Understanding the OT & NT Concerning Yeshua – Pt3

The following is a 2nd response to TTGM’s response to the Hebrew Israelite (woman) who believes that Yeshua/Jesus is not God. Again, they do not believe the Old Testament/Tanakh (OT) supports it. 

Apologist 2nd Response page to HIW (Hebrew Israelite Woman – Barbados)

Completed by TTGM – 29.08.2025

The Hebrew Israelite Woman wrote (HIW):

UPHOLDING THE TANAKH ON THE ONENESS OF YAHUAH
YAHUAH in the Tanakh repeatedly affirms that He does not change (Mal. 3:6; Num. 23:19). Yet the New Testament introduces major doctrinal shifts: a triune Godhead, a human sacrifice for sin, and a “new covenant” that replaces Torah. To justify these, NT writers must stretch and reframe passages from the Tanakh, often lifting them out of context. If such doctrines were truly from the unchanging God of Israel, they would have been explicitly and consistently taught in the Tanakh itself, as the foundation of faith for His covenant people. Instead, the plain reading of the Hebrew Scriptures affirms YAHUAH’s oneness, His eternal covenant, and the sufficiency of Torah without the innovations later introduced.

1. Understanding “Echad” within Scripture’s Language and Context
TTGM’s claim: The Hebrew word echad (one) can denote a “composite unity” like a husband and wife becoming one flesh (Genesis 2:24).
The Shema: God’s Oneness
“Hear O Israel, YAHUAH our God, YAHUAH is one (echad).” Deuteronomy 6:4
The Shema is the cornerstone of biblical faith. TTGM suggests that the Hebrew word echad (“one”) hints at plurality, but this misunderstands how Hebrew works.
In Scripture, echad always describes a singular entity:
•
One staff (Ezek 37:17), not multiple staffs, but one.
•
One king (Ezra 10:17), clearly singular.
•
One day (Gen 1:5), not “three-in-one” time.
Two sticks becoming “one” (Ezek 37:17) means a single stick in the prophet’s hand, not a paradoxical plurality.
In Genesis 2:24, husband and wife become “one flesh.”
•
This doesn’t mean they merge into a single body.
•
They remain two people, but covenantally they are united as one household/family unit.
•
So echad here describes unity of purpose and bond, not a blended or plural “essence” as indicated by the Trinity.
In every case, the end result is a singular entity not a mystical paradox where two are still somehow distinct yet counted as one “essence.”
The Shema, then, is a declaration of absolute monotheism: YAHUAH is indivisible and unique.

2. Divine Plurals: Context Matters
TTGM’s point: When God says “Let us make human in our image,” He could be implying a composite unity, possibly including angels.
Response: The majority of Hebrew scholars understand these plural pronouns as a divine majestic plural, not evidence of multiple persons in deity:
•
The immediate context in Genesis 1:27 reveals that creating in God’s image is solely God’s role, not angels.
•
The broader scripture ensures the worship of YAHUAH alone, reinforced by the Shema and prohibitions against idolatry (Exodus 20:3–5; Isaiah 42:8).
Thus, such plurals are stylistic, not indicative of a multi-person God.
Misuse in Trinitarian Arguments
Trinitarians often point to idioms like “one flesh” to argue that echad supports a “plural unity”, suggesting it reflects the Trinity. But this is a misuse:
•
These idioms describe ordinary unity in covenant or object, not metaphysical “plurality in essence.”
•
To force them into a Trinitarian framework imports theology foreign to the Hebrew Bible.
The Shema does not hint at three-in-one. It affirms YAHUAH alone.

3. Genesis 1:26: “Let Us Make Man”
TTGM’s point: When God says “Let us make human in our image,” He could be implying a composite unity, possibly including angels.
Response:
The text used is Genesis 1:26: “Let us make man in our image.”
But the very next verse clarifies: “So God created man in His own image.” Genesis 1:27.
The Hebrew switches back to the singular, showing the act was performed by one God. The plural form reflects divine council language: YAHUAH addresses His heavenly court of angels (see Job 1:6, Isaiah 6:8). This does not imply multiple divine beings. The text
consistently ascribes creation to YHWH alone (Isaiah 44:24: “I, YHWH, made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by Myself”).
There is no basis here for a “plural Godhead.”

