    Dont you mean both *can* mean son ?

    Please show me this *bar mitzvah* in the Tanakh that you use as evidence for your claims that Psalms 2 is son.

    Why is this the only place in the Psalms that uses Aramaic?
    Why does the Psalmist already use the Hebrew word ben in same chapter to describe son, but now has to import a foreign word that fits your agenda?

    I do not think you are treating the text with sufficient respect to learn anything my friend and your pitiful excuses are wearing thin.

    Also the almost 2000 year old argument your embarking on is ludicrous.
    Isaiah 53 is describing the same servant to all those other verses you reeled off, and that is blatantly Israel.
    To argue otherwise is futile and id suggest you concentrate on the basics.

    So show me this bar mitzvah in Tanakh that is your evidence?

  15. servingfaithfully says

    Trent, would you please look up the word for purity, and not the modern word, the older word……you know the one where the scribes dropped a resh.

    After you do that, you will realize that bet resh resh is purity. It’s interesting that you can see that and don’t really have a problem with a scribe who has totally omitted a letter. But all of a sudden, if the length of a stroke is seen differently (the only difference between a nun and a resh is the length of a stroke), the world has come to an end. While yes, bar in aramaic is “son” I’m contending that bet resh could have always been bet nun all along in the older scripts. Just like bet resh resh is the word for purity in older scripts.

    Whether that is the explanation for the difference or not, we don’t know. Whether the aramaic word for son is intentional or not we don’t know. But what we absolutely DO KNOW, is that you use a term, the rabbis use a term, all of the world uses a term where bar means son as opposed to bat meaning daughter. You accept it without dispute that bar means son!!!!!

    Lastly, if you go to Psalm2, there is no way in this world that you can contend that “discipline” or “grain” or “purity” is the recipient of the inheritance “of the nations” that the context CLEARLY tells us. In fact, the “inheritor” (pay attention Trent so you can have your Biblical proof) is the same inheritor that the Bible talks about in other places. Amazing isn’t it? That the Bible will tell us things more than once……so that we can be assured of what is being said. Who is the “inheritor” of the nations elsewhere in scripture? Did we not just talk about all of this? I have to go back over it? Come on……..follow along!

    As to Isaiah 53 being any human man, it is ludicrous! Your own arguments of the idolaters make it clear. Ezek 18 says that no man dies for the sins of another man, only for his own sin. So you tell me. Why are you then claiming that ANY man is the subject matter of Isaiah 53? Do you have a problem with comprehension?

  16. servingfaithfully says

    btw, your bogus assumption that aramaic and hebrew together would somehow disqualify a word that clearly in the context means “son”, is totally fabricated. Look up “bar” in Ezra and Daniel. Part of the time they are speaking in aramaic and part of the time in hebrew. Bar CLEARLY means “son” in both and both bar and ben are used by these Prophets to mean “son”.

  17. Trent says

    I still believe you are taking too much liberty with the text and moving the goal posts by introducing your theories on spelling in the Hebrew Bible.
    The Psalms are in the Hebrew language only and nothing else except for the single word you cling to in hope of finding your mangod within.
    The word nashqu-bar ( seek purity) is used by xtians just like you becasue that is what the church teaches.
    After you butcher this word and separate it and then apply a different language altogether to make it mean what you want it to, you still have a problem. A big problem.

    In the english trickster edition of Psalm 2:12 Kiss *THE* son, the definite article (THE) is not there according to the language you chose to represent your belief.
    In Aramaic *the* son is represented with the definite article as יַת בְּרָא (yat birah)
    As you can see, your excuse that there was a reish *dropped* by the scribes, does not come close to explaining why in Aramaic it is indeed an Aleph on the end to make it birah not bar or barar as you contend which can only be associated with *a* son in Aramaic.

    Your excuses know no end, and your level of respect for text is very poor in my view.
    Many of these issues have been covered in great detail by Jono and his excellent guests at Truth2U. You act just like a staunch christian to the degree that you are prepared to believe anything except what is written in front of you.
    I suggest you keep studying and ask the hard questions and then put in the effort to understand the issues from both sides, not just the church version with a yeshua twist.

  18. servingfaithfully says

    What hypocrisy! You have no problem with an omitted resh but somehow when the option MIGHT be that a nun became a resh,(even a child could see how this would be possible) you call that “too much liberty” with the text. You don’t even possess rational thought!

    NOTHING I have contended is from Christian doctrine! It is your own bias against Christian doctrine that causes your blindness. Every single fact that I’ve presented is from Tanak. Even the unarguable FACT that the context of Ps 2 not only reveals it is “son” but the details confirm Dan 7 and Dan 2. Are you mentally stunted?

  19. Trent says

    I was wondering when you start to resort to personal attacks.

    I think we are done.

    Good luck with your learning.

Page 2 of 2 Previous

Leave a Reply