Zone1 Which came first, Christianity or Judaism?

[TruthNotBS]

ROFLMAO-----mr. man imagines that RASHI, an 11th century rabbi who lived in
Framce -----somehow agrees with mr. man's english translation of Hebrew. Rashi
was VERY precise----he did translate---for the sake of example---into French---not
english. MICHAEL IS NOT A "question" in hebrew

He interprets Elohim as "judge", because the kings of Israel are also judges. They function as judges. Remember the story of the two women fighting over the baby? Solomon gives the verdict. Cut the baby in two..as a ruse, to find who was actually the mother. The mother pleads " don't kill him, give the baby to her". The woman who said that, is the mother. The kings of Israel are judges. They like the judges are identified as Elohim because they function as/for Elohim. We can debate on how exactly they are like Elohim, but nonetheless, the text is explicitly identifying these human servants as "Elohim". The shaliach and the one who sends him, are as ONE.

Joseph wore the ring of Pharaoh, bearing His royal seal and Name. He was, for all intents and purposes, Pharaoh.. He was second to the actual Pharoah. Similar idea. The Sar Gadol in heaven, Michael, bears the Seal of YHWH. After his incarnation, martyrdom, and resurrection, he is known as Yehoshua/Joshua/Jesus = Salvation of YHWH. That's what his name means.

 

[irosie91]

mr. man-----why not admit the fact that you are COMPLETELY illiterate in hebrew----
google cannot alter that fact.

 

[irosie91]

He interprets Elohim as "judge", because the kings of Israel are also judges. They function as judges. Remember the story of the two women fighting over the baby? Solomon gives the verdict. Cut the baby in two..as a ruse, to find who was actually the mother. The mother pleads " don't kill him, give the baby to her". The woman who said that, is the mother. The kings of Israel are judges. They like the judges are identified as Elohim because they function as/for Elohim. We can debate on how exactly they are like Elohim, but nonetheless, the text is explicitly identifying these human servants as "Elohim". The shaliach and the one who sends him, are as ONE.

Joseph wore the ring of Pharaoh, bearing His royal seal and Name. He was, for all intents and purposes, Pharaoh.. He was second to the actual Pharoah. Similar idea. The Sar Gadol in heaven, Michael, bears the Seal of YHWH. After his incarnation, martyrdom, and resurrection, he is known as Yehoshua/Joshua/Jesus = Salvation of YHWH. That's what his name means.

by YOUR CONVOLUTED "logic"-----some london rummy could argue that
THE HOUSE OF LORDS is a gaggle of "GODS OF THE UNIVERSE"----all of whom
are doppelgangers of poor innocent Jesus of Nazareth

 

[AsherN]

See what you did there? The text reads "there is none like you" which directly answers the question of mi ka'el, Who is like you?

You're taking it out of context and misapplying it.

Deu 33:25-27 Thy shoes shall be iron and brass; and as thy days, so shall thy strength be. (26) There is none like unto the El of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky. (27) The eternal Elohim is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.

You take text out of context, and your translations are bad. If you want proper translations, go to Jewish sources. if you like the old English, I recommend Bible and Mishneh Torah for All - Jews and Gentiles / Mechon Mamre

 

[TruthNotBS]

You take text out of context, and your translations are bad. If you want proper translations, go to Jewish sources. if you like the old English, I recommend Bible and Mishneh Torah for All - Jews and Gentiles / Mechon Mamre

Thank you. I haven't been to that website in a long time. It's a good resource.

 

[irosie91]

Thank you. I haven't been to that website in a long time. It's a good resource.

"ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" ----reminds me of lines in the Koran which make
the claim "MUHUMMAD IS THE FINAL PROPHET" ---any suggestion of
more to come is considered BLASPHEMY. I understand----I am the final and only
ROSIE

 

[TruthNotBS]

"ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" ----reminds me of lines in the Koran which make
the claim "MUHUMMAD IS THE FINAL PROPHET" ---any suggestion of
more to come is considered BLASPHEMY. I understand----I am the final and only
ROSIE

The only begotten son of YHWH, as in the only angel that was ever conceived in a woman's womb, and born human.

 

[irosie91]

The only begotten son of YHWH, as in the only angel that was ever conceived in a woman's womb, and born human.

yeah, I got it-----very Greek and very Roman. Zeus was also into begetting little
"gods" with earth ladies. If I remember correctly, PROMETHEUS had a mortal
mama -----baby Daddy being Zeus ???

 

[TruthNotBS]

yeah, I got it-----very Greek and very Roman. Zeus was also into begetting little
"gods" with earth ladies. If I remember correctly, PROMETHEUS had a mortal
mama -----baby Daddy being Zeus ???

The firstborn or only begotten god/angel is the second Adam, hence he is no ordinary human being. There are examples in the Hebrew Bible of miraculous births. Isaac was conceived by a 90-year-old woman and a 99-year-old man. Samson's mother conceived him through a miracle. Adam and Eve were created miraculously. The last Adam was also conceived through a miracle. YHWH can do it, it's easy.

The Israelites had practices that were common among other religions in the middle east. YHWH can fulfill His will, by whatever means He chooses.

 

[rosends]

You're taking it out of context and misapplying it.

Deu 33:25-27 Thy shoes shall be iron and brass; and as thy days, so shall thy strength be. (26) There is none like unto the El of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky. (27) The eternal Elohim is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.

(The everlasting arms and the means through which YHWH "thrusts out", are finite, divine agents. They are identified in scripture as "gods"/divine immortals - in a limited sense, they are like YHWH.)

in context it says "there is none like you" and yet you changed it to "there is no other God". That is obvious and clear. And your statement that "arms" are finite, divine agents is silly. דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם

We know from scripture that there are other gods,

maybe you "know" that but then again, you are a polytheist. I know nothing of the sort. The Torah speaks of the gods that people believe in but which don't really exist.

(8:6) Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels (Elohim/elohim/gods), and hast crowned him with glory and honor.

Mankind was created a little lower than the gods.

no, man was made a little lower than the angels. You even quoted it as such, and then changed it in your summary. That's dishonest. The word means more than one thing but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to have it mean multiple things in one context or to flit between them for your convenience. There are no other "gods" and angels are angels. Inventing this line of "absolutely equal" is just your way of defending an untenable position. Remember, אֵין⁠־כָּמ֖וֹךָ בָאֱלֹהִ֥ים.

Psa 82:1-8 A Psalm of Asaph. God/Elohim/Sar Gadol, standeth in the congregation of EL (The Mighty One YHWH); in the midst of the judges (Elohim/gods), He judgeth:

it doesn't say "sar gadol" -- that's you inserting stuff. And inserting (Elohim/gods) at the end is equally dishonest. You should stop doing that.

YHWH possesses the Naitons through Mashiach/SAR GADOL = The Highest Of His Creatures = The true Son of YHWH, the King of Kings = "Mee-kha-el" מיכאל, The One Who Is Like God/YHWH. The Arm of Adonai, Shepherd of Israel, who uniquely bears The Name of Hashem.

tying together all of your dishonesty and mistakes to try and craft an argument is just compounding your problem.

Exodus 23:21 "Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since My Name is in him."

actually, Rashi identifies this "him" as Metatron. Strange that you would tie this to Michael. And the "name" (in Hebrew, shem doesn't always mean a literal name. In this case, as the Rashbam explains "בשמי הוא מצוה לכם") refers to authority.

Joshua 5:13-15
כִּי אֲנִי שַׂר צְבָא יְהוָה
ki ani sar tzeva YHWH

Sar Gadol/High Prince/Archangel MeeKhaEl = The Prophet Like Moses/Joshua/Yehoshua/Jesus = Mashiach Ha'Melech = Salvation Of YHWH (Yehoshua/Joshua/Jesus).

While that verse does refer to Michael, all those other equivalences you try to make are meaningless extensions of all the errors you have conjoined.