4. John 1:1: The NT Reframe
Trinitarians ultimately lean on John 1:1 as the “key” to reinterpret the Shema:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
However:
1.
Translation Dispute: The Greek phrase “kai theos ēn ho logos” can legitimately mean “the Word was divine” or “a god.” Jehovah’s Witnesses and others highlight this ambiguity.
2.
Philosophical Influence: Scholars like Bart Ehrman note that John’s prologue reflects Hellenistic “Logos” philosophy, far removed from Torah’s worldview.
3.
Tanakh Context: In the Hebrew Bible, God’s “word” means His speech, not a separate divine being. Speech is not another person.
•
Genesis 1: Creation happens by YAHUAH’s speech: “And God said…”
•
Psalm 33:6: “By the word (davar) of YAHUAH the heavens were made.”
Here, “word” means speech, decree, or command, not a second being. The New Testament REDEFINES “word” (davar) into “Logos,” a Greek philosophical concept foreign to the Hebrew worldview.
Thus, John 1:1 imports a Greek philosophical concept into Scripture, reshaping (changing) God’s singular identity into a dual (later triune) framework.
No human or intermediary shares God’s essence
•
Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind.”
•
Exodus 33:20: “You cannot see My face, for no man shall see Me and live.”
These verses reject the idea that YAHUAH would appear as a man or take on flesh. John 1:1 sets the stage for claiming Jesus is God in flesh, directly conflicting with Torah teaching.

