Lost in Translation
I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior. Isaiah 43:11 NASB
I, even I am the Lord – The One New Man Bible claims to “make the Jewish roots of Christianity come to life.”[1] You might find that statement problematic just as I do, but I appreciate the attempt. Certainly faith in YHVH demands a deep appreciation and understanding of Hebrew and Hebrew thought forms. While I am not so sure that Christianity ultimately rests on those Hebrew roots, I know that most believers have little or no awareness that the themes of the apostolic writings are saturated with Jewish ideas. But we must be very careful not to let one paradigm (the one God of Israel) slip into another paradigm (the Triune God of the Christian Church). Otherwise, subtle shifts in translation will go unnoticed and be accepted as if they are accurate. For example, the One New Man translation of this passage in Isaiah is:
“I AM, I AM the LORD! Besides Me there is no Deliverer/Savior.”
But the Stone Tanakh translates:
“I, only I, am HASHEM, and there is no deliverer aside from Me.”
The Hebrew phrase is:
anochi, anochi YHVH ve-eyn mibaladai moshia
The Stone Tanakh adds the qualifier “only” in order to communicate the exclusive claim of the verse. At least this is closer to the context of Isaiah where worship of false gods was leading Israel down a disastrous path. But the capitalization and bold lettering of the One New Man Bible deliberately connects this statement to the Exodus Tetragrammaton, something not justified by the text alone, and further connects Isaiah’s declaration to the Greek translation of ego eimi, a phrase that means “I am he” but is often translated “I AM” as though it were a statement of divinity. Is this faithfulness to “Jewish roots”? Perhaps so if by “Jewish roots” we mean those things that Christians claim are connections. But it seems unlikely that Jews would make such assertions. In fact, anochi anochi YHVH merely states “I, I YHVH.” The emphasis of the verse in Isaiah is that this name, YHVH, is the name of the only God who can deliver. Even “savior” is a theological addition. The audience that heard Isaiah was not concerned about the Christian idea of salvation. They were concerned about being delivered from the hands of the invading army of the Babylonians.
What can we learn from this investigation, as truncated as it is? Perhaps we learn to be a lot more careful when it comes to reading the text in translation—any translation! Perhaps we might recognize just how entrenched paradigms of Christian thought are in re-reading the Tanakh. Perhaps we may glimpse how opposed the two religions really are despite claims of mutually shared sacred material. One thing we must learn for sure. Translators have opinions. Translations are not mechanical. They are filtered by human hands and what I believe often finds its way into how I decide to decode one language into another.
So pick a Bible. Any Bible. Just make sure you realize that you are reading the interpretation of the translator along with the translation. Then try to find an unbiased native speaker from the 6th Century BCE to tell you what Isaiah really meant.
Topical Index: translation, anochi, I am, Isaiah 43:11, One New Man Bible
[1] One New Man Bible, p. i.
A WAY TO SUPPORT AT GOD’S TABLE
Amazon Smile just sent $48 to At God’s Table because some reader used this link (CLICK HERE) to order from Amazon. That really helps and it costs nothing more than you would spend anyway.
So I am going to post this at the bottom of Today’s Word for the next few days to remind you that if you use this link (CLICK HERE) when you order, you will send a donation to At God’s Table at the same time.
THANK YOU.
Only YHVH saves. Got it. Amen. And His glory He will not give to another. Amen. No other Name by which we are to be saved. Yes.
Now, if we experience the Holy Spirit or see Yeshua, have we or have we not heard and seen the Father? Greek thinking says impossible. Impossible BECAUSE we start from OUR EXPERIENCE of the physical laws of nature under which WE are bound, and think we bind Him under them also? If, in our minds, the Father is G-d, then He, by exclusion, CANNOT be the Son or Spirit? Now, in the last sentence, did the pronoun “He” refer to “Father” or to “G-d”? TO a mind that started from our reality, it would matter. But would it matter if we were to start from G-d’s reality? Which base are we to start from? To work from? Three-dimensional counting? Really? Why? And, why MUST it be EITHER Three OR One? EITHER Trinitarian OR Unitarian (sorry, I will behave, I promise) I mean, One-itarian? Why the dialectic assumption? Is this a shell game? A binary exercise where it is ONLY one or the other? What about the nut-in-the-lap possibility? What about a rigged outcome from the get-go that we got handed from a possibly diabolical source? Why do we HAVE to follow what we MIGHT have been set up to follow? Could we re-consider?