So you are misinterpreting that passage and contradicting all of the other passages where YHWH Himself, declares others to be Elohim.

only if you misunderstand the other uses of "elohim" and claim they mean "god".

For example, there is also No Savior but YHWH, in an absolute sense:

Isaiah 43:11 states: "I, even I, am YHWH, and apart from me there is no savior."

Now, let's look at some examples where humans are identified as saviors:

1. Judges 3:9 : "But when they cried out to YHWH, he raised up for them a savior, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, who saved them."
2. Nehemiah 9:27 : "So you delivered them into the hands of their enemies, who oppressed them. But when they were oppressed they cried out to you. From heaven you heard them, and in your great compassion you gave them saviors, who rescued them from the hand of their enemies."
3. 2 Kings 13:5 : "Then YHWH gave Israel a savior, so that they escaped from under the hand of the Syrians, and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as before."

These verses illustrate that while YHWH is seen as the ultimate savior, human individuals can serve as "saviors" or "deliverers" in the sense that they lead or rescue people from danger, through the power of YHWH, the TRUE SAVIOR.

What the text ACTUALLY says is that God can assign others the role of intermediary to effect saving from a threat. No one else is a savior unless directly given that position by God. As the JPS translation has it, "None but me, GOD;
Beside Me, none can grant triumph."

שהוא כח ילוה לאדם לעשות פעל משובח ולהציל קהל חשוב מקהל רעים, והיא הגבורה המושפעת מהאל ית׳.

You are saying "THERE IS NO ONE LIKE GOD", but there are passages, as I already showed, that completely contradict that claim,

only if you misinterpret the passages. Which you do. Repeatedly.

He was like God to Pharaoh and His brother Aaron, in a limited, functional sense.

No, he was to judge or be a master to phar'oh. He wasn't a god and neither was his brother.
וְאַתְּ תְּהֵי לֵהּ לְרָב
Aharon doesn't turn into Moses' mouth but plays a role as a translator/spokesperson. "l'peh" doesn't mean "to a mouth".

1Ch_29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of YHWH as king instead of David his father, and prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

"listened to him."

1Ch 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless YHWH your Elohim. And all the congregation blessed YHWH ELOHIM of their fathers and bowed down their heads, and worshipped YHWH, and the king (King David).

the text reads that the people bowed to God and to the king, not that they worshipped. Bereisheet 33:7, were they worshipping Eisav? The same word וישתחוו is used. 42:6 did the brothers worship Joseph? Same word. No, they bowed to him. Bow doesn't mean worship. When you start with a misquote, you draw a wrong conclusion. The rest of that drivel then falls apart.

(it's a functional equality, rather than an ontological one). Elohim is with the Judge in Judgment,

see, you go off the rails. You concede that elohim means judge but then decide that there is an equality. That's all you, not the text.

hence the judge is called "Elohim", within the capacity of his vocation or work as a judge (in the case of Psalms 45:7, the king of Israel is identified by Rashi as a judge).

no, the judge is called elohim because the word derives from a root meaning "power" (or "strong" or "in front" depending on which source you want to use) so it includes the position of "judge". Go check Klein if you don't believe me.

Rabbinic Judaism didn't teach you this ancient Hebrew principle? The law of agency. Shaliach. The principle and the one who is sent, are as ONE.

No, they are not "as one". One is a proxy, a representative. If they were as one, a person could assign a shaliach to take his lashes for him. But he can't because the shaliach is not as one with him. You should studied the rules of agency to see that it isn't being "as one" in many cases

https://baishavaad.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Shluchim-Mareh-Mekomos-Week-3.pdf

He judges through human beings, who are identified as Elohim, because they judge as Elohim.

no, because they are acting as judges.

They are functionaries of divine judgment and hence are identified as Elohim. This is clear from the text.

Deuteronomy 1:17, Moses advises the judges as follows: "You shall not be partial in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God’s."

actually, that verse is saying "if you make a mistake I will fix it because ultimately, judgement belongs to me"
Check Sanhedrin 8a. In 2 Chron 19:6 you can see that the reassurance to judges is that God is "with" them in their judgement which the Radak explains as
כלומ' שתיראו ממנו כאלו הוא עמכם בדבר משפט. או פרושו: יהיה עמכם ויעזר אתכם בדבר משפט אם תיראו ממנו:

so, no, they are not functionaries of divine judgement but judges who have to have faith in God. If there is any ontological/metaphorical relationship between man and God it does not confer any identity beyond that limited role. So a king who is chosen by God to rule is not "like God" even though he performs a role in a limited context that is also a role of God. You try so hard to draw the connection into one of identity because you need to. A and B are both letters of the alphabet so there is a similarity in local roles, but you can't expand that similarity or say that A=B because of that.

Because that's what is in the original Hebrew. The word Elohim within the context of that verse, is a creature acting as a functionary or shaliach of YHWH.

No, there is no assigning of shlichut and the concept of shaliach isn't even relevant here.

Rashi uses the word judge, because the judges are Elohim. They judge for Elohim, hence they are identified as Elohim, in a functional sense.

No, Rashi did not use the word "judge" there. Didn't you read what I quoted?

It doesn't literally mean God. Correct. I never suggested otherwise.

except when you inserted the word "God" into your restatement.

In this verse, the phrase "וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲוּ֔וּ לַיהוָ֖ה וְלַמֶּֽלֶךְ" (vayishtachavu laYHVH veLamelekh) is translated as "bowed down and prostrated themselves before YHWH and the king." The verb "וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲוּ֔וּ" (vayishtachavu) is practically, almost always, translated as "worshipped".

"practically almost always"? Equivocate much? And in the text you quoted, the word "worshipped" isn't there so a claim bout how it is translated isn't supported by your own citation!
Tell Avraham that he worshipped people
וַיָּ֧קׇם אַבְרָהָ֛ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ לְעַם־הָאָ֖רֶץ לִבְנֵי־חֵֽת
when you start with a sloppy read, you end with sloppy conclusions. You should also tell Yirmiyahu that he needn't include the word וַיַּעַבְדוּם in chapters 16 and 22 because he already wrote וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ.

Here it is translated as "bowed down and prostrated themselves," reflecting both the act of physical prostration and the respectful attitude that characterizes worship.

ah, so it doesn't mean "worship" but you draw that conclusion and insert it into your understanding because it is convenient for you and invent the notion that...

He is worshiped with YHWH.

except he isn't. People bow to him as many people bow to other people without worshipping them.

To Bow or Not To Bow? by Rabbi Yirmiyahu Ullman - <a href='http://www.rabbiullman.com'>www.rabbiullman.com</a>

ohr.edu

Can one bow before a king? Can one bow to a statue of a king?

Can one bow before a king? Can one bow to a statue of a king? For example, if one is visiting North Korea, may one bow to the statues as shown in this picture? Note that they are not fully prostra...

judaism.stackexchange.com

If the nations' ministers are all appointed by Hashem, why is it idol worship?

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I was pondering it today and I hope you will find it as interesting as I do. Every Rabbinic opinion I've seen, although there are plenty I haven't of c...

judaism.stackexchange.com

keep your shituf. It is meaningless to Jews.

 

[TruthNotBS]

in context it says "there is none like you" and yet you changed it to "there is no other God". That is obvious and clear. And your statement that "arms" are finite, divine agents is silly. דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם

maybe you "know" that but then again, you are a polytheist. I know nothing of the sort. The Torah speaks of the gods that people believe in but which don't really exist.


no, man was made a little lower than the angels. You even quoted it as such, and then changed it in your summary. That's dishonest. The word means more than one thing but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to have it mean multiple things in one context or to flit between them for your convenience. There are no other "gods" and angels are angels. Inventing this line of "absolutely equal" is just your way of defending an untenable position. Remember, אֵין⁠־כָּמ֖וֹךָ בָאֱלֹהִ֥ים.


it doesn't say "sar gadol" -- that's you inserting stuff. And inserting (Elohim/gods) at the end is equally dishonest. You should stop doing that.


tying together all of your dishonesty and mistakes to try and craft an argument is just compounding your problem.


actually, Rashi identifies this "him" as Metatron. Strange that you would tie this to Michael. And the "name" (in Hebrew, shem doesn't always mean a literal name. In this case, as the Rashbam explains "בשמי הוא מצוה לכם") refers to authority.

