What do Orthodox Jews believe?

[ShirChadash]

It is my understanding that it is Orthodox tradition to conceal Gods name from the people.

Do you know what this says?

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

They are telling you that the verse they have rendered in your text is from the Hebrew. Then they are giving you the greek, from the Septuagint that is currently in use. That may be true, but in their other foot notes they don't do that. The semicolon usually mean "AND" in addition to the subject. That is why I said Hebrew "AND" Septuagint.

[ShirChadash]

no -- and believe me I know, it doesn't. Semi-colon is used to connect two stand-alone thoughts. They were annotating for you that the verse rendering you have THERE in your text, is from the Hebrew. Then they put a semi-colon to show you that variously, the SEPTUAGINT rendering is _____________________________________ because it is different from the Hebrew which they preferred and used.


Seriously.

That may be true, but in their other foot notes they don't do that. The semicolon usually mean "AND" in addition to the subject. That is why I said Hebrew "AND" Septuagint.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Do you know what this says?

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad. Yahwah has been removed from that verse and called Lord.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

lol, I think I've had more posts ignored in this thread than I've had ignored in a long time.

Oh well. I have all kinds of questions being asked, but I have not received the anti-missionary text.

[ShirChadash]

Google is your friend? :)
Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad. Yahwah has been removed from that verse and called Lord.

Too bad it doesn't explain to you that this:

יְהוָה


found right here -- okay it's in blue:

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.


is Yud hey vav hey


"Yahweh" as you prefer

We pronounce the name as Adonai but the name is not hidden. It is not concealed, it is right there in Hebrew for anyone who can see it to know.

[Qalevra]

I can actually read Hebrew, and I read it as "The Lord said to my master". Do you notice that in the English translations, the first LORD is capitalized? That means that YHVH is being translated. The second is lower case, and is translating "adonai", which means "my master". It can mean G-d in the proper context, but you could only assume that here if you are reading the verse as if that were the case.

[ShirChadash]

I have all kinds of questions being asked, but I have not received the anti-missionary text.
What are you talking about?

What verse do you want? You asked for Jews to reckon from Scripture and so far we have been more than forthcoming, since it seems we aren't going to be sanctioned for defending our position on this forum. Just what exactly are you looking to "get" that you haven't?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Google is your friend? :)


Too bad it doesn't explain to you that this:

יְהוָה


found right here -- okay it's in blue:

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.


is Yud hey vav hey


"Yahweh" as you prefer

We pronounce the name as Adonai but the name is not hidden. It is not concealed, it is right there in Hebrew for anyone who can see it to know. I did not think beyond the word Adonai. The last book I was looking at was an English version. But yes you are correct, it is there.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

no -- and believe me I know, it doesn't. Semi-colon is used to connect two stand-alone thoughts. They were annotating for you that the verse rendering you have THERE in your text, is from the Hebrew. Then they put a semi-colon to show you that variously, the SEPTUAGINT rendering is _____________________________________ because it is different from the Hebrew which they preferred and used.


Seriously. OK, fine. You win.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I can actually read Hebrew, and I read it as "The Lord said to my master". Do you notice that in the English translations, the first LORD is capitalized? That means that YHVH is being translated. The second is lower case, and is translating "adonai", which means "my master". It can mean G-d in the proper context, but you could only assume that here if you are reading the verse as if that were the case. It would have been better if you had said the "INTERPRETATION" is given as Lord.

[ShirChadash]

I did not think beyond the word Adonai. The last book I was looking at was an English version. But yes you are correct, it is there.

Adonai is not found in that quote, MTAA. just to let you know...
from right to left it is

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.

Sh'ma, Yisrael: Yud Hey Vav Hey Eloheinu, Yud Hey Vav Hey Echad.



My days here are at an end and so I leave you with thanks for a good discussion and argument, even ;) and much Shalom.

[visionary]

Psalms 110:1 The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

Maybe the second part of the verse will help us deetermine who is talking to whom.

Footstool.. It is common for the King to have a footstool..

2Ch 9:18 And there were six steps to the throne, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened to the throne, and stays on each side of the sitting place, and two lions standing by the stays:

God has one...

Ps 99:5 Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.

The Lord declared...