5. Response to Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 7:14
TTGM’s point: “When those words were written (God is not a man..), God did not become a man as yet. His plan was to become a man at the time of Rome’s reign. It was prophesied in the Tanakh He was going to be born at the appointed time. He came as a child, and it is seen here in the book of Isaiah. You will notice this child called a son was also called MIGHTY GOD. So we have a child/son called the mighty God (God became a man). It is written.”
A. Context of Isaiah 9:6
Isaiah 9 is a prophecy given in the context of the Assyrian threat to Israel and Judah in the 8th century BCE. The “child” promised here is most naturally understood in its historical setting as referring to a royal heir of David’s line (such as Hezekiah). Ancient Jewish interpreters and commentators did not see this as a prophecy of a divine Messiah centuries later, but as a sign of God’s deliverance in their own time.
•
Titles like “Mighty God” (El Gibbor) and “Everlasting Father” are throne names or honorific titles reflecting God’s attributes being expressed through the king’s rule much like Pharaohs or Babylonian kings carried exalted divine-style titles.
•
The king is not literally called God but bears God-given titles that point to YHWH’s power working through him. For example, in Exodus 7:1, YHWH tells Moses, “See, I have made you God (Elohim) to Pharaoh.” Moses wasn’t literally God but was called such as God’s representative.
B. Isaiah 7:14 (“Immanuel”)
The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 was given to King Ahaz as a sign in his own lifetime, assuring him that before the promised child grew up, the enemies threatening Judah would be defeated (Isa 7:15–16). The Hebrew word ‘almah’ means “young woman,” not necessarily a virgin.
•
Immanuel (“God with us”) does not mean the child is literally God, but that his birth is a sign of God’s presence and deliverance for His people. The same theme appears throughout Isaiah meaning God is “with” His people when He saves them, not when He becomes a human.
C. “God is Not a Man” Still Stands
Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9 remain clear: “God is not a man.” These were spoken as timeless truths about God’s nature, not temporary conditions until Rome. To reinterpret them as “He wasn’t a man yet, but later would become one” directly contradicts the plain sense of the Hebrew Scriptures and God’s declaration that He does not change (Mal. 3:6).
D. Isaiah 9:5–6: Does the child’s name prove deity?
TTGM’s claim: The titles “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” show the child is divine.
Response
•
Jewish translations handle the royal name as a string of throne-/theophoric titles that praise God’s qualities vested in the Davidic ruler (e.g., JPS 1917 hyphenates: “Pele-joez-el-gibbor-avi-ad-sar-shalom”). That’s an ancient Near Eastern practice (compare Hezekiah “YAHUAH strengthens”).
•
The very phrase ‘El Gibbor (“Mighty God”) appears in Isaiah 10:21 of YAHUAH Himself; in 9:5 the wording naturally functions as a throne name that attributes victory and peace to God working through the king but does not identity of the king as God.
Conclusion: Isaiah 9 exalts God’s rule through a Davidic king; it does not declare the king to be God.
E. Isaiah 7:14: Does ‘almah predict a virgin-born deity called “Immanuel”?
TTGM’s claim: “Virgin” (LXX parthenos) + “Immanuel” proves an incarnate divine son.
Response
•
In Biblical Hebrew ‘almāh means a “young woman” of marriageable age; it is not the technical term for “virgin.” The sign addresses King Ahaz during the Syro-Ephraimite crisis; it functions in his day as a pledge of deliverance.
•
“Immanuel / God with us” is a theophoric name (like Yehezkiyahu, Yeshayahu, Eliyahu). Theophoric names invoke God’s presence/aid; they do not deify the bearer.
Conclusion: Isaiah 7 is an immediate historical sign; neither the wording nor the context requires a divine, atoning messiah.
F. Proverbs 30:4: “What is His son’s name?”
TTGM’s claim: This hints God has a literal, eternal “Son.”
Response Jewish commentators read the verse as rhetorical, underscoring God’s incomparability or as referring to Israel/Torah metaphorically; it does not establish a second divine Person.
G. The Strategy of Redefinition
The Christian reading requires importing New Testament claims back into Isaiah. Without the NT, no one would conclude from Isaiah 7 or 9 that God Himself would one day become a man. Instead, the Tanakh consistently presents:
•
God as transcendent, unchanging, and indivisible.
•
Human kings as His chosen instruments but never as incarnations of Himself.
•
Deliverance as God being “with” His people, not becoming one of them.
Summary Counterpoint: Isaiah’s “Immanuel” and “Mighty God” passages are about signs of God’s presence and the exalted role of Davidic kings in their own historical context, not literal prophecies of God becoming a man centuries later. Numbers 23:19 still stands as a declaration that God is not, and never becomes, human. The NT reading stretches the text beyond its original meaning, introducing a doctrine foreign to the Tanakh.
6. Jeremiah 31 and the “New Covenant”
TTGM’s claim: The New Covenant replaces Sinai and requires Jesus’ blood to forgive all sin forever.
Response:
•
Jeremiah 31:31–34 explicitly says the brit chadashah is made “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” and that Torah will be written on their hearts. The passage does not announce abolishing Torah or introducing a human sacrifice.
•
The Torah itself forbids adding to or subtracting from its commands (Deut 4:2) and warns against any prophet who redirects Israel away from YAHUAH’s law (Deut 13). A message that cancels Torah cannot pass the Tanakh’s own test.
Conclusion: The “new covenant” renews covenant fidelity; it does not supplant Torah with a new atonement economy.