While that verse does refer to Michael, all those other equivalences you try to make are meaningless extensions of all the errors you have conjoined.

only if you misunderstand the other uses of "elohim" and claim they mean "god".

What the text ACTUALLY says is that God can assign others the role of intermediary to effect saving from a threat. No one else is a savior unless directly given that position by God. As the JPS translation has it, "None but me, GOD;
Beside Me, none can grant triumph."

שהוא כח ילוה לאדם לעשות פעל משובח ולהציל קהל חשוב מקהל רעים, והיא הגבורה המושפעת מהאל ית׳.

only if you misinterpret the passages. Which you do. Repeatedly.

No, he was to judge or be a master to phar'oh. He wasn't a god and neither was his brother.
וְאַתְּ תְּהֵי לֵהּ לְרָב
Aharon doesn't turn into Moses' mouth but plays a role as a translator/spokesperson. "l'peh" doesn't mean "to a mouth".

"listened to him."

the text reads that the people bowed to God and to the king, not that they worshipped. Bereisheet 33:7, were they worshipping Eisav? The same word וישתחוו is used. 42:6 did the brothers worship Joseph? Same word. No, they bowed to him. Bow doesn't mean worship. When you start with a misquote, you draw a wrong conclusion. The rest of that drivel then falls apart.

see, you go off the rails. You concede that elohim means judge but then decide that there is an equality. That's all you, not the text.

no, the judge is called elohim because the word derives from a root meaning "power" (or "strong" or "in front" depending on which source you want to use) so it includes the position of "judge". Go check Klein if you don't believe me.

No, they are not "as one". One is a proxy, a representative. If they were as one, a person could assign a shaliach to take his lashes for him. But he can't because the shaliach is not as one with him. You should studied the rules of agency to see that it isn't being "as one" in many cases

https://baishavaad.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Shluchim-Mareh-Mekomos-Week-3.pdf

no, because they are acting as judges.

actually, that verse is saying "if you make a mistake I will fix it because ultimately, judgement belongs to me"
Check Sanhedrin 8a. In 2 Chron 19:6 you can see that the reassurance to judges is that God is "with" them in their judgement which the Radak explains as
כלומ' שתיראו ממנו כאלו הוא עמכם בדבר משפט. או פרושו: יהיה עמכם ויעזר אתכם בדבר משפט אם תיראו ממנו:

so, no, they are not functionaries of divine judgement but judges who have to have faith in God. If there is any ontological/metaphorical relationship between man and God it does not confer any identity beyond that limited role. So a king who is chosen by God to rule is not "like God" even though he performs a role in a limited context that is also a role of God. You try so hard to draw the connection into one of identity because you need to. A and B are both letters of the alphabet so there is a similarity in local roles, but you can't expand that similarity or say that A=B because of that.

No, there is no assigning of shlichut and the concept of shaliach isn't even relevant here.

No, Rashi did not use the word "judge" there. Didn't you read what I quoted?


except when you inserted the word "God" into your restatement.

"practically almost always"? Equivocate much? And in the text you quoted, the word "worshipped" isn't there so a claim bout how it is translated isn't supported by your own citation!
Tell Avraham that he worshipped people
וַיָּ֧קׇם אַבְרָהָ֛ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ לְעַם־הָאָ֖רֶץ לִבְנֵי־חֵֽת
when you start with a sloppy read, you end with sloppy conclusions. You should also tell Yirmiyahu that he needn't include the word וַיַּעַבְדוּם in chapters 16 and 22 because he already wrote וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ.



ah, so it doesn't mean "worship" but you draw that conclusion and insert it into your understanding because it is convenient for you and invent the notion that...


except he isn't. People bow to him as many people bow to other people without worshipping them.

To Bow or Not To Bow? by Rabbi Yirmiyahu Ullman - <a href='http://www.rabbiullman.com'>www.rabbiullman.com</a>

ohr.edu

Can one bow before a king? Can one bow to a statue of a king?

Can one bow before a king? Can one bow to a statue of a king? For example, if one is visiting North Korea, may one bow to the statues as shown in this picture? Note that they are not fully prostra...

judaism.stackexchange.com

If the nations' ministers are all appointed by Hashem, why is it idol worship?

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I was pondering it today and I hope you will find it as interesting as I do. Every Rabbinic opinion I've seen, although there are plenty I haven't of c...

judaism.stackexchange.com

keep your shituf. It is meaningless to Jews.

in context it says "there is none like you" and yet you changed it to "there is no other God".

So what is that passage saying then? There is none like YHWH? What is the "none" referring to? You're arguing that there is "none" like YHWH, in an absolute sense? In what sense is there no one or "none" like YHWH? Becuase YHWH exists, and I exist as well, so there is a similar attribute between me and YHWH. YHWH exists, and I exist. So in what sense is there no one or "none" like YHWH?

I argue that the verse is stating that there is no other almighty God or deity, equal to YHWH. That doesn't discount the possibility that there are angels like Michael, who are like YHWH, in a finite sense. You told me that Michael's name is not a question. Calling me a liar for suggesting that Michael's name is a question. OK, so it's not a question. Michael's name means that he is like God. So if he is like God, or like YHWH, then the passage you're citing in Deut, doesn't apply to Michael being like God.

YHWH also declares that He is the only Savior, yet we know that there are other saviors besides YHWH. So in view of that, we have to interpret what God is saying with respect to Him being the only Savior. It denotes YHWH's unique state of being the absolute, non-contingent source of salvation. In that sense, He is "the only savior". Not in the other sense. So when you cite the verse that states that "none" is like YHWH, that is to be understood, within a certain context and it doesn't necessarily apply across the board, to all categories and states in relation to being like YHWH.

That is obvious and clear. And your statement that "arms" are finite, divine agents is silly. דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם

You need to read the Bible more often and don't just read the Talmud. The eyes of YHWH, and his arm, hand, are in several passages connected to His angels. Angels are finite beings, hence the statement, that the arm of YHWH, can be finite. YHWH liberated the holy land through a finite, limited medium. The Israelites and his angels.

maybe you "know" that but then again, you are a polytheist. I know nothing of the sort. The Torah speaks of the gods that people believe in but which don't really exist.

Ignore all of the passages that I cited showing that angels and the judges of Israel are identified as gods/elohim. Put your head in the sand like an ostrich.

....no, man was made a little lower than the angels. You even quoted it as such, and then changed it in your summary. That's dishonest.

Psalms 8:5 states that man was created a bit lower than the angels/elohim/gods

The word means more than one thing but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to have it mean multiple things in one context or to flit between them for your convenience. There are no other "gods" and angels are angels. Inventing this line of "absolutely equal" is just your way of defending an untenable position. Remember, אֵין⁠־כָּמ֖וֹךָ בָאֱלֹהִ֥ים.

Just ignore all of the biblical passages I cited, showing how angels are identified as gods/elohim.

it doesn't say "sar gadol" -- that's you inserting stuff. And inserting (Elohim/gods) at the end is equally dishonest. You should stop doing that. tying together all of your dishonesty and mistakes to try and craft an argument is just compounding your problem.

The Hebrew has the word "elohim" in Psalms 8:5, translated by the JPS, Jewish translation, as "lower than the angels". It has the word "angel" for "elohim". Read it yourself. You're calling me a liar or dishonest, out of ignorance. Psalms 82 is another example creatures being identified as gods or elohim. You don't know your own Bible, because you spend too much time reading Talmud and Musar. Read the TaNaK.

actually, Rashi identifies this "him" as Metatron. Strange that you would tie this to Michael. And the "name" (in Hebrew, shem doesn't always mean a literal name. In this case, as the Rashbam explains "בשמי הוא מצוה לכם") refers to authority.


