Sunday, 8 December 2013

Messiah being God fears God? Answering Tovia Singer

One assertion brought by Tovia Singer, the owner of Outreach Judaism as well as Gomerozdubar, a muslim on Paltalk, who is often seen engaging with Christians, is the question of, "How can the Messiah be God when he fears God?"

I had said I would answer this objection to Gomer, although instead of a video, I shall address the point he raised here.

Let us read Isaiah 11:1-3
"11 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
    from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
    the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
    the Spirit of counsel and of might,
    the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord."

Firstly, it is important to define the doctrine of the Trinity before we start, It teaches that there is One Eternal God, YHWH or Ha Shem as Rabbinic Jews will call him. Ha Shem means "The Name". The Trinity states there is one God, absolute MONOTHEISM. It also teaches that this one God, exists as 3 distinct persons, Person in the sense of being able to think, reason, plan, interact and speak. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father. One Being in Three Persons. If you think being and person are the same thing, that means you and I are the same person, so I wouldn't go there if I were you.

Second, We need to define what it means to fear the LORD. What does a good God-fearing Jew do? He does what God tells him to do. In the same way, Jesus did what the Father requests of him, which can be found in John 5:19-30

"19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

Again, one who fears the LORD, does what he says, in fact that is what Solomon in Ecclesiastes tells us:

"13 Now all has been heard;
    here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
    for this is the duty of all mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
    including every hidden thing,
    whether it is good or evil."

The Messiah, himself deity, only does ONLY the what Father wills, hence not only his claim to deity is there, which no man can claim, he also claims to do what the Father says perfectly. Fearing the Lord leads one to keeping his commandments. We are not perfect, only Christ is and by his grace, not works, we can be redeemed.

Hope this answers the objection

Answering Judaism.

28 comments:

  1. There's also this issue that the rabbis themselves teach. Yirat Hashem vs. Pachad Hashem. The former means piety, and the latter means actual terror. Jews are supposed to fear God in the former sense, but not in the latter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is indeed interesting. Thanks for the heads up. Are you by any chance the Messianic Drew?

      Delete
  2. 1. You bring up the New Testament without bringing up any reasons why Jews should believe New Testament.

    2. In the entire Tanakh when it talks about people fearing the Lord the people fearing the Lord are 100 percent human and nothing else.

    3. How come in the Tanakh there is no clear explict text stating that God is three in one?

    4. If there is more than one person in the Godhead how do you know that it's only three in one, instead of four, five, six, seven billion, etc?

    5. How did God become three in one and if he was always three in one why the number three instead of any other numbers?

    P.S you didn't answer the objection at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. I was defining in this article what it means to fear God.
      2. This refutes me how? Trinitarians don't believe Yeshua or Jesus is God only, we believe he is God and Man.
      3. Why is there no explicit text in the TANAKH stating he is one person.
      4. NT never makes the claim there is four or more.
      5. Context of both TANAKH and NT.

      Delete
  3. 1. You still bring up the new testament without explaining why a Jew should believe what the new testament says.

    2. All the people in the tanakh that feared God were only human so it stands to reasons that the person in Isaiah 11 would only be human.

    3. Since the Tanakh doesn't it state that God has multiple persons in his being it safe to assume that God is one person. Also Jews in the past such as Josephus and others believe that God had multiple persons within his being. Also the Tanakh is always saying how God is one and uses personal pronouns when they did so such as I.

    4. The Tanakh never makes claims of a trinity.

    5. Think in the context of philosophy so why would a timeless God that exist before time and space. Have always three in one why the number three instead of any other numbers? Just saying the new testament isn't an answer because it's a more philosophical question than a scriptural question and just because the new testament says something doesn't make it logical or true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, My objection in the article was not to prove the New Testament, my point in appealing to the NT was to show in what way Christ feared God. If you want to say the TANAKH has no Trinity, that's your prerogative and you are free in the matter. I leave it up to the person to check my words.

