Explaining Judaism And Christianity To A Trinitarian

Nothing in any part of the Hebrew Bible is about Jesus.

Isaiah 9:6, for example, is either about king David or a male descendant of his physical lineage.

History presents an incomplete picture of what's being written about. 

In fact, this is always the case with both Hebrew and Christian religious texts.

However, the academic consensus about the entire book of Isaiah is that: 

It was written during or soon-after when David was king. 

Chapter 9 verse 6 is either about David or one of his male heirs. 

It would be like me, today, writing about Michael Jackson; as someone will be called the king of pop. Or writing about how Trump will be called divine by his cult. 

 

 It's not a prophecy.

NOR is about anyone showing up someday to clear humanity's sin-debts. 

In fact,
per the Hebrew religion,
 humanity did not HAVE a sin-debt.

 

The Hebrews sometimes sinned (made their gods mad). 

Whenever that happened, they gained a sin-debt (according to their religion).

But they had ways of permanently clearing those debts. 
-Until they do something else to make their gods mad. And then they'd need to make their gods happy again. 

But those debts didn't apply to the rest of humanity.

To the "Biblical" Hebrews, the "gentiles" were irrelevant.

The basic sentiment was 'let the foreign people's foreign gods do with their people ... whatever they may.

It's none of our concern.

Our relationship to our god(s) is all that we concern ourselves with, except sometimes wanting outsiders to respect or fear our gods; for our gods' sake, and for our own sake. 

We shall always remain separate from other people.

Our gods (who are the bestest parents ever) only care about us." 
 

Meanwhile,
they were not waiting for anyone to show up as a human sacrifice to free them from their Covenant,

nor replace that Covenant,

nor to erase all sin-debts forever for whoever joins a replacement Covenant. 

 These were all concepts created later by fan-fiction writers who were creating a new religion. 
 

 Christian writers showed up many centuries later, to create a new religion. 

When they did that, they borrowed concepts from the Hebrew bible and tried to MAKE THOSE INTO "prophecies" about Jesus. 

 

The writer of Isaiah was a polytheist.

Literally ALL the biblical Hebrews were polytheists.

He was part of a local culture which saw their kings (including David and his heirs) as divine beings. 

Also, none of the Hebrew God(s) were ever called a "messiah". 

To be a "messiah" means to be appointed and approved by a deity ... to represent them and act on their behalf, as a person sent to lead "a people" who belong to "a god" out of a bad situation and into a good situation. 

The Hebrews had various messiahs.
It was not an exclusive title. 

Isaiah chapter 9 isn't about a messiah at all.

However, the Hebrews did have a belief about a Davidic messiah.

The Davidic messiah
was WHOEVER (in the physical line of David) was going to deliver Israel from foreign bondage and restore the glories of its golden age.

 This also had absolutely nothing to do with any sin-curse inherited from Adam.

   In fact, ...

There Was No Sin in the Garden of Eden. 

Meanwhile,
gods don't do something as silly as approving-of themselves, sanctifying themselves, nor sending themselves to "represent" themselves;

 for the same reason a Sherriff doesn't "deputize" himself. 

It would be nonsensical. 

--------
As for Isiah 9:6's use of the word "God", it is translated from the word "el". "el" only means either "a god" or "God" whenever it's referring TO "a god" or "God". The rest of the time, "el" just means "mighty one" or "mighty person". Using the word "el" as a way of naming a specific deity ... originated with other gods called "El". Originally, "El" was NOT Yahweh. It was a name used by a few other "Gods" from a time when Yahweh had not yet been invented. After the name "El" was no longer being used by any of the gods in their culture, ... The people who created Yahweh scavenged parts of other gods' lore to build Yahweh with. Think of Yahweh as a Frankenstein's Monster-God. Because he was built from parts of dead gods. He was "brought to life" within that religion's narrative, as he was raised up and struck with the narrative power of a storm god (another god they stole character-parts from, to build him with).

The bride of that Frankenstein's Monster was "Asherah".

 However, she didn't live on into later legends.

 As a consequence of the Hebrew people's messy and meandering (but unintentional) migration towards monotheism,
 many gods died along the way.

 Among these was "Asherah".

 When the raging storm of their religious paradigm destroyed her tree,

they destroyed her along with it.

  The Hebrews were a people who fractured off from their Canaanite roots.

 They were a people who kept trying to build a new identity for themselves.

 In doing so, they lied to themselves (very very often) about where they came from and what they'd been through.