Isa 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

Putting those two verses together and they point to...

Ps 132:7 We will go into his tabernacles: we will worship at his footstool.

And yet...

Ac 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest

Mt 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

So how can the enemies be made a footstool for David?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Psalms 110:1 The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

Maybe the second part of the verse will help us deetermine who is talking to whom.

Footstool.. It is common for the King to have a footstool..

2Ch 9:18 And there were six steps to the throne, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened to the throne, and stays on each side of the sitting place, and two lions standing by the stays:

God has one...

Ps 99:5 Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.

The Lord declared...

Isa 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

Putting those two verses together and they point to...

Ps 132:7 We will go into his tabernacles: we will worship at his footstool.

And yet...

Ac 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest

Mt 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

So how can the enemies be made a footstool for David? I have listened to what everyone has said. I think that everything we have said has been rejected. For some it has been more important to win at making a point than to consider the over all subject. I still have not received their anti-missionary text.

[Talmidah]

I still have not received their anti-missionary text. What do you mean by that?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

What do you mean by that? I made a request to have their anti-missionary scripture text sent PM or e-mail. I want it for studying.

[Talmidah]

I made a request to have their anti-missionary scripture text sent PM or e-mail. I want it for studying. But what is anti-missionary scripture text? I've never heard of that.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

But what is anti-missionary scripture text? I've never heard of that. It is scripture that is used against Christians who witness to Orthodox Jews. I want to study it, and have been looking for a source for a long time.

[Talmidah]

It is scripture that is used against Christians who witness to Orthodox Jews. I want to study it, and have been looking for a source for a long time. Do you mean the Jewish Bible? Or are there other scriptures that are hidden away?

[visionary]

My days here are at an end and so I leave you with thanks for a good discussion and argument, even and much Shalom.
What's this?? DOn't go.

[kivi]

1st, while the Wikipedia section is very nice, especially since it is free, that does not make it accurate. Free does not equal correct or true. It always has to be double check against more formal and authoritive sources. There is no question that the Men of the Great Assembly, some of them prophets themselves, had the responsiblity of selecting and editing that part of the Tanach that is not the Chumash [Chumash=the 5 Books of Moses]. So, the Men of the Great Assembly selected from the 1000s of records of the multitude of prophets that florished in B'nai Israel before the exile to Babylon. They came up with 30 texts, megillahs: histories, prophet writings, poetry, philosophies and wisdom sayings. They selected and edited those records that would best help B'nai Israel survive its long exile, Galus, an exile which we still suffer under. There was no editing of the Chumash since it is the direct dictation from G-d to Moses. What is your point? You are merely repeating the obvious. There were no 'changes', because there were no authoritive texts before the Men of the Great Assembly selected and edited them. The Men of the Great Assembly, in effect, created them. Let's get our history straight here, let's get the cause and effect in the correct order, which came 1st, which came 2nd.


What about changes made by Tanak the scribes (Tikkun Soferim)

From the Wikipedia Article Masoretic Text:

Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. The explanation of this phenomenon is given in the expression ("Scripture has used euphemistic language," i.e. to avoid anthropomorphism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism) and anthropopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropopathy)).
Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (third century) calls these readings "emendations of the Scribes" (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes. In Masoretic works these changes are ascribed to Ezra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra); to Ezra and Nehemiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemiah); to Ezra and the Soferim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soferim_%28Talmud%29); or to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_%28Hebrew_prophet%29), Haggai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haggai), and Baruch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Baruch). All these ascriptions mean one and the same thing: that the changes were assumed to have been made by the Men of the Great Synagogue.
The term tikkun Soferim has been understood by different scholars in various ways. Some regard it as a correction of Biblical language authorized by the Soferim for homiletical purposes. Others take it to mean a mental change made by the original writers or redactors of Scripture; i.e. the latter shrank from putting in writing a thought which some of the readers might expect them to express.

The assumed emendations are of four general types:

Removal of unseemly expressions used in reference to God; e.g., the substitution of ("to bless") for ("to curse") in certain passages.


Safeguarding of the Tetragrammaton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton); e.g.


Removal of application of the names of false gods to YHVH; e.g. the change of the name "Ishbaal" to "Ishbosheth."


Safeguarding the unity of divine worship at Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem).