      Delete
  4. Jews or Muslims wouldn't care for your appeals to the New Testament so why bring it up if you wanted to answer a Jewish or Islamic objection. However seeing that you didn't answer my objections it's clear that you agree with them so good day sir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God existing in eternity also makes less sense than evolution, what's you point? Also, since you read the anointed one strange gods article, that already responds to the point of singular pronouns.

      Delete
    2. Furthermore, the objection entails using BOTH The and the NT. Don't Rabbis ask how Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53 for example and quote the NT to try and disprove it? Even Muslim do the same thing.

      Delete
    3. Sorry I meant the NT and the TANAKH.

      Delete
    4. Also, Isaiah 11 doesn't have to speak of his deity at all as another point to digest.

      Delete
  5. A. Also for number 3 I meant to say Josephus and others never believed that God had multiple persons my bad. When God refereed to himself as one he always used personal singular pronouns.

    B. You didn't prove from the tanakh that the person fearing the lord is more than human when all the over people who feared the lord in the tanakh were only human.

    C. The Idea of Evolution makes more sense than the idea of the trinity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1. Let me clarify I meant evolution in the secular sense i.e that the universe always existed and at one day life just evolved out of nowhere. I bring this up because you believe that a multi-personed existed before time and space and that this multi-personed being was only three instead of any other numbers.

    2.The objection only used the Tanakh and your response mostly used the NT and when you did use the Tanakh I didn't see the relevance.

    3. You drop some of my arguments therefore I guess you agreed with them.

    4. In regards to Isaiah 53 that is mostly apples and oranges because most rabbis will say that the picture of Israel in the tanakh fits Isaiah 53 better than the j-man of the NT. So I don't know why you brought Isaiah 53 because when rabbi's do bring up the NT they don't use as an authoritative source which you did and the only reason they bring up the NT is because they're dealing with christians and how to refute them.

    4. If Isaiah 11 doesn't need to speak of his deity why shouldn't people just assume that the person in Isaiah 11 is only a human being. Especially because all the other people in the tanakh that feared god were human beings only as well. Explain that without appealing to the NT.

    5. Why did James White get his knowledge to make that claim about singular pronouns it seems like a but pull to me.

    6. If he correct in saying that singular pronouns refers to the trinity as a whole this means that the person in Isaiah 11 is fearing the trinity. So again why would the j-man fear himself. Also the trinity or any persons of the trinity could never die in a earthly sense according to Psalms 102. Which according to your religion the J-man did also Malachi 3 would mean that the trinity could never experience any change whatsoever. However according to your religion the J-man changed at least 2 maybe three times. Also many tanakh verses would mean that the trinity isn't a man and could never be a man because you think the trinity would've said something.

    7. Where in the context of the Tanakh or NT do you know for an absolute fact that God is only three in one. For all you know the godhead could 7 billion to 17 trillion persons that should or could be worship if that is so how would it be any different from polytheism?

    8. Finally is there possibility that you would ever stop following the man you call the Christ. If the answers is no that would mean this blog you created was just a vehicle for you to hear the sound of your own voice and you ain't seeking truth or logic. At the end of the day you would be admitting that you believe in Jesus because you want to believe which is the same as the mormons, pagans, etc. Meaning you will brush off any arguments no matter how rational or logical they may be because they are contrary to what you believe. If your answer is yes to question 8 then all I have to say to you good day and good bye sir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am willing to consider the arguments from another group and then examine them to see if they hold off. Making a response to an argument IS NOT brushing an argument aside.

      If you mean dying in the sense of ceasing to exist, then I would be on the same page in condemning that.

      As for the point of pronouns, you can ask James White that on his radio show the Dividing Line.

      As for Isaiah 53, Regardless of the Rabbis appealing to the NT as an authority or not, they say "This is what the passage says", then they say "He didn't fulfill this part". If the same NT is good enough to prove their case, then It's good enough for me to use.

      On Isaiah 11, it wouldn't have the Messiah fearing the whole Trinity, it would only have him fearing the Father.

      If you have Paltalk, you and I can speak there as another place of communication. My nic is "Answering Judaism" and my room has the same name. If you add me to your pallist and I happen to be online, I am happy to open the room to talk there.