Your rabbis say Metatron, but they're wrong. It's Michael the Archangel/Sar Gadol. Your rabbis are wrong about a lot of things. Like reincarnation, "kabbalah", and all of that demonic nonsense.

While that verse does refer to Michael, all those other equivalences you try to make are meaningless extensions of all the errors you have conjoined.

Michael is the Sar Gadol and Prince over Israel. You can pretend otherwise, but that's what the TaNaK states.

only if you misunderstand the other uses of "elohim" and claim they mean "god".

Elohim can be applied to YHWH, or His angels, judges, kings, and other creatures. Every pagan deity is a demon.

What the text ACTUALLY says is that God can assign others the role of intermediary to effect saving from a threat. No one else is a savior unless directly given that position by God. As the JPS translation has it, "None but me, GOD;

The text clearly states that other beings are "saviors", in a limited, finite sense. They are God's instruments of salvation. So you are essentially saying exactly what I am saying, but since you like to argue, you're contradicting me for the sake of quibbling. You're a quibbler.


Beside Me, none can grant triumph."
שהוא כח ילוה לאדם לעשות פעל משובח ולהציל קהל חשוב מקהל רעים, והיא הגבורה המושפעת מהאל ית׳.
only if you misinterpret the passages. Which you do. Repeatedly.

I never even commented on that passage.



No, he was to judge or be a master to phar'oh. He wasn't a god and neither was his brother.

וְאַתְּ תְּהֵי לֵהּ לְרָב

Aharon doesn't turn into Moses' mouth but plays a role as a translator/spokesperson. "l'peh" doesn't mean "to a mouth".
"listened to him."

The text clearly states that Moses is Elohim to Pharaoh and his brother. Of course, that is not to be interpreted literally. I already explained that, but since you are Rosie The Quibbler, you find fault in what I said.

the text reads that the people bowed to God and to the king, not that they worshipped. Bereisheet 33:7, were they worshipping Eisav? The same word וישתחוו is used. 42:6 did the brothers worship Joseph? Same word. No, they bowed to him. Bow doesn't mean worship. When you start with a misquote, you draw a wrong conclusion. The rest of that drivel then falls apart.

The Hebrew clearly states that they prostrated themselves before YHWH and the king. The word for prostrate = worship. They worshipped YHWH and the king. Tje king of Israel sits on the throne of YHWH. I also showed that from the text.


see, you go off the rails. You concede that elohim means judge but then decide that there is an equality. That's all you, not the text. no, the judge is called elohim because the word derives from a root meaning "power" (or "strong" or "in front" depending on which source you want to use) so it includes the position of "judge". Go check Klein if you don't believe me.

YHWH, angels, judges, are identified as Elohim. In the capacity of a judge for YHWH, a judge is Elohim, a god or like God himself, due to judging for God.

No, they are not "as one". One is a proxy, a representative. If they were as one, a person could assign a shaliach to take his lashes for him. But he can't because the shaliach is not as one with him. You should studied the rules of agency to see that it isn't being "as one" in many cases

https://baishavaad.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Shluchim-Mareh-Mekomos-Week-3.pdf

“a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b).



no, because they are acting as judges. actually, that verse is saying "if you make a mistake I will fix it because ultimately, judgement belongs to me"

Check Sanhedrin 8a. In 2 Chron 19:6 you can see that the reassurance to judges is that God is "with" them in their judgement which the Radak explains as

כלומ' שתיראו ממנו כאלו הוא עמכם בדבר משפט. או פרושו: יהיה עמכם ויעזר אתכם בדבר משפט אם תיראו ממנו:

so, no, they are not functionaries of divine judgement but judges who have to have faith in God. If there is any ontological/metaphorical relationship between man and God it does not confer any identity beyond that limited role. So a king who is chosen by God to rule is not "like God" even though he performs a role in a limited context that is also a role of God. You try so hard to draw the connection into one of identity because you need to. A and B are both letters of the alphabet so there is a similarity in local roles, but you can't expand that similarity or say that A=B because of that.

No, there is no assigning of shlichut and the concept of shaliach isn't even relevant here.

No, Rashi did not use the word "judge" there. Didn't you read what I quoted?

except when you inserted the word "God" into your restatement.

"practically almost always"? Equivocate much? And in the text you quoted, the word "worshipped" isn't there so a claim bout how it is translated isn't supported by your own citation!

Tell Avraham that he worshipped people

וַיָּ֧קׇם אַבְרָהָ֛ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ לְעַם־הָאָ֖רֶץ לִבְנֵי־חֵֽת

when you start with a sloppy read, you end with sloppy conclusions. You should also tell Yirmiyahu that he needn't include the word וַיַּעַבְדוּם in chapters 16 and 22 because he already wrote וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ.

ah, so it doesn't mean "worship" but you draw that conclusion and insert it into your understanding because it is convenient for you and invent the notion that...
except he isn't. People bow to him as many people bow to other people without worshipping them.

To Bow or Not To Bow? by Rabbi Yirmiyahu Ullman - <a href='http://www.rabbiullman.com'>www.rabbiullman.com</a>

ohr.edu

Can one bow before a king? Can one bow to a statue of a king?

Can one bow before a king? Can one bow to a statue of a king? For example, if one is visiting North Korea, may one bow to the statues as shown in this picture? Note that they are not fully prostra...

judaism.stackexchange.com

If the nations' ministers are all appointed by Hashem, why is it idol worship?

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I was pondering it today and I hope you will find it as interesting as I do. Every Rabbinic opinion I've seen, although there are plenty I haven't of c...

judaism.stackexchange.com

keep your shituf. It is meaningless to Jews.


A lot of strawmen arguments and quibbling.

 

[rosends]

in context it says "there is none like you" and yet you changed it to "there is no other God".

So what is that passage saying then?

That there is none like God. Now if you want to play games and say "God exists and I exist, therefore I'm like God" then have at it. Saying that any two things are alike because they exist is an empty argument. Claiming any level of equivalence goes beyond claiming any form of similarity which makes it a double level logical error.

That doesn't discount the possibility that there are angels like Michael, who are like YHWH, in a finite sense.

Even that is a flawed argument because it has no meaning. God is infinite. I am finite. Any claim of similarity due to my existing is problematic because the nature of my existing is inherently different.

You told me that Michael's name is not a question.

I don't recall telling you that. I recall saying that it IS a question, answered by the text as "no one." You would rather answer it as "everyone" or at least "the functionaries I want to link" and then you elevate it from "like" to "equivalent to."

That is obvious and clear. And your statement that "arms" are finite, divine agents is silly. דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם

You need to read the Bible more often and don't just read the Talmud. The eyes of YHWH, and his arm, hand, are in several passages connected to His angels. Angels are finite beings, hence the statement, that the arm of YHWH, can be finite. YHWH liberated the holy land through a finite, limited medium. The Israelites and his angels.

You need to understand that the written Torah can't be understood without the oral Torah. God doesn't have "arms" and "arms" aren't angels.

Ignore all of the passages that I cited showing that angels and the judges of Israel are identified as gods/elohim. Put your head in the sand like an ostrich.

Ignore all the explanation (including in the translations you used) that show that the word isn't "God". Keep your blinders on.

Psalms 8:5 states that man was created a bit lower than the angels/elohim/gods

those three things aren't identical with each other. When you put them all there, it creates a false equivalence. The text says that man is lower than angels. This is basic stuff "מאלהים ל' מלאכים". Or from the Targum וְחִסַרְתָּא יָתֵיהּ קַלִיל מִמַלְאֲכַיָא
oh wait...everyone is wrong but you.