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Do you mean the Jewish Bible? Or are there other scriptures that are hidden away? Yes, Jewish Bible scripture to repute a Christians claim that Yahshua is the Messiah.

[kivi]

Is it impossible for God to make a Son of David?

kivi says: 1st, The word 'impossible' has no true relation to the situation you arer talking about. G-d said that He isn't a man nor does He act like the other gods and father children on human women. So, it is not a matter of 'impossible', it is a matter of G-d's 'integrity', does He keep His word? Since He does, He will not father a child on a human woman. So, the idea of Jesus Christ being a human, father by G-d is not 'impossible', it would just prove G-d to be a lier. But since G-d is not a lier, then what you want to have happened did not happen.
2nd, If the lineage goes through Mary, it does not count because tribal lineage only goes through the father [while national lineage only goes through the mother]. If it goes through Joseph, it does not count, because Joseph was not the father.

Ther you have it.

[kivi]

Perhaps Steve Peterson can help you. All I have is miscellaneous scriptural changes. No history to go with it. Steve may know more about the history.

So, effect, you don't know what you are talking about. Do I have that correct?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

kivi says: 1st, The word 'impossible' has no true relation to the situation you arer talking about. G-d said that He isn't a man nor does He act like the other gods and father children on human women. So, it is not a matter of 'impossible', it is a matter of G-d's 'integrity', does He keep His word? Since He does, He will not father a child on a human woman. So, the idea of Jesus Christ being a human, father by G-d is not 'impossible', it would just prove G-d to be a lier. But since G-d is not a lier, then what you want to have happened did not happen.
2nd, If the lineage goes through Mary, it does not count because tribal lineage only goes through the father [while national lineage only goes through the mother]. If it goes through Joseph, it does not count, because Joseph was not the father.

Ther you have it. In what year did the ruling Rabbi's make this rule you are talking about. I do not think that rule was in effect at the time of his birth.

[kivi]

I can actually read Hebrew, and I read it as "The Lord said to my master". Do you notice that in the English translations, the first LORD is capitalized? That means that YHVH is being translated. The second is lower case, and is translating "adonai", which means "my master". It can mean G-d in the proper context, but you could only assume that here if you are reading the verse as if that were the case.

kivi says: And, since Hebrew in the Torah scrolls does not have punctuation or captialization or vowels, there is no way to know when the term 'adonai' refers to G-d/HaShem or a temporal lord/master unless you have the Oral Tradition that goes with it to explain how to read it.

[kivi]

It would have been better if you had said the "INTERPRETATION" is given as Lord.

No, that is true. There is no interpertation going on here. It is a simple statement of fact.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

No, that is true. There is no interpertation going on here. It is a simple statement of fact. If it is not a translation, then it is an interpretation.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

In what year did the ruling Rabbi's make this rule you are talking about. I do not think that rule was in effect at the time of his birth.

[kivi]

kivi says: Pulling unrelated verses together is not a way to understand the text. Especially when you are using unrelated second hand translations. You can make up anything you want to in that regard. The only way to understand the text is to use the unbroken, uncorrupted, continous Tradition from the Giving of the Torah. What did the original authors/scribes/dictation-takers mean/understand? What was the original intent of Moses or Dovid Amelech or Isisah the Novi? Unless you have access to that, you have trash/gibberish. Knowing the original intent is the only true way to understand the menaing of a text. And the only method to learn that is by learning the Oral Tradition of Judaism."

Psalms 110:1 The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

Maybe the second part of the verse will help us deetermine who is talking to whom.

Footstool.. It is common for the King to have a footstool..

2Ch 9:18 And there were six steps to the throne, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened to the throne, and stays on each side of the sitting place, and two lions standing by the stays:

God has one...

Ps 99:5 Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.

The Lord declared...

Isa 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

Putting those two verses together and they point to...

Ps 132:7 We will go into his tabernacles: we will worship at his footstool.

And yet...