Question The Paradigm
Wouldn’t it be fair to assert that a Greek way of thinking (according to how I think I have been reading Skip so far on this) would be to consider the answer (conclusion) as important, but a Hebrew way of thinking to consider the question as the most important? I mean, if we want to think about it that way, couldn’t we trace all the woes of the planet back to the re-framing of a question in the wrong direction in that Garden?
Of course, each paradigm is going to naturally include a conclusion. But paradigms are not constructed around conclusions. Conclusions are constructed around paradigms, which Skip has been saying over and over. To consider changing a paradigm, then, would be to stop thinking of the conclusion as important per se, and to start thinking of the QUESTION(S) as important, couldn’t we agree?
In the old oriental tale of the creation of the world, at the conclusion of man’s creation, G-d gave mankind His most precious gift, which was a beautiful vase called Truth. This vase had the ability to accurately reflect all the colors and images of everything around it, as well as accurately reflecting the light (which is what Truth does). It was a gift meant to be equally shared by all, but mankind got tired of sharing the gift. They quarreled over who should ‘own’ the gift. In their haste, they all grabbed the vase, and it shattered in their hands. Horrified at the loss of the vase, each person ran to their corner and frantically tried to reconstruct it, using the fragment of the original they possessed as the template to build around. Each person, therefore, ended up with a slightly differing version of the Truth, with but one part of their vases able to accurately reflect the light and the world around them.
Each person tried to proclaim that they, and only they, ‘possessed’ the Truth, the WHOLE Truth, and nothing BUT the Truth; but as they said it, they would always be careful to keep only the accurately reflecting part of their vase turned toward the viewer, so as to ‘prove’ that, of course, only THEIR vase had the ability to perfectly reflect.
And so in continues to this day. Sadly, it seems, we do not naturally wish to consider the obvious solution, which would be to break ALL the vases (paradigms), pluck out the shards of Truth, and re-combine them back together into that one, collectively held, accurate reflection of Reality. (No, NOT ecumenism, which is the opposite attempt- the attempt to pick out ONLY the shards that are already the SAME as all the others.) Why don’t we want to do that? Because, to do that, we would have to break what we had each tried so hard to build. This, according to this story, is the real power of the paradigm.
To me, anyway, if we are going to be truly sincere about reconstructing the original vase, shouldn’t we each become willing to deconstruct our paradigms: to break them back down so as to free those original shards with the intention of taking each piece and, like a jigsaw puzzle, see where it truly fits with all the other pieces? How would we do this?
Well, I just wanted to ask, as a side observation, how well has it been working so far, with each person just comparing the conclusions they have already come to? Have we REALLY been getting anywhere? What about if we became willing to consider starting over with a different approach?
What if the conclusions (original shards of Truth) were not the issue at stake here? What if the BREAK LINES in those pieces were what we needed to be able to see? How would we then go about finding those?
I propose that if we set out to define the questions properly, the answer (original vase reconstruction) would be found within the framework of those questions. Skip has been saying all along that it is the question that is important. So, what are the questions? (This is my question.) I think I have yet to hear the question.
Perhaps we are being Way Too Quick with the ‘answers’. To me, ‘answers’ may be just so many clubs for Neanderthals to hit each other over the head with. Perhaps it is going to be the proper framework of the questions that actually makes us human.
If we could agree on the questions, then perhaps it may be more likely that we are going to be able to agree on the answer to those questions. But, I want to ask, what are the questions? How, exactly, are we to frame this problem of the Trinity? Could we just stop long enough to define the problem? Are we brave enough to start asking what the real problem even is? And why it is a problem?
Thank you to this community! And to Skip for being so brave!
Interesting Laurita. Here is something I wrote yesterday: Is it possible to have an ostensive conundrum? Is this question one of the reasons I like to spend time with nature and children… I hope we can preserve, strengthen, protect what’s left of the beauty of those treasures. Personally, at this time, I don’t think multiple shades of a mixture of black and white that destroy the dignity and purpose of someone else to achieve selfish desires is good for the creation. Some of the things I’m exposed to that people seem to find “entertaining” are perplexing to me. Some of the practices of those who say they are acting in “love” seem very counterproductive imo. But, some of my own thoughts and actions leave me wondering. Maybe it’s an ostensive conundrum… Maybe that’s why “grace” is so valuable. Teach them well….