Just ignore all of the biblical passages I cited, showing how angels are identified as gods/elohim.

Ignore all the identifications in those verses that show that they aren't gods because you know better...

The Hebrew has the word "elohim" in Psalms 8:5, translated by the JPS, Jewish translation, as "lower than the angels". It has the word "angel" for "elohim".

exactly -- man is lower than angels. It doesn't mean God. Thank you for proving my point.

Your rabbis say Metatron, but they're wrong. It's Michael the Archangel/Sar Gadol. Your rabbis are wrong about a lot of things. Like reincarnation, "kabbalah", and all of that demonic nonsense.

so you know better than the experts. Based on what credentials exactly? I mean, you are clearly ignorant of much of what is written about (and in) the text, so why would anyone think that your understanding has any value at all? So far, I have cited all sorts of voices and names who have been explaining this stuff for thousands of years. But you insist everyone else is wrong even though there is no support for your opinion other than your opinion.

Michael is the Sar Gadol and Prince over Israel. You can pretend otherwise, but that's what the TaNaK states.

You hang a whole lot on that one reference in Daniel 12. Of course, in that verse, Michael is the one who stands by the Children of Israel to ask for mercy on them "לבקש רחמים על ישראל". This is a statement concerning a future time. When it happens, I'll let you know.

Elohim can be applied to YHWH, or His angels, judges, kings, and other creatures. Every pagan deity is a demon.

Not "applied." The word MEANS different things.

The text clearly states that other beings are "saviors", in a limited, finite sense. They are God's instruments of salvation. So you are essentially saying exactly what I am saying, but since you like to argue, you're contradicting me for the sake of quibbling. You're a quibbler.

No, it says that they are assigned the role of enacting the saving that, ultimately, God does. You want to turn this into something it isn't because you need to so that you can build your imaginary theology.

I never even commented on that passage.

Actually, you did. You cited it and quoted it. I just provided a better translation and explanation. Don't be bitter, just honest.

The text clearly states that Moses is Elohim to Pharaoh and his brother. Of course, that is not to be interpreted literally. I already explained that, but since you are Rosie The Quibbler, you find fault in what I said.

It says Moses is a master. You said "like God to Pharaoh". Is it quibbling to point out your error? Clearly you have to think so.

The word for prostrate = worship.

no it doesn't. The word for prostrate = bow. The word for worship = worship. You are playing fast and loose again.

YHWH, angels, judges, are identified as Elohim.

No, not identified. The word "elohim" can mean any of those things. You are coming at it backwards.

“a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b).

Yes, I provided that to you. Now read up on exactly what that means and how it is actually a very limited statement.

A lot of strawmen arguments and quibbling.

IOW, a lot of stuff you can't reply to or explain away so you dismiss it because to acknowledge it would be to admit that your position is baseless.

I have no problem if you want to dance and twist and create your castles in the sky. The problem is when you try to tell Jews that your understanding of what Judaism is and says is correct and Judaism itself is wrong. This then becomes some halfway attempt at proselytizing and is useless. Go on, lead your life and use whatever you want to justify your beliefs. Don't expect anyone who knows anything to be persuaded by you, though.

 

[hobelim]

We, as in you and me and everyone, are eventually redeemed.

I am not a part of any 'we' a self negating multiplicity that is slowly disintegrating into nothingness.

I don't need redemption. I don't need to be forgiven. I always do exactly as God commands.

Only a few very wicked human beings will be subjected to the second death.

If the death consequent to setting aside the Divine commands is the first death and the second death is the death of the body, physical death, then everyone is subjected to the second death but only those who take part in the first resurrection, rev. 20:6, cannot be harmed by the second death and are not subject to judgment because they have already risen from death to eternal life.

For these blessed individuals death will not be any worse than it is to wake up from a bad dream.

If you want to take part in the first resurrection, undo your grave bindings, stand up like a man, breathe the breath of life and come out of your 'mystery religion' tomb and never ever look back.

Be it known. It has become the habitation of every sort of foul and loathsome beast and bird.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That there is none like God. Now if you want to play games and say "God exists and I exist, therefore I'm like God" then have at it. Saying that any two things are alike because they exist is an empty argument. Claiming any level of equivalence goes beyond claiming any form of similarity which makes it a double level logical error.

Even that is a flawed argument because it has no meaning. God is infinite. I am finite. Any claim of similarity due to my existing is problematic because the nature of my existing is inherently different.

I don't recall telling you that. I recall saying that it IS a question, answered by the text as "no one." You would rather answer it as "everyone" or at least "the functionaries I want to link" and then you elevate it from "like" to "equivalent to."

You need to understand that the written Torah can't be understood without the oral Torah. God doesn't have "arms" and "arms" aren't angels.

Ignore all the explanation (including in the translations you used) that show that the word isn't "God". Keep your blinders on.

those three things aren't identical with each other. When you put them all there, it creates a false equivalence. The text says that man is lower than angels. This is basic stuff "מאלהים ל' מלאכים". Or from the Targum וְחִסַרְתָּא יָתֵיהּ קַלִיל מִמַלְאֲכַיָא
oh wait...everyone is wrong but you.

Ignore all the identifications in those verses that show that they aren't gods because you know better...


exactly -- man is lower than angels. It doesn't mean God. Thank you for proving my point.

so you know better than the experts. Based on what credentials exactly? I mean, you are clearly ignorant of much of what is written about (and in) the text, so why would anyone think that your understanding has any value at all? So far, I have cited all sorts of voices and names who have been explaining this stuff for thousands of years. But you insist everyone else is wrong even though there is no support for your opinion other than your opinion.

You hang a whole lot on that one reference in Daniel 12. Of course, in that verse, Michael is the one who stands by the Children of Israel to ask for mercy on them "לבקש רחמים על ישראל". This is a statement concerning a future time. When it happens, I'll let you know.

Not "applied." The word MEANS different things.

No, it says that they are assigned the role of enacting the saving that, ultimately, God does. You want to turn this into something it isn't because you need to so that you can build your imaginary theology.

Actually, you did. You cited it and quoted it. I just provided a better translation and explanation. Don't be bitter, just honest.

It says Moses is a master. You said "like God to Pharaoh". Is it quibbling to point out your error? Clearly you have to think so.

no it doesn't. The word for prostrate = bow. The word for worship = worship. You are playing fast and loose again.


No, not identified. The word "elohim" can mean any of those things. You are coming at it backwards.

Yes, I provided that to you. Now read up on exactly what that means and how it is actually a very limited statement.

IOW, a lot of stuff you can't reply to or explain away so you dismiss it because to acknowledge it would be to admit that your position is baseless.

I have no problem if you want to dance and twist and create your castles in the sky. The problem is when you try to tell Jews that your understanding of what Judaism is and says is correct and Judaism itself is wrong. This then becomes some halfway attempt at proselytizing and is useless. Go on, lead your life and use whatever you want to justify your beliefs. Don't expect anyone who knows anything to be persuaded by you, though.

That there is none like God. Now if you want to play games and say "God exists and I exist, therefore I'm like God" then have at it.
Saying that any two things are alike because they exist is an empty argument. Claiming any level of equivalence goes beyond claiming any form of similarity which makes it a double level logical error.

It's not me "playing games", that's simply the consequence of your poor hermeneutic. If you're exegeting this:

Deu 33:26 There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun (IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER), who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.

EMPHASIS MINE

Then you're clearly wrong. It's like some halfwit arguing that only YHWH is the savior:

Isa_43:11 I, even I, am YHWH; and beside me there is no saviour (WHATSOEVER).

I showed you verses that explicitly state that there are other saviors. That's not me "playing games", that's a fact. There are indeed other saviors. So was YHWH wrong in Isaiah 43:11, saying that there is no other savior but him? Well no He's not wrong. Because there's a context to that. He's saying there is no other absolute source of salvation but Him. He is the absolute source of all salvation. The dead idols of the nations, inhabited by demons, aren't going to save Israel, despite them worshiping those lifeless, demonic idols. That's the context.