Ac 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest

Mt 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

So how can the enemies be made a footstool for David?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

kivi says: 1st, The word 'impossible' has no true relation to the situation you arer talking about. G-d said that He isn't a man nor does He act like the other gods and father children on human women. So, it is not a matter of 'impossible', it is a matter of G-d's 'integrity', does He keep His word? Since He does, He will not father a child on a human woman. So, the idea of Jesus Christ being a human, father by G-d is not 'impossible', it would just prove G-d to be a lier. But since G-d is not a lier, then what you want to have happened did not happen.
2nd, If the lineage goes through Mary, it does not count because tribal lineage only goes through the father [while national lineage only goes through the mother]. If it goes through Joseph, it does not count, because Joseph was not the father.

Ther you have it. In what year did the ruling Rabbi's make this rule you are talking about. I do not think that rule was in effect at the time of his birth.

[kivi]

It is scripture that is used against Christians who witness to Orthodox Jews. I want to study it, and have been looking for a source for a long time.

Its called the Torah.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Its called the Torah. I only want the anti-missionary text.

[kivi]

In what year did the ruling Rabbi's make this rule you are talking about. I do not think that rule was in effect at the time of his birth.

I am so sorry that you just don't understand. I never said anything about a Rabbinic ruling, I was talking about G-d's own promises about Himself. Those promises exist from the beginning of time. They are also found in the Torah, which was given to B'nai Israel some 1300 years before Jesus Christ is supposed to have existed. Numbers 23:19

[kivi]

I only want the anti-missionary text.

The entire text of the Torah is anti missionary.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I am so sorry that you just don't understand. I never said anything about a Rabbinic ruling, I was talking about G-d's own promises about Himself. Those promises exist from the beginning of time. They are also found in the Torah, which was given to B'nai Israel some 1300 years before Jesus Christ is supposed to have existed. Numbers 23:19 I am not a Trinitarian Christian. That scripture has nothing to do with what you said.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

kivi says: 1st, The word 'impossible' has no true relation to the situation you arer talking about. G-d said that He isn't a man nor does He act like the other gods and father children on human women. So, it is not a matter of 'impossible', it is a matter of G-d's 'integrity', does He keep His word? Since He does, He will not father a child on a human woman. So, the idea of Jesus Christ being a human, father by G-d is not 'impossible', it would just prove G-d to be a lier. But since G-d is not a lier, then what you want to have happened did not happen.
2nd, If the lineage goes through Mary, it does not count because tribal lineage only goes through the father [while national lineage only goes through the mother]. If it goes through Joseph, it does not count, because Joseph was not the father.

Ther you have it. In what year did the ruling Rabbi's make this rule you are talking about. I do not think that rule was in effect at the time of his birth.

[kivi]

If it is not a translation, then it is an interpretation.

I am so sorry that you just don't understand. When G-d gives a prophet some information, like David Amelech, do you think that G-d does not tell Dovid what He means. Whne Dovid Amelech wrote a tehillim/pslam, do you think he did not tell the other Jews what he meant? Right then, when the text was 1st created, the Jews knew what it meant and how it should be understood. And we have remembered that/recorded that/ transmitted that from the beginning to now. The best you have is 'interpertation' because you and your fellows were not there, what we have is simple fact because we were there.

[kivi]

I am not a Trinitarian Christian. That scripture has nothing to do with what you said.


Its not relevent to me what you are, Trinitarian or Unitarian or non-atarian. And, for us, that Torah teaching is the core of G-d's promise about who He is and how we are to relate to Him.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

kivi says: 1st, The word 'impossible' has no true relation to the situation you arer talking about. G-d said that He isn't a man nor does He act like the other gods and father children on human women. So, it is not a matter of 'impossible', it is a matter of G-d's 'integrity', does He keep His word? Since He does, He will not father a child on a human woman. So, the idea of Jesus Christ being a human, father by G-d is not 'impossible', it would just prove G-d to be a lier. But since G-d is not a lier, then what you want to have happened did not happen.
2nd, If the lineage goes through Mary, it does not count because tribal lineage only goes through the father [while national lineage only goes through the mother]. If it goes through Joseph, it does not count, because Joseph was not the father.

Ther you have it. In what year did the ruling Rabbi's make this rule you are talking about. I do not think that rule was in effect at the time of his birth.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I need a vacation.

[LadyGarnetRose]

Is it impossible for God to make a Son of David?

It's not impossible, it's unlikely. Why would God lie to us?

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?

Kivi was right, and you do not seem to know what the text mens.