I believe this is based in Greek philosophy; the requirement/claim that one can have absolute truth. But isn’t this absurd, if his thoughts are beyond our thoughts as the heavens are above the earth? YHVH is ineffable, as R’ Abraham Joshua Heschel said. To define something is to limit it, and to limit YHVH to what our minds can comprehend is hubris. He is the unity unlike all unities (Rambam.) The problem with religion (all brands) is that it is like Hotel California: You can check out any time, but you can never leave….
I always loved that song.
hubris
Hello Chaya. I simply had to look up the definition for hubris.
ˈhjuːbrɪs/
noun
noun: hubris
excessive pride or self-confidence.
“the self-assured hubris among economists was shaken in the late 1980s”
synonyms: arrogance, conceit, conceitedness, haughtiness, pride, vanity, self-importance, self-conceit, pomposity, superciliousness, feeling of superiority; More
hauteur;
informaluppitiness, big-headedness
“the self-assuring hubris among economists was shaken in the late 1960s”
antonyms: modesty
(in Greek tragedy) excessive pride towards or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.
Origin
Greek.
I think it was a good choice in the context of your comment.
There is not one of us that can say we have the absolute truth. We are all continuously learning like little children and I appreciate Skips TW’s which make us question and re-examine what we have taught as gospel truth over many years (more so for some than others) by pastors and teachers in our past. It is a very interesting and stimulating journey of that I am sure. I remember a speaker/author once using an illustration of drawing a very large circle on a blackboard and the asking the question “if this circle represents all knowledge, and you were to represent how much of it you know?” The answer would be a tiny little dot in the circle. It makes one realise how little we really do know and “How great is our God.”
And what is more amazing is that YHWH loves each one of us and has provided a way for us to have fellowship with Him. And yes we will make mistakes but if we humble ourselves and confess our sins and return to Him He will forgive us.
Okay, Laurita, here are some questions.
1. Are we (people in general or Christianity in general) looking at God “big enough”? Does the Trinity doctrine limit God?
2. Isn’t your word you? Doesn’t your word represent you? Is it the same with God’s word?
3. Couldn’t God have His word be anything He wants it to be, at any time He wants it to be, and in as many places as He wants it to be?
4. And is it the same with God’s spirit, anytime and anywhere, His presence? (I bring up this last question because of a hefty tome I read on the the Trinity, which stated the Spirit HAD to be a Person in order to do all that “He” did.)
I am happier already! I am going to copy them down in my book. Thank you. Now, define person….
just a comment on numbers 3 and 4.
Certainly it is true that God can be anything He wishes to be, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is that He chose to reveal Himself to a particular people in a particular culture at a particular time in a particular language. So everything else that is possible doesn’t really matter. We have to deal with what IS THE CASE, not with WHAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.
Oh, and the difference between my word being me and God’s word being Him is that he never lies and never conceals.
As for #4, the Hebrew idea of reality is tied to ACTION not ESSENCE, so the “spirit” of the Lord is legitimately an acronym for the action of the Lord. Reading the text this way avoids all the compilations inherent in the Greek concept of “person,” that is, uniquely identifiable in space and time.
Thank you Skip. So, a move away from Person (as being a something “uniquely identifiable in space and time”), and back toward a description of Function (i.e. what He is is what He does). Would the concept of Trinity, then, require (limit) G-d (or pieces of Him!) to be “uniquely identifiable in space and time”, and thus limit Him in His function, which obviously can operate outside of that space and that time?
Yeshua comments in John 4 that YHVH is Spirit. What does this say about the one who is speaking? And how does this alter our later view that the Spirit is a separate “person”?
So, to speak like a Greek, we should talk in nouns about things and persons, but to talk like a Hebrew, we should talk in verbs about actions and functions?
Of course, Hebrew has nouns. Lots of them. But the essence of the worldview is on the verb, the DOING, not the being as it is in Greek.
So a noun would have BEING as its ‘goal’, or essence; its fulfillment, but a verb would have PURPOSE as its essence, or its fulfillment? If YHVH is revealed in DEEDS, then purpose would define Him. Indeed, all false gods are revealed in chaos, which is the absence of purpose. They are to be revered and followed just because they are. You can make a LIKENESS of a being, but we have yet to figure out how to make an accurate likeness of a Doing. This is so funny. The concrete Hebrew, in the end, is confronted with the most deeply abstract, metaphysical concept of G-d ever. I am still giggling… In a good way….
What makes you think God never conceals? That doesn’t seem to be “Jewish” or “Christian.”