 This is why their evolving religion was so heavily polemic against the Canaanites.
They were always hungering for a fresh start. Generally speaking, this is really pretty normal for humans. However, ... They took that effort to unhealthy and wildly unethical extremes. They continued, wittingly, to emulate Narcissistic Personality Disorder; mostly because their leaders and story-makers often had that Major Personality Disorder. Their people were trained to emulate all of their leaders' Major Personality Disorders. This included sociopathy and psychopathy. Ironically and unfortunately, this packaged legacy of emulating major personality disorders is the MAIN THING Christianity decided to keep. As a result of that "leadership" and conditioning, such people in such religions attempted to burry and forget each chapter's page they turned past; as if their true past never happened. [I've Long-term-dated women who were the same way] Every page from their true past was in the way of writing a new "history" they could live with. So they'd just edit the real facts of their past. They'd demonize whoever was in their way. They'd make anti-factual excuses about horrible things they did to innocent others. They take false credit for moments of human progress. They'd exaggerate their parts from whenever they were involved in something decent. -All just so they can justify themselves as "heroes". This way, they keep escaping from their own regrets, while building a local "name" and "legend" for themselves which was (mostly) the opposite of what they really earned. It also helps when your enemies are either dead, broken, or defamed ... so that they can't show up to testify (in the court of public opinion) against you.

This helped their religious culture keep building towards a gradually greater sense of empowered and special identity. However, they did not burry their dead gods deep enough. History recovered Asherah; at least enough of her to know she was "his" mate. As for the word "el", that word was used for: 1. "The Gods" worshipped by the Canaanites. 2. the name of various specific gods. 3. the name used for Yahweh; who was built from parts of prior gods. 4. interchangeably, an adjective for someone being praised as especially mighty. The exact evolution of this term varied by regional cultures. It is messy. We simply do not have enough materials from those cultures to trace each etymological path exactly. In any case, we do have a more clear understanding of what the word "el" meant for the writer of Isaiah. It was a translation OPTION and thus a translation CHOICE to render "el" as "God" for that passage. Notice how Psalm 50:1 translates "el" as "mighty one" and not as "God", because a word for "God" was already being supplied by a different word. The word "el", just like literally all words of power and praise ... get their meaning from CONTEXT. Such a word does not provide it's own meaning, nor does it supply context for whatever sentence it is used in. Such words receive meaning from the context they are used in. There is not a single word in their entire language (not even various forms of the word "theos") that always or automatically means the subject is "a god" nor their primary "God himself". All of their words for divinity can also be used as adjectives, to say someone is demonstrating god-like qualities, or to say someone is representing a god by word or by action. The only reasons scholars are willing to grant the idea that the writer of Isaiah 9:6 probably meant "God" are because: a.) Scholars know the writer was a polytheist in a culture who saw their kings as divine beings. and b.) The topic he was writing about is also relevant to those beliefs. The writer might not have meant "God". But it's reasonable to expect that writer to mean (a) "God". In any case, it was not a prophecy, because it was written after-the-fact, about a person who was already born. Nor was the "Jesus" of Christian lore thought of as "God" until centuries after the legends of Jesus began. Not even the unknown author of "John" went that far, in his efforts to take the legends of Jesus into a "higher Christology". Again, someone cannot be a "christ" (a person who is appointed and anointed by a god) nor a priest for a "God", and yet also simultaneously BE that "God"; for the same reason a Sherriff cannot be their own deputy. and for the same reason our "Sun" does not "reflect" its own radiant power.

A deity who shows up to speak for himself ... is not being "represented". They are not placing their authority INTO someone to act on a god's behalf. There is no oil-based ritual to perform, no baptismal ritual to perform, no approval to give, no "name" to give, ... when a deity shows up in person to speak or act for their own self. -- -- These last bits of advice, are, of course, optional. But if you really wanted to, you could stop being stubbornly dogmatic. You could stop relying on circular reasoning for how you determine * verse-A means "Trinity" * because verse-B means "Trinity" * because verse-C means "Trinity" (all the way through verse-Z) ... * because verse-A means "Trinity". You could stop letting *identity politics* control your ego. Other fallible humans forced that into your head. Those people are using that as a way to control what you're allowed to think.

This is how they enslaved your mind to their will. This is why people in rival religious factions can't change their minds either. You could also stop being illogically ridiculous about the meanings of words. This too is a choice. But it's a choice you can't freely make ... yet. You will do whatever you most WANT to do. But my point about that is: Other people used insidious methods of programming, so that THEY could determine HOW you think and what you will FEEL; and thus pre-determine what you will want to do. It's very much the same thing both the Hebrew architects and later Christian architects did (and still do) to their own mental slaves. Those people did not EVER speak for a literally real "God". Divine Reality exists. But those religions were only distantly and vaguely aware of it. They never really connected with it. They never really understood it. They never really honored it. It's simply not a thing slave-minds can do. Neither can their owners. Your mind and journey will remain someone else's property; until you claim ownership by accepting responsibility. Those people intentionally got in the way of your ability to make that progress,

by tricking you into thinking you're not supposed to own yourself, and by tricking you into thinking they speak for someone who IS supposed to own you.