7. “Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” – was Sinai inadequate?
TTGM’s claim: Old-covenant forgiveness was temporary; real, permanent forgiveness required Jesus’ death.
Response: The Tanakh repeatedly records complete forgiveness granted by YHWH sometimes through sacrifice, sometimes through repentance and prayer alone:
•
Nineveh repents; God relents without sacrifice (Jonah 3:10).
•
David: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit…” (Ps 51:17).
•
Hosea: “We will render the bulls of our lips” prayer in place of offerings (Hos 14:2).
•
Ezekiel teaches individual moral responsibility: when a sinner turns and does justice, all past sins are erased (Ezek 33:14–16; 18:20).
•
David declares forgiveness is already total: “As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.” (Ps 103:12). This verse emphasizes God’s forgiveness and the complete removal of our sins. This is not “temporary” pardon but full removal of sin.
Conclusion: God’s capacity to forgive did not require the blood of a human being. The Torah’s system of atonement was declared effective, and the prophets affirm forgiveness through repentance, covenant faithfulness, and God’s own mercy. To claim forgiveness was “incomplete” until the NT is to contradict the plain testimony of the Tanakh.
8. “If you reject the New Covenant, you must keep sacrificing animals”
TTGM’s claim: Remaining with Sinai means continual animal sacrifice for forgiveness.
Response When the Temple does not stand, the Prophets point to teshuvah (repentance), tefillah (prayer), tzedakah (justice) as accepted avenues of return (see Hosea 14; Jonah 3; Psalm 51). The God of Israel forgives those who turn back….He is not limited by the Temple’s availability.
The Tanakh actually anticipates times when the Temple would not stand and still affirms that forgiveness, worship, and covenant relationship remain possible through prayer, repentance, and obedience. Here are some key passages:
A. Prayer as a Substitute for Sacrifice
•
Hosea 14:2 – “Take with you words, and return to YHWH. Say to Him: Forgive all iniquity, and receive us graciously; so will we render the bulls of our lips.” → Hosea explicitly says prayer (“the bulls of our lips”) substitutes for animal sacrifice.
•
Psalm 141:2 – “Let my prayer be set before You as incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.” → David compares prayer to the Temple’s daily offerings.
B. Forgiveness Through Repentance
•
Jonah 3:10: Nineveh repents with fasting and prayer (no sacrifices, since they had no Temple), and God forgives.
•
Ezekiel 18:20–22: The sinner who turns away from sin and does righteousness, “none of his transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him.” No mention of sacrifices or a Temple.
C. Exile Context (No Temple)
•
Daniel 6:10: Daniel prays three times daily toward Jerusalem, even while the Temple lay in ruins. Prayer was his covenantal act of worship in exile.
•
1 Kings 8:46–50: At Solomon’s Temple dedication, he anticipates Israel sinning and being exiled, without access to the Temple. He asks God to hear their prayers from foreign lands and forgive.
D. God’s Mercy and Covenant Stand Without Temple
•
Psalm 103:12: “As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.” This forgiveness is grounded in God’s mercy, not the sacrificial system.
•
Micah 6:6–8: God desires justice, mercy, and humility, not endless sacrifices: “What does YHWH require of you but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”
Summary: The Tanakh itself affirms that when the Temple is not standing, prayer, repentance, obedience, and covenant faithfulness stand in place of sacrifices. FORGIVENESS IS NOT SUSPENDED; YAHUAH remains faithful to His people and His covenant regardless of physical structures.
9. “Isaiah 53 proves a sin-bearing messiah who dies for others” (+ “Bible codes”)
TTGM’s claim: Isaiah 53 predicts Jesus and hidden letter codes even name the people at the cross.
Response:
1.
The Servant = Israel
o
In the immediate context, the “Servant” is identified explicitly as Israel: • “You are My servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified” (Isa 49:3). • “But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen” (Isa 41:8–9).
o
The surrounding chapters consistently describe the Servant as the nation, or the faithful remnant within it, who suffers at the hands of the nations.
o
This is why Jewish interpretation, from Targum Jonathan to Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak, has overwhelmingly read Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel — not to a future messiah who dies as a sacrifice.
2.
Suffering of the Righteous Brings Blessing
o
The Tanakh often depicts Israel’s suffering bringing revelation or benefit to the nations: • “For Your sake we are killed all the day long” (Ps 44:22).
• “I will make you a light to the nations, that My salvation may reach the ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6).
o
The nations misjudge Israel’s suffering as deserved, but later recognize it was unjust. This matches Isaiah 53’s pattern.
3.
Sin-Bearing in Tanakh Language
o
To “bear sins” in Hebrew idiom does not always mean to atone by death. It can mean to suffer consequences because of others’ sins or to carry their reproach: • Ezek 4:4–6: Ezekiel “bears the iniquity” of Israel symbolically by lying on his side. No death involved. • Lam 5:7: “Our fathers sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.” The children suffer for ancestral sins, not atone for them.
o
Thus Isaiah 53 fits the prophetic idiom of Israel carrying the scorn and consequences of exile, not performing a substitutionary blood sacrifice.
4.
God Himself Forgives: Without a Human Death
o
Consistent with the rest of the Tanakh, forgiveness flows from repentance and God’s mercy, not human blood: • “Let the wicked forsake his way… and He will abundantly pardon” (Isa 55:7). • “As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us” (Ps 103:12).