God is not a Man.


In what year did the ruling Rabbi's make this rule you are talking about. I do not think that rule was in effect at the time of his birth.

Since the time of Moses. The Tribes were determined by the Sons of Jacob, not his daughter. You take the name of your father not your mother.

Otherwise you'd call Jesus Yeshua ben Miriam.

[Torah613]

It is my understanding that it is Orthodox tradition to conceal Gods name from the people.

umm dude, you are so off base here its not even funny anymore. its not concealed, its unpronouncable. There's a big difference.

Yochanan

[Torah613]

It is supported by the New Testament and other ancient bibles.

which don't agree with the original which is more ancient than those you mentioned. In fact the ones you are going off of are quite modern in comparison.

Yochanan

[Torah613]

That may be true, but in their other foot notes they don't do that. The semicolon usually mean "AND" in addition to the subject. That is why I said Hebrew "AND" Septuagint.

Ok. I am the son of an English professor. let me just point out that the little diddy right here about semicolons is a straight untruth. Its like saying and equals potatoe.

Yochanan

[Torah613]

Yes, Jewish Bible scripture to repute a Christians claim that Yahshua is the Messiah.

start with learning hebrew. Than begin with Genesis 1:1 and work your way to the end (in the original hebrew). its all what your looking for.

yochanan

[Torah613]

In what year did the ruling Rabbi's make this rule you are talking about. I do not think that rule was in effect at the time of his birth.

HaShem gave that law to Moses. thus all the patrilinial geneologies of such figures as David and Shlomo. Thus the issue of hte Kohanites. Just read the Torah (specifically exodus, leviticus, and deuteronomy). Its all right there.

Yochanan

[Steve Petersen]

There were no 'changes', because there were no authoritive texts before the Men of the Great Assembly selected and edited them. The Men of the Great Assembly, in effect, created them. Let's get our history straight here, let's get the cause and effect in the correct order, which came 1st, which came 2nd.

And your position is that the Masoretic text is the authorative text they handed down?

I would direct you to this article by Menachem Cohen; Professor of Bible, Bar-Ilan University; Director, Miqraot Gedolot HaKeter Project

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/CohenArt/

Ultimately he admits that the argument of authortative textual transmission is one of faith; (emphasis mine)
The facts demand we acknowledge that there is no historical proof for the idea that the Biblical text has reached us as it left the hands of its original authors. Transmission of the text was a human activity and all the laws and processes which affect any long-term transmission of a text would affect the transmission of the Scriptural text as well. The frequently-heard claim that the Scriptural text was better preserved than other literary works because of its excellent preservation mechanisms, such as the Masorah, does sound logical, but this too is not a religious claim but an empirical one which must be examined.
It therefore appears to me that the notion of a sanctified text in our era must be based on an halakhic interpretation alone, i.e., it must derive its power not from a determination that people managed to preserve the text exactly as it was throughout the entire transmission, but from the faith that man was given authority to determine, using halakhic methods of decision, the image of the sanctified consonantal text. The model which was decided upon would then be obligatory from a halakhic standpoint, even if it is found not to be historically "correct" in every detail.

[simchat_torah]

Google is your friend? :)


Too bad it doesn't explain to you that this:

יְהוָה


found right here -- okay it's in blue:

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.


is Yud hey vav hey


"Yahweh" as you prefer

We pronounce the name as Adonai but the name is not hidden. It is not concealed, it is right there in Hebrew for anyone who can see it to know.
ROFLOL!

MTAA = Epic Fail

[ChavaK]

unless you have the Oral Tradition that goes with it to explain how to read it.

Context and a little common sense don't hurt, either ;)

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

umm dude, you are so off base here its not even funny anymore. its not concealed, its unpronouncable. There's a big difference.

Yochanan I knew that it is written.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I give an inch and everyone takes a mile.

[ShirChadash]

I knew that it is written.

Sure. Right after Adonai, right?

:idea::sorry:

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Perhaps no one remembers that I wrote last year that God's name is Yahwah.