Does God ever withhold information or relationship that you need?
“Oh, and the difference between my word being me and God’s word being Him is that he never lies and never conceals.” Proverbs 25:2 Since there are numerous other verses that say that His ways are hidden, secret or concealed, your answer is difficult to comprehend. Is there a concealed meaning to conceal?
OK, let me start again. Does God ever withhold information vital to men? Doesn’t the text say that He always reveals to the prophets what is necessary and required? That does not mean we know everything. It means that in His communication to us He does not conceal what we must know in order to serve Him. So, yes, some thing are hidden, but what is hidden is not necessary for us. Unlike human beings who often hide what is really necessary in order to manipulate.
If we knew ALL the facts, we would always do what God intends for to not do so would be tantamount to death.
But when it comes to human information, we learn immediately in Genesis 3 that some of the FACTS we must know are deliberately withheld.
That does help. Thank you.
Interesting Laurita. I think the question for me is why is Christianity a Messiah based religion and Judaism is not? (I know that is going to ruffle feathers, hold the stones for one more second lol) You take away Messiah and for most Christians and the floor falls out beneath them – the religion is done. What is Judaism based off of? Torah. I think that it (Christianity) should be more based towards that.
Maybe I’m not helping with the question, but it to me goes beyond the trinity. So you come to the point of saying Yeshua does not equal God. They are not one in the same. 1+1+1=3 not 1. So now what? What does that leave you with? What do we gain with the New Testament? That’s my question. If Yeshua is not God, if you can not add or take away from the Torah, if it is commentary then why is this our splitting wedge with our southern brothers?
That’s my question, it baffles me. The differences that we could have would be so minute in my eyes if there would not be this elevation of man that never said to be elevated…never once did he say ‘pray to me’, ‘make statues for me’, ‘worship me’ yet we do. Then when we leave the, ‘modern church’ and come over to this, there is this deep connection to it still. Why? What was the point of Yeshua’s 33 years of life and ministry that could not be gained with out knowing Torah? If you know Torah does his ministry become obsolete?
Those are the questions that I wrestle with.
I should also say this, I am quite sympathetic for people that don’t think like me I hope no one takes offense. I also understand that there are Coptic Christian brothers/sisters that are being slaughtered in a mini genocide half way across the world from me – so it’s easy and I am blessed by God to even be able to ask these questions. These are the times I’m torn, I seek answers in the mean time, people are dying for their faith and probably have half the knowledge I do but willing to say, “I love Jesus”. I figure the only reason why I’m not there is because He figures I would fail the test – to be brutally honest with myself.
There is this inner excitement for Messiah to come for me, everything will be restored, and all these answers will be answered and people won’t have to die for an idea – it will be wonderful. Then I fear because I have this feeling that when He says, “I never knew you” He’s talking to me.
I guess what I’m saying is these questions that I ask sometimes make me feel uncomfortable – I don’t know exactly what I’m suppose to feel because I think the answers look more, ‘Jewish’ but then I don’t want to lose my connection to my brothers/sisters that are dying because of what they believe and how they think is exactly how I use to think. I don’t know if that makes any sense.
I should just say the whole, “I would fail the test”. What I’m saying is that I love God but I don’t get God. I don’t get Yeshua. I know that God exist, I know His Torah is truth and I try to do the best I can to serve Him with what He’s revealed to me. I believe that Yeshua is the Messiah too – I don’t even know what that means though. I do know that it doesn’t mean that we don’t follow God’s instructions anymore. I know that what was revealed wasn’t task masters moved from Pharaoh to Hashem after Egypt – it’s wasn’t bondage to bondage.
I can easily sit here while it’s snowing outside with the heat on and a nice glass of clean water and say, “I would die for it” but it’s easy to say in these conditions is what I’m trying to say I guess. Then there are these people that are literally 7 years old that smile in the face of death that don’t need answers and just say, “I love Jesus” and know that is the death sentence for them but say it with a smile. Or when asked what they would do to ISIS they say, “I would forgive them”. It puts you in a weird spot; maybe just me.
In the process of leaving what I came from, did I leave more then just ‘greek’ ideas but did I lose a part of this child like faith, that came with joy and love? I think I did sometimes I find myself confused on even how to pray more often then not, or how to approach God because now I know there is ‘a way’ to approach Him. Sometimes I feel ignorance is bliss. Weird tangent hopefully you pulled something out of it.
