Was Jesus a Jew? Or is he God?

[Elijah John]

Was Jesus a Jew? Or is he God? How can he be both?

To see Jesus as God, it seems to me we need to wrench him out of his Jewish context and culture.

Otherwise, where in Judaism, (even the Judaism of Jesus own day) is it believed or taught that God "incarnates Himself" into human form?

[JehovahsWitness]

And there are multiple translations that use "whose goings forth." These also were compiled by Hebrew scholars. You seem to be saying that since some scholars agree with what works best for your theology, you are going to just go with them rather than other scholars. On the other hand, I'm saying let's look at reasons why certain translators translate the way they do. We don't have to be Hebrew scholars to do that.

Good approach. But I see no reference to the Hebrew in your reply.

Can outline again, just based on the original language what exactly has you favouring the reading you do over an alternative? I did not understand your "latrine" arguement.

[The Tanager]

So would it be fair to say you are arguing that because a title is applied to BOTH YHWH and Jesus they must be equal and therefore the same person?

I am arguing that Isaiah used a title reserved for Jehovah in the Tanakh (mighty God) to talk about the Messiah who would be born as a child (whom I do think has been revealed to be Jesus, but that is irrelevant to this discussion). The OP asks where in Judaism is it believed or taught that Jehovah would incarnate Himself into human form. Why else would this child be allowed to be called a title reserved for Jehovah in the Tanakh, if it was not Jehovah Himself?

Good approach. But I see no reference to the Hebrew in your reply.

Can outline again, just based on the original language what exactly has you favouring the reading you do over an alternative? I did not understand your "latrine" arguement.

Of course. The claim I am arguing against in this is your claim that Micah 5:2 is a verse that proves the Messiah had an ultimate beginning, i.e., is not eternal and, therefore, proves the Messiah is not Jehovah.

1. According to biblehub.com, the hebrew word used in Micah 5:2 is transliterized as "motsaah."

2. This word is not the word(s) translated as "origins" in other passages (such as qadmah and moledeth, although I'm not saying these are the only words translated as such or that all translations translate these words as origins in all cases).

3. This word, motsaah, appears in one other place in the Bible, 2 Kings 10:27.

4. In 2 Kings 10:27, the translations you talk about translate "motsaah" as latrine or toilet.

5. It would be weird, however, to translate Micah 5:2 as "...out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, a latrine/toilet from of old, from ancient times."

6. This seems to speak about a more metaphorical use of the word, then.

7. For sanitation purposes, the latrines would be places you would go out to.

8. Some translations, therefore, translate "motsaah" as "whose goings forth" are from of old, from ancient times.

9. Even if one wants to translate this word as "origin," it does not mean an ultimate origin. Contextually, God says the ruler will "come for me" and that this one originates from of old, from ancient days. The context speaks of origins in the sense of beginning in one "location." The one to rule Israel was around in ancient days. It is not answering the question of whether that was an existence that began or is eternal.

10. Therefore, your claim that this verse speaks of a Messiah originating at some point in time and, therefore, shows that the Messiah could not be Jehovah, lacks support.

11. You could still claim that this verse does not disprove your theology concerning Jesus, just like with Psalm 110. I agree. I would not use these verses to speak against your theology of Jesus, which may be the topic of another thread or, at the least, not my intent on entering the discussion here.

[JehovahsWitness]

So would it be fair to say you are arguing that because a title is applied to BOTH YHWH and Jesus they must be equal and therefore the same person?

Why else would this child be allowed to be called a title reserved for Jehovah in the Tanakh, if it was not Jehovah Himself?

Emphasis MINE

And which title would that be? Are you arguing that the title "god" is reserved for YAHWEH alone?

PSALMS 82:1

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods (compare John 10:35)

Are you suggesting the title "Mighty" is reserved for YAHWEH alone?

GENESIS 10 :1

Just like Nimʹrod, a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah. (compare John 10:35)

Which title are you suggesting is "reserved for Jehovah" (YAHWEH) alone and applied to Jesus?



QUESTION Does a title make two equal?

And even if that were the case (which you have yet to prove) so what!? Unless you are saying that because a title is applied to two separate person's that must make them them both equal in power, position and rank (ie the "King" of a tiny Siuth Pacific Island must be equal to the "King of the World" if King were applied exclusively to these two individuals alone) the observation is more or less irrelevant . In short unless you are arguing that a title makes two equal, I cannot see how this furthers your arguement.


The only title I can think of that cannot be applied to two would be ALMIGHTY (all powerful) not because titles in principle cannot be applied to two different individuals without implication of equality, but because by definition no two individuals can both be all powerful ie powerful in the absolute.






JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The context speaks of origins in the sense of beginning in one "location."

Emphasis MINE

Can you clarify this statement:

• What do you mean "beginning in one "location." ?
  
  How would you apply this to the Messiah? Where (what location) did he "begin"?
  
  In what sense did he "begin"?

JW

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 23 by JehovahsWitness]

Which title are you suggesting is "reserved for Jehovah" (YAHWEH) alone and applied to Jesus?