      Delete
    2. Lastly, if the Context of the TANAKH and the NT make it clear there are three Divine persons who share the one name, I am stuck with that and cannot speculate on more existing, even on a philosophical level.

      Delete
  7. 1. Drop some more of my arguements

    2. You didn't answer my question about would you ever leave Jesus and Christianity if they proven to be false.

    3. You're statement about Isaiah 11 would contradict what James was saying about singular pronouns.

    4. I mean dying in the sense that you and I die i.e heart stopping and no longer breathing. That what happened to the J-man according to Psalms 102 this is an impossibility for YHWH or the trinity.

    5. What verses clearly states that the Godhead is only and absolutely states god is three in one. Even if there are verses just because the NT says something doesn't mean that it's true or logical.

    6. In regards to Isaiah 53 you didn't used the same techniques that the Rabbis but instead reversed it. I don't see why you bring Isaiah 53 especially because rabbi look in the tanakh to show how Israel fulfill Isaiah 53. Also they only do that to refute Christians and since you're refuting Jews and Muslims I don't see your point. Also you're using the NT to show how the j-man fulfill Isaiah 11 which is the opposite of what the rabbi's do. Furthermore I didn't bring up Isaiah 53 your article didn't mention Isaiah 53 and this is just a red herring fallacy that I won't waste any more time on.

    8. EITHER RESPOND TO ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS WITHOUT DROPPING ANY OF THEM OR DON'T RESPOND AT ALL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2. I don't have to answer that.

      3. No it wouldn't.

      4. If you mean that then that's not what happened to Jesus. He as the God-Man died but he didn't cease to exist. Whether you hold to an afterlife or not I don't know.

      6. I was answering Tovia's objection by using the TANAKH and the NT. Tovia is looking at Christian theology and saying in essence "If you believe he is God, how can he be God when he fears God?", Hence, That's why I went to the NT to show in what way he fears God. That was my whole point in going to the NT.

      Delete
  8. 2. Yes you do if you want an honest and rational debate otherwise i'm wasting my time.

    3. You don't say how it doesn't

    4. That's how the Psalms 102 defined it as.

    6. Tovia only used the Tanakh to prove his point which you didn't also the tanakh already has plenty of examples of people fearing God which conflicts with your argument. Mainly because they were all only human which the j-man isn't.

    7. You dropped countless arguements even when I stated for you not to do that showing little to no respect to me. Therefore it's clear that you ain't seeking truth or logic but you just want to hear the sound of your voice so I'll leave you be so good day and goodbye sir.

    THIS IS MY LAST POST

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look, I don't have an answer to everything, I have only been an apologist for a few months. If my comments came off as rude, my apologies about that. Again, Jesus being God is not denying him as human.

      Lastly, I didn't understand your point about Malachi 3.

      Delete
  9. The issue here is the quality of the expected Jewish messiah as prophesied in Isaiah 11:2, and not the exaggerated status of "The Son" derived from NT authorship which aimed to evolve messiahs in flesh into a divine demigod ( firstly attested by deutero-canonical Judaism and Gnosticism) into a full Hellenistic Deity by the time we reach the 4th century.
    Hence the substitution of "The Son" in the NT for defining the qualities of Ha-Messiach in OT tradition doesn't support the statement in Isaiah about "fear of The Lord".
    Thus Ha-Messiach like any fleshly man must strive to reach perfection of love. If Messiah is full deity, there is no concept of reaching perfected love as Deity already possesses perfect love. We see the term "fear of the Lord" translates to-
    1: Reverence:
    "Let all the earth fear the Lord, and let all the inhabitants of the world be in awe of him." (Psalm 33:8),
    2: Obedience to law:
    "That he may learn to fear the Lord his God by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes" (Deuteronomy 17:19)
    3: Concern of punishment before God's judgement:
    "Fear the Lord...to walk in all His ways and love Him" (Dt 10:12, 20).
    "Fear the Lord and serve Him in truth with all your heart" (I Samuel 12:24).