But the Jewish idea of the world is NOT without Messiah. The difference is TIMING, not missing concepts. And there is a very long history as to why Jews do not see the Christ as the fulfillment of the TIMING of Scripture, not least of which is the fact that the Christian Christ does not seem to fit the requirements of the Jewish Messiah.
With modern Christians take away Messiah, it looks like what? I don’t really know but when I was a catholic and first found out that Easter wasn’t real, that Santa wasn’t real that x-mas was bogus I just became and atheist – there was nothing to stand on. I had a message that I could find with just about any religion out there. I thought, “Well that religion was fun, I think I can have something else.”, because it was all about Messiah. And truthfully the notion that, you get this get out of jail free card just because you were given the ability to say, “Jesus is my Messiah” was odd in my mind. So with out Messiah, there wasn’t anything that couldn’t be replaced. (obviously not where I am today thought)
But even when you look at people considering Bar Kokhba as Messiah – Jews today don’t say, “Well they didn’t know any Torah” or, “They were dumb”. But they say that about first followers today, “Oh look at these guys, fisherman, tax collectors – they didn’t know Torah”.
I mean there are people like Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri and others that came to know Yeshua as the Messiah. At Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri yeshiva they had an interview with many of his students that believed Yeshua was the Messiah. These were grown men 50-70 years old, most of them have Torah memorized or large parts of it, Talmudic scholars. How did their life look different? No different, still wore tzitzit, still wore kippah’s etc. (I don’t do any of that because I don’t think you have to BUT that’s a side topic). Said, “Ya, Yeshua is the Messiah”. But that’s what I’m gearing at with not Messiah centered. Their life looks like picture “A” before hand, now it looks like “A” after. Take Messiah away, still looks like “A”.
Full circle, Modern Christianity, take away Messiah you have ‘bondage’ you have an angry God that truthfully you NEED an advocate hence the purpose of Messiah in modern Christians eyes. With out Messiah – forget it Hashem has anger management problems and He’s going to blame you for all of life difficulties. That’s the mentality. Bondage to bondage, slave driver to slave driver. Messiah came and saved and is the new God.
And with the timing it’s the Daniel prophecy? Ya I defiantly get the cloaked thing. That’s why the more I learn Torah the more I’m convinced He’s Messiah ben Yosef. Yosef was dressed like an Egyptian (Gentile), spoke like one (Greek for us), brothers didn’t recognize him (Southern Brothers have no idea who our Messiah is), sat at the right hand of the Pharaoh (Pharaoh symbolic of God), authority was given to Yosef by Pharaoh (one could argue the same with Yeshua) etc. But even if you were to explain that to a Jew wouldn’t matter because until, ‘Yosef’ spoke to them in their language and wanted to reveal himself to them they wouldn’t have ever known.
Still don’t follow though how Judism is Messiah centered. Other then they are looking forward to the Messianic age but even with that it’s more like, “That’s nice”, no?
I was reading your comment and your math. Sure 1+1+1=3, but could it be that we need to reconsider our assumption that we need to be in addition when we need to be in multiplication? Now we have 1x1x1=1.
Mathematic relations are NOT the issue, even if the analogies fit the paradigm. The problem is 1. 1 is still 1, not 3, even in multiplication. 1 is a unique, identifiable integer not equal to 3 no matter how many 1’s you string together. Multiplying 1 still does not resolve the issue of the uniqueness of each 1. And Trinitarian claims do not assert that God is a MULTIPLICATION of 1. They assert that God is 3 in 1. That is a problem for any mathematical analogy.
Thanks for the comment John. Frankly you could be 100% correct on how that works. However I don’t believe in the trinity for a number or reasons. For one I don’t think Yeshua was praying to himself, or that Hasatan would have even tried to tempt God because he has to ask permission to do anything from God and God is perfect, and that you never see Yeshua say, “worship me”, or a number other reasons. I do believe that Yeshua was divine, the Messiah, and emulated God’s personality with perfection. But there isn’t anywhere in the Bible that says Messiah=God, that i can find. They don’t have to be one in the same. I use to believe in the trinity, then this past year looked at which i thought was a staple of faith, and it really didn’t make sense to me.
But with that said, just because it doesn’t make sense to me now doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t make sense to you. I wouldn’t want any of my hang ups to be someone’s stumbling block when coming to Him.