Neither just 'god' nor just 'mighty,' but the combination of the two into a title. In the Tanakh Jehovah is sometimes called The God to distinguish him from other spiritual beings, or Jehovah is called the most high God, or God Almighty or Mighty God (as in the text in question), etc. Other spiritual beings are not given those kinds of titles because it would put them on par with Jehovah.

QUESTION Does a title make two equal?

And even if that were the case (which you have yet to prove) so what!? Unless you are saying that because a title is applied to two separate person's that must make them them both equal in power, position and rank (ie the "King" of a tiny Siuth Pacific Island must be equal to the "King of the World" if King were applied exclusively to these two individuals alone) the observation is more or less irrelevant . In short unless you are arguing that a title makes two equal, I cannot see how this furthers your arguement.


The only title I can think of that cannot be applied to two would be ALMIGHTY (all powerful) not because titles in principle cannot be applied to two different individuals without implication of equality, but because by definition no two individuals can both be all powerful ie powerful in the absolute.

I am not saying that just any title makes two beings equal. Other titles like "mighty warrior" are given to both people and Jehovah. I'm talking about the particular kind of titles that modify the term god into a title of power, glory, reverence. When 'god' is used of beings that are not Jehovah they don't get a qualifier like Mighty, Almighty, Most High, etc. If they have a qualifier they are simply things like "household" gods (Gen 31:19) or "foreign" gods (Gen 35:2) or "false" gods (Psalm 4:2). Otherwise they are just "gods" or have other terms used for them (like "angels" or "(chief) princes").

If Isaiah 9:6 is talking about a human to be born and then calls that human the kind of title reserved for Jehovah alone (and directly applied to Jehovah, as you agree, just 36 verses later by that same author), then that is good reason to think that the Tanakh does teach Jehovah's coming incarnation.

The context speaks of origins in the sense of beginning in one "location."

Emphasis MINE

Can you clarify this statement:

What do you mean "beginning in one "location." ?

How would you apply this to the Messiah? Where (what location) did he "begin"?

In what sense did he "begin"?

The Messiah had a spiritual existence prior to being born in Bethelehem, from the clan of Judah, (therefore, a human).

[JehovahsWitness]

I am not saying that just any title makes two beings equal. ...I'm talking about the particular kind of titles that modify the term ...like Mighty, Almighty, Most High, etc.

Okay can you show me where Almighty ( which as I said must be exclusive by definiton) or Most high (ditto, if you are the "most" you are higher than all others) is applied to anyone but YHWH?

(We'll ignore the rest as "mighty" as it does not impose exclusivity, so using it as an example is circular).

[JehovahsWitness]

The Messiah had a spiritual existence prior to being born in Bethelehem, from the clan of Judah, (therefore, a human).

Okay, so the "beginning" refers to Jesus birth as a human in the first century? Is that what you are suggesting?

[The Tanager]

Okay can you show me where Almighty ( which as I said must be exclusive by definiton) or Most high (ditto, if you are the "most" you are higher than all others) is applied to anyone but YHWH?

(We'll ignore the rest as "mighty" as it does not impose exclusivity, so using it as an example is circular).

Why would I show you that? I'm arguing that those are some of the titles (when attached to 'god') that would not be applied to beings other than Jehovah. If you ignore the rest, then you are ignoring the point I'm making and, therefore, not responding to the point.

It's not about how, logically, more extreme adjectives could be used for a title. It's about how those beings called 'gods' that are not Jehovah either get no modifier or something like household or foreign or false. Other beings share the title "mighty warrior" with Jehovah in the Tanakh because they can be strong warriors. They do not share a title like "mighty god" because Jehovah is the only 'god' that gets a modifier even of the quality of 'mighty'. Other 'gods' aren't called glorious god, strong god, and that like either.

Okay, so the "beginning" refers to Jesus birth as a human in the first century? Is that what you are suggesting?

When Micah says that out of Bethlehem, among the clans of Judah, will come one who will be ruler over Israel, the prophet is talking about the human birth of the Messiah. When Micah then immediately says that this ruler's "goings forth" are from of old, from ancient times, the prophet is talking about the existence of the Messiah prior to this human birth. The Messiah is coming from ancient times and being born a human in Bethlehem to then become the ruler over Israel.

It seems to me that using 'origin' to translate 5:2 is a confusing choice, but if we do we need to use the right sense of origin. To do that we take context into account. Origin can mean where I ultimately came from, but we often use it in the more general sense of 'came from.' The context of Micah's passage is about coming and going, "out of you will come for me...whose comings/origins are from...". That is a very different way than you are using the word 'origin' here.

Where will I originate from on my possible trip with my wife this summer? Dallas, Texas. I may go from Dallas to Austin, Texas. I was not born in Dallas. It still works in English for someone in Austin to say of me "he whose origin was from Dallas". They simply aren't trying to answer the question of where/when I came into existence. I don't see Micah answering that question for the Messiah here.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 27 by JehovahsWitness]

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

John 6:57-59 New International Version (NIV)

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.� 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

It's interesting that Jesus doesn't say "our" ancestors ?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 27 by JehovahsWitness]

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

John 6:57-59 New International Version (NIV)

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.� 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

It's interesting that Jesus doesn't say "our" ancestors ?

I find everything Jesus said interesting. Did you have a point in relation to the OP? If so do you feel inclined to share it with us?