[simchat_torah]

It seems you are just pulling out Engloish translations that fit your perconcieved ideas. You give no source, nobody has any idea where you are getting these translations, we can not cross reference you. So, in effect, until you conform to that bare minimum of responsible discussion, you input is pretty useless.
Oh snap :D
Is it impossible for God to make a Son of David?Anything is possible. G-d could make a flying purple monkey with laser eyes that shoot cotton candy if he wants to. But the question is, is this supported anywhere? Sure, all day long we could imagine all kinds of things G-d could do... but where is the support? We can't just make stuff up out of the thin air.

[simchat_torah]

Adonai is not found in that quote, MTAA. just to let you know...
from right to left it is

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.

Sh'ma, Yisrael: Yud Hey Vav Hey Eloheinu, Yud Hey Vav Hey Echad.MTAA, your hole just gets deeper and deeper.

[simchat_torah]

I give an inch and everyone takes a mile.You gave us miles, and we're barely scratching inches bud. You make claims about the Hebrew, yet you clearly don't read Hebrew. You make claims about the Sh'ma, and what the Hebrew text says, even after we've posted it for you, and you're dead wrong. You make insane demands for those of us on our position, and you don't live up to the same standards as you ask of us. You demand that we provide purely scripture (which is ridiculous to start with as prophecy is esoteric in nature and not literal) yet you fail to provide "scripture" yourself. You continue to demand that we bring more scripture, when the major bulk of what I presented pages and pages ago continues to go ingored and unanswered. You have yet to address 90% of what I posted. Why should any of us continue?

To top it all off, your first and intial post was nothing but trolling. There was no true interest, your words were insulting and showed your true spirit.

You ignore what is posted.
You make false claims about the Hebrew texts.
You barely have basic reading comprehension.
You don't live up to the standards you demand upon others.
You insult from the beginning.
You make up wild imaginations and "what if" statements without any validity or foundation.

Why should any of us listen to you any further? Why should anyone here entertain this thread for one more post?

[Torah613]

exactly Simchat. Exactly.

Yochanan

[Steve Petersen]

End of thread?

[Torah613]

wow I agree with simchat on something. Somebody quick, look, is the Messiah coming?

Yochanan

[GerTzedek]

Is it impossible for God to make a Son of David?
This question is NO DIFFERENT than asking if G-d can make something so heavy that He himself cannot lift it.

[GerTzedek]

Perhaps no one remembers that I wrote last year that God's name is Yahwah.
Maybe no one considered it anything of consequence. I vaguely remember your entrance into the forums, your incredibly eccentric views, your disdain for genuine scholarship, your inability to reason adequately, and quite frankly, I wrote you off.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

You gave us miles, and we're barely scratching inches bud. You make claims about the Hebrew, yet you clearly don't read Hebrew. You make claims about the Sh'ma, and what the Hebrew text says, even after we've posted it for you, and you're dead wrong. You make insane demands for those of us on our position, and you don't live up to the same standards as you ask of us. You demand that we provide purely scripture (which is ridiculous to start with as prophecy is esoteric in nature and not literal) yet you fail to provide "scripture" yourself. You continue to demand that we bring more scripture, when the major bulk of what I presented pages and pages ago continues to go ingored and unanswered. You have yet to address 90% of what I posted. Why should any of us continue?

To top it all off, your first and intial post was nothing but trolling. There was no true interest, your words were insulting and showed your true spirit.

You ignore what is posted.
You make false claims about the Hebrew texts.
You barely have basic reading comprehension.
You don't live up to the standards you demand upon others.
You insult from the beginning.
You make up wild imaginations and "what if" statements without any validity or foundation.

Why should any of us listen to you any further? Why should anyone here entertain this thread for one more post? Im the one who asked the question: What do Orthodox Jews Believe. Very well then I will Ask the Mods to delete this thread.



Mods, will you please delete this thread.

[ShirChadash]

If for no other reason but to remain as a proof to you that Orthodox Jews CAN and DO argue from Scripture, it had best remain. Just because you don't care for the fact that we have been able to argue well against your every claim, doesn't mean you should ask for the thread to be removed if it doesn't please you. Once you open the thread for discussion, we are free to answer your accusations and we have, MORE than successfully. Removing it is clearly nothing but a face-saving request on your part.

[visionary]

I believe that I will close the thread, but not delete it as the other posters do not want their posts deleted.

[Talmidah]

Thank you, visionary.