And last point with it, I don’t think there is any sin in connection to it one way or another. I guess you could argue that I was ‘right’ and you were ‘wrong’ then essentially trinity believers are just a form idolaters. If it was switched around maybe it would be breaking the first commandment? But I figure He’s in charge of the knowledge if we are seeking His face, it’s not like you got the knowledge by yourself and vice versa. Either way, it’s nothing to get too twisted about as far as faith wise. I guess what I’m saying is our walk wouldn’t look too different if you believed in the trinity and I didn’t unless someone asked.
I should say though that what I’ve heard is any time that you try to divide God up, you’re very close if not there to the idea of ‘idolatry’. It’s something I keep on hearing over and over again. So when you say, “there is this part and that part” essentially at least today, Jews would say, “idolatry” because it can’t work that way.
Although I haven’t examined it, I suspect, “One New Man,” is just more pseudo-scholarship, like AENT?
I like what you said, Chaya1957. So far, I think the tendency, at least with myself, I know, has been pretty much acting like G-d is on trial, or something. Defensive, for sure. Either defending what I think I know, or at least defending what I think He may be. I am suggesting that we turn that trial around; that we take Him off the hot seat, and put the problem of the Trinity on the hot seat. Wouldn’t that at least go further in limiting the problem (Trinity), instead of limiting the answer (YHVH)? Instead of trying to define what He may or may not be (like you said, we can never know anyway!) let us try to define what the problem of the Trinity may or may not be. Could we talk about the problem, instead of just pointing out that there is one? I got it. There is one. Or more. Can’t tell yet. Wish I could. Help!
Pseudo-scholarship might be too strong. I think the intention is right, but we are so saturated with “Christian” concepts that they infect all our attempts at translating a language that did not contain them (i.e., the Hebrew of the Tanakh). I am writing more about this and it will soon be published on the web site.
What is the name and address of this unbiased native 6th Century BCE speaker? 🙂
Anonymous and non-existent
Skip, please continue to post the Click Here Amazon ordering reminder. I will be ordering a book this weekend and would not have remembered to use that link if I hadn’t been reminded! Same for NEXT time I order something , and the NEXT… Some of us need continual timely hints!
Thanks, I will do so occasionally. It makes a difference.
What I did to help me remember to use the link was to set the Amazon Smile page as my bookmark shortcut to Amazon on my web browser. So now every time I browse Amazon, I’m already starting from that page. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks. IF everyone did this, it would be a great help. I will suggest it.
Once you click on the link for the SmileAmazon to order, you can bookmark it and always start there anytime you order from Amazon. Makes it a lot easier for me!
Have You Seen This Man?
Yes, “pick a Bible, any Bible,” and notice, please, the “rest of the story,”- the New(er) Covenant, begins with an introduction of a Person, SomeOne who is very unique, yet in many ways, just like us. SomeOne very human, yet very Divine. You know anyone (save One) who was born of a virgin? Me neither! One who claimed to be, (and was called) “both” son of man AND Son of God!!
~ This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: ~ – any problems with this one?
~This is a record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of David and of Abraham: ~ any problems with this one?
~ The historical record of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham..
We could continue with this same “one verse” but perhaps, as it is written, we might could “see” this is the introduction of a Person, the person of One who is called “Savior.”
This Person and the written historical account of this Person is introduced to us in Matthew 1.1. We have a record, an accounting of His genealogy, His ancestry, – introducing this Man, One who often referred to Himself as the “son of Man.” [Why?]
Why would it be “necessary” to establish the facts? (ma’am). This is Jesus, (or Yeshua if you insist), according to His ancestral lineage, the King of the Jews. Here’s your sign. How many “signs” along the way does it take?
How is it possible to NOT see this? To see what? – The promised Messiah has come.
In the Old(er) Covenant, we see the history of a people. In the New(er), we are introduced to a Person.
Cousin John announced Him also, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” This solitary statement might just be the Master Theme of all the Scriptures!! The Living Word of God is no longer concealed but revealed. The prophesies of God are no longer foreshadowed but are now fulfilled.
Just the facts, m’am.. ~ the Word did become flesh and did live with us and among us!!
Dear Skip I learn about being Jewish in my thinking from you just as much (sometimes more) as from my shul. I keep getting a clearer picture of G-d from you in ways that are Jewish that I don’t get at shul. Just now I learned more about an aspect of one of His tittles and your post on what the spirit really means of G-d in a reply post of yours here.
You have know idea how I wish I had your mental faculty.
Today rabbi Skip:)
20Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.