What's the actual context of the statement that you fallaciously want to apply to every situation and being in existence, in every sense possible? The context is the other gods that Israel was constantly tempted to worship. None of them are like YHWH, when it comes to their power and ability to protect and save those who worship them. The gods of Egypt failed to protect the Egyptians, including all of the other gods that the Israelites committed idolatry with.

But if you want to pretend (play the game), that the statement you're citing means no one is like God, in every way, then you're wrong, because right off the bat, I can point out that I am like God in the sense that I am a sentient being, just as God is likewise sentient. God exists, I exist. God thinks I think. God has power, I have a certain degree of power. The statement that you are trying to attach to Michael doesn't apply.

The almighty God Himself, states that others within a certain category are in a certain sense, like Him, within a category of attributes and functions. When YHWH tells Moses:

Exo 7:1 And YHWH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee E/elohim (God/a god) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Exo 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God/Elohim.

He's telling Moses that within the context of his mission and service to YHWH, in relation to Pharaoh and his brother Aaron, he is like YHWH. Like Hashem.

Now if you argue, that this is not the case, because no one can represent God in such an intimate way. I can point to other passages where angels and human beings are identified with YHWH Himself. To see these divine agents is to see YHWH Himself (people thought they were going to die, when they saw these angels or heard them speak). When the actions of such agents are described, they are described as the actions of YHWH Himself (YHWH states that He will grasp the staff with His own hand and perform miracles in Egyot, but we know that it was Moses and Aaron that actually grasped the staff with their own hands, not YHWH).

The Bible explicitly identifies angels as being of the class or category of "elohim" = divinities/immortal powers/holy spirits. In Psalms 8:5 it clearly states that human beings were created a little lower than the elohim/gods/immortal, luminous powers.

We were created in the image of the angels or elohim/gods, as their larvae. We are essentially angels, who are evolving, from carbon-based, mortal life to protonic life (luminous, immortal life). The future influences the past, especially when protonic life seeks to influence its own evolution, in space and time. Our evolution has been set by the laws of physics and the influence of YHWH (the community of the Tzavaoth who wage war against entropy/chaos/sin, overcoming it with Emunah).

​

YHWH is simply existence itself with all of its laws and attributes. The highest expression of YHWH is His tsvaoth or angelic powers (protonic/luminous anthropos/man). They are the personality and body of YHWH, and that's why Moses and Abraham, dared to question YHWH and even challenged Him. That's why Jacob wrestles with God/An Angel.

YHWH told Moses "I will be who I will be" (future tense). YHWH is essentially simple and evolves through space and time. He is both in the future and in the past and pulls history to Himself, influencing His own evolution.
The personhood of YHWH, is an emergent reality, which manifests from a community of angelic beings.
The glory and light of YHWH, is an inherent aspect of the immortal angels, who align themselves with life-affirming patterns of thought and behavior.

What is good is that which contributes to sentient, conscious life and what is evil is that which undermines it. Evil is anti-existence, whereas the greatest good, is the patterns of thought and behavior that contribute to the continual existence of life (another term for all of those life-affirmitive patterns of thought and behavior is YHWH/HASHEM).

You are stuck in the bronze age or early iron age, spiritually, so everything I just revealed to you is absurd, if not blasphemous. You live in the past, whereas those who are truly aligned with YHWH, are of the future. The angels are human beings from the future, and we were indeed created in their image, literally. The human body is literally the body of YHWH. We are evolving into them, through a very painful, long process.


Even that is a flawed argument because it has no meaning. God is infinite. I am finite. Any claim of similarity due to my existing is problematic because the nature of my existing is inherently different.

YHWH is existence itself. We are all part of Him. You are saying that I don't amount to YHWH, and that is true. My individual existence is infinitely smaller than the existence of all of reality. Yes indeed, but within the category of existence or existing, I do share that with YHWH, because I exist.


I don't recall telling you that. I recall saying that it IS a question, answered by the text as "no one." You would rather answer it as "everyone" or at least "the functionaries I want to link" and then you elevate it from "like" to "equivalent to."

You are taking that statement out of context. If anyone is playing games, it's you.

You need to understand that the written Torah can't be understood without the oral Torah. God doesn't have "arms" and "arms" aren't angels.

The angels are the eyes, hands, arms, foot..etc, of YHWH. YHWH is fully invested in His sentient agents. All of creation, what we identify as reality moves in the direction of life, conquering chaos. Keeping it beneath the heel of the righteous.


those three things aren't identical with each other. When you put them all there, it creates a false equivalence. The text says that man is lower than angels. This is basic stuff "מאלהים ל' מלאכים". Or from the Targum וְחִסַרְתָּא יָתֵיהּ קַלִיל מִמַלְאֲכַיָא

We were created lower than the E/elohim/G/gods. That's what Psalms 8:5 states in the Hebrew. Whose playing games? You apparently.

oh wait...everyone is wrong but you.

No of course not. You are always correct, everyone else is wrong.


Ignore all the identifications in those verses that show that they aren't gods because you know better...

You can redefine the word if you want. It's pretty clear what it means. Angelic powers are divine, immortal, and sentient. They together, as a community, manifest YHWH. They bear YHWH's nature. YHWH is reality itself, expressed through advanced sentience or consciousness.

exactly -- man is lower than angels. It doesn't mean God. Thank you for proving my point.

You are ignoring the fact that the Hebrew text identifies angels as Elohim/elohim.


so you know better than the experts. Based on what credentials exactly? I mean, you are clearly ignorant of much of what is written about (and in) the text, so why would anyone think that your understanding has any value at all? So far, I have cited all sorts of voices and names who have been explaining this stuff for thousands of years. But you insist everyone else is wrong even though there is no support for your opinion other than your opinion. You hang a whole lot on that one reference in Daniel 12. Of course, in that verse, Michael is the one who stands by the Children of Israel to ask for mercy on them "לבקש רחמים על ישראל". This is a statement concerning a future time. When it happens, I'll let you know.
Not "applied." The word MEANS different things.
No, it says that they are assigned the role of enacting the saving that, ultimately, God does. You want to turn this into something it isn't because you need to so that you can build your imaginary theology.
Actually, you did. You cited it and quoted it. I just provided a better translation and explanation. Don't be bitter, just honest.
It says Moses is a master. You said "like God to Pharaoh". Is it quibbling to point out your error? Clearly you have to think so.
no it doesn't. The word for prostrate = bow. The word for worship = worship. You are playing fast and loose again.
No, not identified. The word "elohim" can mean any of those things. You are coming at it backwards.
Yes, I provided that to you. Now read up on exactly what that means and how it is actually a very limited statement.
IOW, a lot of stuff you can't reply to or explain away so you dismiss it because to acknowledge it would be to admit that your position is baseless.
I have no problem if you want to dance and twist and create your castles in the sky. The problem is when you try to tell Jews that your understanding of what Judaism is and says is correct and Judaism itself is wrong. This then becomes some halfway attempt at proselytizing and is useless. Go on, lead your life and use whatever you want to justify your beliefs. Don't expect anyone who knows anything to be persuaded by you, though.
Deu 33:26 There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.
Deu 33:27 The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.
Deu 33:28 Israel then shall dwell in safety alone: the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine; also his heavens shall drop down dew.
Deu 33:29 Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places.

You're the one twisting and resorting to disingenuous arguments at best to defend your errors. The Hebrew bible clearly states that angels are of the category of divinity. They are immortal, divine powers. That's why it identifies them as Elohim.

The passage in 1st Chron 29:20 that states the Israelites prostrated themselves before YHWH and the king, is quite clear.

"Then David said to the whole assembly, 'Praise YHWH your God.' So they all praised YHWH, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before YHWH and the king."