    John 4:17-18 says "In this way love is perfected among us, so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like Him. There is no fear in love, for perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love".

    so Ha-Messiach cannot-be perfect in love if he contains 'fear of the Lord" until God's redeeming Holy spirit uplifts the 7 spirits (also applies to Ha Messiach in flesh) into perfection.

    Isaiah 11:1-3
    "11 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
    from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
    2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
    the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
    the Spirit of counsel and of might,
    the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
    3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord."

    "For thus says the High and Exalted One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in a high and holy place, and also with the contrite and humble in spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble and to revive the spirit of the contrite" (Isaiah 57:15).
    Gomerozdubar and Tovia Singer are 100% correct asserting Ha-Messiach will be in FLESH and CANNOT be Deity. In addition his Role is limited to FLESH. Ones who reject Messiah in flesh are anti-messiah. (1John)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus the Messiah is GOD AND MAN. 1 John 4 in context where it talks about Jesus coming in the flesh doesn't refute me in the slightest or any Trinitarian who exists, because we acknowledge he came in the flesh. The deity of Christ has no connection to Gnosticism at all. I'd rather you go read credible sources and not spread misinformation.

      Delete
  10. It has every connection because Deity of Christ necessitates Christians employ Johannine language and terminology to provide their case. However John's writings were possessed and interpreted first by Valentin Christians in the 1-2nd centuries. The 1st Commentator available on John ( or any NT manuscript), comes by way of Heracleon (@175CE) a student of Valentine specifically on John 1. 4th century NT Canon simply stole 1-2nd Valentin writings ( John's texts) and used it for their own scriptures because of it's demiurge style language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John's Gospels and Letters do not contain Valentinian Gnosticism, the Entire New Testament refutes the concept of Jesus being a demiurge. Colossians 2:9 would be utterly repulsive as would John 1:1. You are making an assertion without backing it up.

      Delete
    2. John found using heavy Platonic and Hellenistic pagan terminology in words like "logos".Why else would John's writing be saturated with pagan jargon and idioms? Words' like "Logos" can never be understood by NT Christians without a background any more than a hotel chef, using words like "stem cells" or "genetic drifting" without referring to Biology. In addition, you really aren't refuting anything and simply responding with opinions. Why are the earliest commentaries and texts of John's writings found with the Valnetnians as early as 150CE and no other Christians felt it necessary to value John and explain his works? Read Heracleon's teaching on John 1 cause it the 1st teaching of John on planet earth available.

      Delete
    3. So yes john was correcting concept of Demigod and other things among those early 1-2 cent. christian groups. His clarification of such concept show us and validates these 1-2 century christian existed and authenticates their early christian movement in the area. The mere fact of John refuting some deviant Gnostic and their concepts means they existed during his writings and earlier. however let's carefully read our earliest historical commentary on John 1:
      Fragments from a Commentary on thFragment 1, on John 1:3 (In John 1:3, “All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.”) The sentence: "All things were made through him" means the world and what is in it. It excludes what is better than the world. The Aeon (i.e. the Fullness), and the things in it, were not made by the Word; they came into existence before the Word. . . “Without him, nothing was made” of what is in the world and the creation. . . "All things were made through Him," means that it was the Word who caused the Craftsman (Demiurge) to make the world, that is it was not the Word “from whom” or “by whom,” but the one “through whom (all things were made).”. . . It was not the Word who made all things, as if he were energized by another, for "through whom" means that another made them and the Word provided the energy. e Gospel of John by Heracleon
      Fragments preserved in Origen's Commentary on John:

      The commentary can be found here:
      http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/heracleon.html

      Delete
    4. I specified a quotation from Paul on Colossians 2:9, WHICH A GNOSTIC WOULD REJECT. Heracleon would stand CONDEMNED by the Gospel of John due to his Gnosticism and John's usage of Logos is not even remotely similar to how pagans used it.

      The concept of a demiurge is heretical to the TANAKH and the NT, You failed to mention that Gnostics (some) believed the Demiurge was evil.

      Plus the Valentians also held to heretical views contrary to apostolic teaching.

      Delete