Run that by me again, Moses

[Wick Stick]

Have you picked up yet from what I’ve written that the answer from the perspective of Jewish monotheism is no?

Well then Jesus and His apostles weren't Jewish monotheists, because that's how they saw it

 

[Matthias]

Well then Jesus and His apostles weren't Jewish monotheists, because that's how they saw it

The church began as a sect of Judaism. Jesus and the apostles were Jewish monotheists. You aren’t reading scripture like a Jewish monotheist does. That will give you a different perspective on the matter.

 

[Wick Stick]

The church began as a sect of Judaism. Jesus and the apostles were Jewish monotheists. You aren’t reading scripture like a Jewish monotheist does. That will give you a different perspective on the matter.

A sect, yes. 1st century Judaism had multiple sects that disagreed about more things than they agreed on. Judaism CELEBRATES that ability to disagree and debate the finer points of the Law and Prophets.

The WAY had significant disagreement with Jewish Orthodoxy, which evolved out of the Pharisee thought. I hope your concept of Jewish monotheism isn't built out of Jewish Orthodoxy.

I'm quite sure that the New Testament authors read, "the Word of the Lord came to me" throughout Jeremiah's book as being a divine visitation. That doesn't mean they thought of it in Trinitarian terms; they almost certainly didn't. But still a divine visitation

 

[Matthias]

A sect, yes. 1st century Judaism had multiple sects that disagreed about more things than they agreed on. Judaism CELEBRATES that ability to disagree and debate the finer points of the Law and Prophets.

The WAY had significant disagreement with Jewish Orthodoxy, which evolved out of the Pharisee thought. I hope your concept of Jewish monotheism isn't built out of Jewish Orthodoxy.

My concept of Jewish monotheism is built on the Messiah‘s sect. It is called the way in scripture, and also the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5).

I'm quite sure that the New Testament authors read, "the Word of the Lord came to me" throughout Jeremiah's book as being a divine visitation. That doesn't mean they thought of it in Trinitarian terms; they almost certainly didn't. But still a divine visitation

This thread is about how Jewish monotheism understands “divine visitation” -> agency.

That accounts for our difference in understanding.

You will find a great deal of agreement with unitarians, binitarians and trinitarians on the subject.

Jewish monotheism is unique.

 

[Wick Stick]

This thread is about how Jewish monotheism understands “divine visitation” -> agency.

That accounts for our difference in understanding.

You will find a great deal of agreement with unitarians, binitarians and trinitarians on the subject.

Jewish monotheism is unique.

So in practical terms, when "the Word of the LORD came to Jeremiah" in the Old Testament, who do you see as the agent? Is there really an agent?

 

[Matthias]

So in practical terms, when "the Word of the LORD came to Jeremiah" in the Old Testament, who do you see as the agent? Is there really an agent?

”The Word of the Lord” isn’t a person. “The Word of the Lord” is the davar, the self-expression or utterance of Yahweh.

Jeremiah is a prophet. Prophets, by definition, are persons who aren’t God himself. If Jeremiah acts and speaks as if he were Yahweh himself then he is acting and speaking as God’s shaliah. If Jeremiah acts and speaks on his own then he isn’t acting and speaking as God’s shaliah.

 

[marks]

You’re the one who is calling me evil. You’ll have to answer for it, but not to me.

I used worst case example to make the point. I've not called you evil. Again, you represent someone's words as other than what they said. That's what I'm talking about. I told you specifically my complaint against you, not that I call you an evil man, rather, I say that you change and mis-use things people say. And here is yet another example.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

I used worst case example to make the point. I've not called you evil. Again, you represent someone's words as other than what they said. That's what I'm talking about. I told you specifically my complaint against you, not that I call you an evil man, rather, I say that you change and mis-use things people say. And here is yet another example.

Much love!

I haven’t and I’m not the topic of the thread.

 

[Matthias]

”In these ways the metaphor of kingship provided the imagery adequate to sustain an enlarging belief in divine sovereignty. … The Lord’s Anointed, the reigning monarch of the house of David, was God’s earthly representative, appointed to sonship and to world-wide suzerainty, with the authority, if need be, to enforce his benign rule on recalcitrant nations.

Of me he says, ‘I have enthroned my king
On Zion my holy mountain.’
I will repeat the Lord’s decree:
’You are my son,’ he said;
This day I become your father.
Ask of me what you will:
I give you nations as your inheritance,
The ends of the earth as your possession.
You may break them with a rod of iron,
You may shatter them like a clay pot.’ (Ps. 2:6-9)

His reign is to be characterized by justice and rewarded with prosperity.

In his days righteousness shall flourish,
Prosperity abound until the moon is no more …
For he shall rescue the needy from their rich oppressors,
The distressed who have no protector.
He shall have pity on the needy and the poor,
And deliver the poor from death;
He shall redeem them from oppression and violence,
And precious shall their blood be in his eyes. (Ps. 72:7, 12-14)”

(G.B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, pp. 180-181)

 

[Matthias]

“Inspired by God, he would bring in the golden age of peace (Isa. 11:1-9, when every member of society would be held at his true value (Isa. 32:1-8). So completely is the ideal Davidic king identified with the purposes of God that he can be designated with the titles of God himself.

He shall be called
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God,
Father Eternal, Prince of Peace.
Great shall the dominion be
And boundless the peace
Bestowed on David’s throne and on his kingdom
To establish it and sustain it
With justice and righteousness
From now and for evermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this. (Isa. 9:6-7)”

(G.B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, p. 181)

It is the witness of the New Testament that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, Son of God, is the ideal Davidic king.

Dr. Caird has an important footnote at this point on the bottom of the page.

”Cf. 2 Esdr. 5:43, 56, where God’s spokesman, the angel of Uriel, is questioned by Ezra as though he were both Creator and Judge. Ezra uses the same style of address to Uriel (‘my lord, my master’) as he uses in his petition to God. This practice of treating the agent as though he were the principal is of the greatest importance for New Testament Christology.”

Bold is mine.

This is precisely the Jewish law of agency. It is the common Hebraic way in which Jewish monotheists think. To ignore this or play it off as “a tradition of man” is to misunderstand the mind and intent of the Jewish authors - in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament - and to invite an understanding of what they wrote which they themselves didn’t have and hold.

 

[Wick Stick]

”The Word of the Lord” isn’t a person. “The Word of the Lord” is the davar, the self-expression or utterance of Yahweh.

Jeremiah is a prophet. Prophets, by definition, are persons who aren’t God himself. If Jeremiah acts and speaks as if he were Yahweh himself then he is acting and speaking as God’s shaliah. If Jeremiah acts and speaks on his own then he isn’t acting and speaking as God’s shaliah.

So then... no agent?

 

[Matthias]

So then... no agent?

All of the prophets are agents, but not all agents are shaliahs.

P.S.

A personal example might help illustrate my comment.

I worked for the government for decades. At all times, I was an agent of the state. On a few out of the ordinary occasions, I was a duly appointed and authorized shaliah.