That's an act of worship. They prostrated themselves before YHWH, because they were prostrating themselves before David, the one who sits on the very throne of YHWH, representing His divine authority and majesty. That's not idolatry, as you anti-missionaries constantly like to accuse others of.

Your "rabbinic Judaism", is a clear corruption of the Hebrew Bible.

 

[rosends]

It's not me "playing games", that's simply the consequence of your poor hermeneutic. If you're exegeting this:

Deu 33:26 There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun (IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER), who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.

EMPHASIS MINE

Actually, it is your position which is flawed. You want to establish that mere existence creates similarity which is equivalence. The text is very clear but you keep dancing around what it says in order to support your bizarre connection.

Then you're clearly wrong. It's like some halfwit arguing that only YHWH is the savior:

Except only God is "the savior" though others have a role in helping effect God's saving his people

I showed you verses that explicitly state that there are other saviors. That's not me "playing games", that's a fact.

No, you showed verses that show that others are assigned the role of bringing about the salvation that comes from God. I showed you that textually and you just don't like it. So you create "levels" like "absolute source" so you can support your claims. But those are purely your invention. Then you claim that other gods exist. They don't. But you need to believe that they do. That's fine -- you do that.

But if you want to pretend (play the game), that the statement you're citing means no one is like God, in every way, then you're wrong, because right off the bat, I can point out that I am like God in the sense that I am a sentient being, just as God is likewise sentient. God exists, I exist. God thinks I think. God has power, I have a certain degree of power. The statement that you are trying to attach to Michael doesn't apply.

So, again, you fall back to the general "in terms of existence I am like God" except that even in that, you aren't. Your sentience is not comparable to God's. Your existence is totally unlike God's. So even on the most general level, there is no one like God. You can keep playing your word games if it makes you happy.

He's telling Moses that within the context of his mission and service to YHWH, in relation to Pharaoh and his brother Aaron, he is like YHWH. Like Hashem.

No, as you have seen, the word there is judge or master. It has nothing to do with being a god in any sense.

When the actions of such agents are described, they are described as the actions of YHWH Himself (YHWH states that He will grasp the staff with His own hand and perform miracles in Egyot, but we know that it was Moses and Aaron that actually grasp the staff with their own hands, not YHWH).

That makes those people representatives who bring about God's power, but that doesn't change who they are to make them like God. Keep flailing.

The Bible explicitly identifies angels as of the class or category of "elohim" = divinities/immortal powers/holy spirits. In Psalms 8:5 it clearly states that human beings were created a little lower than the elohim/gods/immortal, luminous powers.

Again with the false equivalence based in conflating meanings. Elohim can mean a variety of things. If in one case it means "angels" then it means that man is lower than angels. This doesn't make angels God. It is tiresome to have to keep explaining this to you, especially knowing that you will stick your fingers in your ears and pretend the facts don't exist.

We were created in the image of the angels or elohim/gods, as their larvae.

Huh? Larvae? You are crossing into clear insanity now. We are created in the tzelem and d'mut of God but you should study what those words mean.

We are essentially angels,

No, we aren't. Injecting more of your crazy here doesn't help your argument at all.

who are evolving, from carbon-based, mortal life to protonic life (luminous, immortal life). The future influences the past, especially when protonic life seeks to influence its own evolution, in space and time.

OK, full fledged cuckoo. I'm going to finish up this post and politely excuse myself so none of your crazy spills onto my new shirt.

You are stuck in the bronze age or early iron age, spiritually, so everything I just revealed to you is absurd, if not blasphemous.

Just plain nuts. You are in a world of your own, populated by free floating insanity.

The angels are human beings from the future, and we were indeed created in their image, literally. The human body is literally the body of YHWH.

I think I saw this in a couple of sci fi shows or movies. You are off the charts...

You are taking that statement out of context. If anyone is playing games, it's you.

No, you attributed something to me that I didn't say and I'm calling you on it. Then I pointed out how you move from "similar" to "equivalent" in a dishonest manner. You don't like that I show the flaw explicitly. That's a you problem.

The angels are the eyes, hands, arms, foot..etc, of YHWH.

Um. Wow. NVTS

We were created lower than the E/elohim/G/gods. That's what Psalms 8:5 states in the Hebrew. Whose playing games? You apparently.

Lower than angels. Why is it so tough for you to read what I posted and instead hide behind your craziness?

No of course not. You are always correct, everyone else is wrong.

Who said everyone is wrong? I intimated that YOU are wrong and yet you dismiss all the voices and experts I cite.

You can redefine the word if you want. It's pretty clear what it means.

Clear to whom? To you and your agenda? Because all the experts over the last thousands of years don't agree with you.

You are ignoring the fact that the Hebrew text identifies angels as Elohim/elohim.

No, the text uses the word elohim because it MEANS angels in some contexts.

You're the one twisting and resorting to disingenuous arguments at best to defend your errors. The Hebrew bible clearly states that angels are of the category of divinity. They are immortal, divine powers. That's why it identifies them as Elohim.

Thanks for not answering the questions I asked and just repeating the same mistakes.

The passage in 1st Chron 29:20 that states the Israelites prostrated themselves before YHWH and the king, is quite clear.

Yes, but it doesn;t say "worship" -- you stick that in there. That would be a lie on your part.

That's an act of worship.

Really? I notice you didn't address the many verses I cited which use the word and don't have anything to do with worship.

That's not idolatry, as you anti-missionaries constantly like to accuse others.

Worshipping a human is idolatry.

Your "rabbinic Judaism", is a clear corruption of the Hebrew Bible.

Since you have no understanding of it, your claim of corruption is empty.

You go on with your sad and crazy world view. Keep repeating the same lies and mistakes and shouting them into your echo chamber. Someday, if you have any actual questions about Judaism because you realize how insane your contentions are, feel free to ask.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you want proper translations, go to Jewish sources.

if a proper translation is needed, the jew who wrote what needs translation is the last person on earth to render what they already failed to convey. deliberately as to convey fallacy to incoherence. good luck

all three desert religions - 10000 page documents.

the spoken religion of antiquity is timeless and eternal.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That there is none like God. Now if you want to play games and say "God exists and I exist, therefore I'm like God" then have at it. Saying that any two things are alike because they exist is an empty argument. Claiming any level of equivalence goes beyond claiming any form of similarity which makes it a double level logical error.

Even that is a flawed argument because it has no meaning. God is infinite. I am finite. Any claim of similarity due to my existing is problematic because the nature of my existing is inherently different.

I don't recall telling you that. I recall saying that it IS a question, answered by the text as "no one." You would rather answer it as "everyone" or at least "the functionaries I want to link" and then you elevate it from "like" to "equivalent to."

You need to understand that the written Torah can't be understood without the oral Torah. God doesn't have "arms" and "arms" aren't angels.

Ignore all the explanation (including in the translations you used) that show that the word isn't "God". Keep your blinders on.

those three things aren't identical with each other. When you put them all there, it creates a false equivalence. The text says that man is lower than angels. This is basic stuff "מאלהים ל' מלאכים". Or from the Targum וְחִסַרְתָּא יָתֵיהּ קַלִיל מִמַלְאֲכַיָא
oh wait...everyone is wrong but you.

Ignore all the identifications in those verses that show that they aren't gods because you know better...


exactly -- man is lower than angels. It doesn't mean God. Thank you for proving my point.

so you know better than the experts. Based on what credentials exactly? I mean, you are clearly ignorant of much of what is written about (and in) the text, so why would anyone think that your understanding has any value at all? So far, I have cited all sorts of voices and names who have been explaining this stuff for thousands of years. But you insist everyone else is wrong even though there is no support for your opinion other than your opinion.

You hang a whole lot on that one reference in Daniel 12. Of course, in that verse, Michael is the one who stands by the Children of Israel to ask for mercy on them "לבקש רחמים על ישראל". This is a statement concerning a future time. When it happens, I'll let you know.

Not "applied." The word MEANS different things.

No, it says that they are assigned the role of enacting the saving that, ultimately, God does. You want to turn this into something it isn't because you need to so that you can build your imaginary theology.

Actually, you did. You cited it and quoted it. I just provided a better translation and explanation. Don't be bitter, just honest.

It says Moses is a master. You said "like God to Pharaoh". Is it quibbling to point out your error? Clearly you have to think so.

no it doesn't. The word for prostrate = bow. The word for worship = worship. You are playing fast and loose again.


No, not identified. The word "elohim" can mean any of those things. You are coming at it backwards.

Yes, I provided that to you. Now read up on exactly what that means and how it is actually a very limited statement.

IOW, a lot of stuff you can't reply to or explain away so you dismiss it because to acknowledge it would be to admit that your position is baseless.

I have no problem if you want to dance and twist and create your castles in the sky. The problem is when you try to tell Jews that your understanding of what Judaism is and says is correct and Judaism itself is wrong. This then becomes some halfway attempt at proselytizing and is useless. Go on, lead your life and use whatever you want to justify your beliefs. Don't expect anyone who knows anything to be persuaded by you, though.

No, it says that they are assigned the role of enacting the saving that, ultimately, God does.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. So why are you opening that sentence with "No"? You're the one playing games. You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. YHWH is the ultimate savior and all other saviors are contingent upon Him. Yes yes yes..Exactly. That's what I clearly said and for you to pretend otherwise, demonstrates who is actually "playing games" and quibbling.


You want to turn this into something it isn't because you need to so that you can build your imaginary theology.

Your theology is imaginary and inconsistent with the text. You rely on your rabbinic Jewish mythology.


Actually, you did. You cited it and quoted it. I just provided a better translation and explanation. Don't be bitter, just honest.

You're delusional.


It says Moses is a master. You said "like God to Pharaoh". Is it quibbling to point out your error? Clearly you have to think so.

In Exodus 7, the context states that Aaron is his prophet or mouthpiece. That indicates that Moses is taking the role of YHWH himself. as Elohim to Pharoah and having a prophet or mouthpiece in his service, as YHWH has his own prophets and angels. This is confirmed in Exodus 4, where YHWH says:

Exo 4:14-17 And the anger of YHWH was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. (15) And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. (16) And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God/Elohim. (17) And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs.

Exo_7:17 Thus saith YHWH, In this thou shalt know that I am YHWH: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.

The hand of YHWH is the hand of Moses and is the hand of Aaron. A hierarchy of action beginning from above (top-down). Moses is acting, functioning as the hand of YHWH, and Aaron is the prophet of Moses. That's the biblical law of agency, which is expressed through human beings and angels. Moses wasn't literally, ontologically YHWH, but is functioning on His behalf, hence can be identified with Him. This offends you, but it's found throughout the TaNaK.

The entity or place that YHWH inhabits, that He imbues with His glory and imminent presence takes His character and identity. Even the Ark Of The Covenant took the Name of YHWH:

2Sa_6:2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of YHWH of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.

YHWH in a way imbues the object and place where the Ark is present with His Name. He dwells there, in a way that we don't have to clearly understand or define. The text clearly states that YHWH dwells there between the cherubims and that His Name is there.


No, not identified. The word "elohim" can mean any of those things. You are coming at it backwards.

Elohim means a spiritual power, or mighty power that can affect the physical world. YHWH is the Elohim par excellence and the angels are also elohim, in a finite sense. They are gods, little g. YHWH is capital G, "Big G" = GOD. There is the non-contingent and the contingent. The necessary being and the unnecessary being that depends upon the necessary. In philosophy, a "being" can be a sentient entity or any existing object irrespective of whether it's conscious or not.

You claim to be literate in biblical Hebrew and yet you make the simple mistake of stating that the word for "prostration" in Hebrew doesn't mean worship. It means that throughout the Hebrew Bible. The act of prostration is the very definition of worship in biblical Hebrew. Perhaps you just know Yiddish, not Hebrew. You're confusing Yiddish and modern Israeli Hebrew with biblical Hebrew.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Actually, it is your position which is flawed. You want to establish that mere existence creates similarity which is equivalence. The text is very clear but you keep dancing around what it says in order to support your bizarre connection.

Except only God is "the savior" though others have a role in helping effect God's saving his people

No, you showed verses that show that others are assigned the role of bringing about the salvation that comes from God. I showed you that textually and you just don't like it. So you create "levels" like "absolute source" so you can support your claims. But those are purely your invention. Then you claim that other gods exist. They don't. But you need to believe that they do. That's fine -- you do that.

So, again, you fall back to the general "in terms of existence I am like God" except that even in that, you aren't. Your sentience is not comparable to God's. Your existence is totally unlike God's. So even on the most general level, there is no one like God. You can keep playing your word games if it makes you happy.

No, as you have seen, the word there is judge or master. It has nothing to do with being a god in any sense.

That makes those people representatives who bring about God's power, but that doesn't change who they are to make them like God. Keep flailing.

Again with the false equivalence based in conflating meanings. Elohim can mean a variety of things. If in one case it means "angels" then it means that man is lower than angels. This doesn't make angels God. It is tiresome to have to keep explaining this to you, especially knowing that you will stick your fingers in your ears and pretend the facts don't exist.

Huh? Larvae? You are crossing into clear insanity now. We are created in the tzelem and d'mut of God but you should study what those words mean.

No, we aren't. Injecting more of your crazy here doesn't help your argument at all.


OK, full fledged cuckoo. I'm going to finish up this post and politely excuse myself so none of your crazy spills onto my new shirt.


Just plain nuts. You are in a world of your own, populated by free floating insanity.

I think I saw this in a couple of sci fi shows or movies. You are off the charts...

No, you attributed something to me that I didn't say and I'm calling you on it. Then I pointed out how you move from "similar" to "equivalent" in a dishonest manner. You don't like that I show the flaw explicitly. That's a you problem.

Um. Wow. NVTS

Lower than angels. Why is it so tough for you to read what I posted and instead hide behind your craziness?

Who said everyone is wrong? I intimated that YOU are wrong and yet you dismiss all the voices and experts I cite.

Clear to whom? To you and your agenda? Because all the experts over the last thousands of years don't agree with you.

No, the text uses the word elohim because it MEANS angels in some contexts.

Thanks for not answering the questions I asked and just repeating the same mistakes.


Yes, but it doesn;t say "worship" -- you stick that in there. That would be a lie on your part.

Really? I notice you didn't address the many verses I cited which use the word and don't have anything to do with worship.

Worshipping a human is idolatry.

Since you have no understanding of it, your claim of corruption is empty.

You go on with your sad and crazy world view. Keep repeating the same lies and mistakes and shouting them into your echo chamber. Someday, if you have any actual questions about Judaism because you realize how insane your contentions are, feel free to ask.

Everything I said about the angels collectively being YHWH's personality and YHWH being all of reality itself, is established by the Hebrew Bible. What is nonsense is your kabbalah and your ideas about reincarnation. This twisted belief you have about a "Jewish soul" from the upper worlds, that is truly a xenophobic mound of manure. Complete garbage. There is no reincarnation. No one is born immortal, we are mortals. We die, and the dead know nothing, until the day of re-creation. Gas-lighting me doesn't help your case.

 

[BreezeWood]

I am the final and only
ROSIE

... deliberately as to convey fallacy to incoherence.

so funny ...

 

[TruthNotBS]

Huh? Larvae? You are crossing into clear insanity now. We are created in the tzelem and d'mut of God but you should study what those words mean.

I have no interest in learning what it means according to rabbinic, Talmudic Judaism, or your "kabbalah". I am interested in the ancient Biblical definition of the image of YHWH. The image of YHWH shares the contours of the human body. The difference between the body of YHWH and ours is that YHWH's body (the body of the angels) is immortal and protonic, made of light.