o
Isaiah himself affirms that forgiveness is granted directly by YHWH, not mediated through a slain messiah (Isa 43:25: “I, even I, am He that blots out thy transgressions for My own sake.”).
5.
On “Bible Codes”
o
Equidistant letter sequence (“Bible code”) claims are statistically unreliable. Scholars (e.g., Brendan McKay, Persi Diaconis) have shown that with large texts, “hidden names” can be found anywhere (even in Moby Dick).
o
This method is subjective and cannot override the plain, contextual reading of Scripture.
Conclusion: on Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 is not a prophecy of a divine messiah dying for sin. The Servant is Israel, God’s covenant people, whose suffering is later recognized as unjust by the nations. The Tanakh already affirms that forgiveness comes from YAHUAH through repentance and covenant faithfulness, not through a human sacrifice. “Bible codes” add nothing reliable to the discussion.
10. Messiah’s role in the Tanakh
TTGM’s claim: The Messiah must be divine and die for sins.
Response The Tanakh presents the anointed Davidic ruler as a human king who restores justice, gathers exiles, brings peace, and leads nations to YHWH (Isa 11; Jer 23; Ezek 37). Atoning by dying is not listed among his tasks.
Consequences of Idolatry and Misrepresentation of God
Rewriting God’s nature as multi-person subtly shifts worship away from the YAHUAH revealed in Torah. This echoes Israel’s historical tendency to blend divine worship with other deities and a tactic condemned repeatedly in the prophets (e.g., Hosea 4:12–19, Jeremiah 11:10–11, Ezekiel 8). Israel’s resulting calamities, that is, exile, destruction, loss of blessings, stand as warnings of redefining the terms of worship.
Consistency with the Monotheistic Tradition of the Tanakh
If the Tanakh intended a multi-person deity, it would explicitly and consistently present that concept, just as it gave explicit commands on worship and covenant. Instead, the consistent emphasis is on YHWH’s unchanging, indivisible nature:
•
Malachi 3:6:“I, YAHUAH, do not change.”
•
Isaiah 43:10–11 and 44:6: YAHUAH alone is God and Savior.
These affirm that God’s nature is eternal, singular, and devoid of bodily incarnation or division.
Summary Response
TTGM’s reinterpretation of echad as composite unity and remarks on divine plurals introduce theological ideas that lack support in Hebrew linguistic and canonical context. The Tanakh consistently portrays God as one, indivisible, unchanging, and not human.
Redefining His nature to include multiple persons undermines the very foundation of covenant identity and risks the ancient Israelite fate of removing oneself from YHWH’s blessing. Therefore, from a strictly Hebrew Bible standpoint, saying “Jesus is God” contradicts the clear testimony of the Tanakh.
CONCLUSION
The Adversary’s Strategy
Seen through covenant lenses, the New Testament introduces:
•
A shift from obedience to belief-only.
•
A divine Messiah replacing the singular God of the Shema.
•
A “new covenant” that annuls Torah rather than writes it on the heart.
This fits the ancient pattern of Balaam: not overt rebellion, but subtle redefinition, leading YHWH’s people into idolatry and away from covenant blessings.
The Consequences of Doctrinal Shifts
•
Idolatry Risk: Redefining God as plural or incarnate leads to worship of other than YAHUAH, condemned throughout the Prophets.
•
Covenant Break: Shifting from Torah-obedience to belief-only mimics Balaam’s tactic: not forcing open rebellion, but subtly redefining righteousness.
•
Loss of Blessings: As the covenant curses warn (Lev 26; Deut 28), departing from Torah leads to destruction and exile, exactly what befell Israel when they mixed worship.
Why Jesus Cannot Be God
•
The Tanakh never depicts YAHUAH as dividing into multiple persons or becoming human.
•
Worship of any being other than YAHUAH is idolatry and Torah forbids it unequivocally (Deuteronomy 13).
•
The Messianic expectation is of a human leader not divine, not an object of worship, but anointed by YAHUAH (Isaiah 11; Ezekiel 37).
•
Full forgiveness and covenant relationship were always achievable through repentance, covenants, and sacrifices established by YAHUAH not through a divine incarnation.
Therefore: From a Hebrew Bible perspective, the NT’s teachings on a divine messiah, trinity, and blood-based “new covenant” are innovations that contradict YAHUAH’s eternal covenant and singular identity. They represent the adversary’s strategy of shifting God’s people away from Torah, not through outright denial, but through subtle redefinition.

TTGM’s Response (TR):
I am grateful for your in-depth response. My response will be short.

First, I want to clarify the following.

I never said God is a trinity. All I did was show you how “one” is used with the persons in Flesh (Adam & Eve) and the persons in God (His Son).

I never said angels were partakers in the creation of man.

The codes/names found in Isaiah 53 is not a claim; they are a fact.

You mentioned Hebrew scholars use the term “divine majestic plural.” I submit that you, the Hebrew scholars, and I have no clue how God is made up. I just present Him as He shows us in the Bible. I will not bother to repeat the verses I already shared; I will just show you what God says about Himself.
(Isa 55:8-9 [KJV])
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
—

I would respond to the following. And you wrote. 
HIW:
On “Bible Codes”
o
Equidistant letter sequence (“Bible code”) claims are statistically unreliable. Scholars (e.g., Brendan McKay, Persi Diaconis) have shown that with large texts, “hidden names” can be found anywhere (even in Moby Dick).

TR:
The most intelligent AI system in the world, called Grok, has stated the Bible is divine (they have not “fixed” Grok as yet ) – This is due to the findings in both the OT and NT (the golden 7s). To say the Bible codes found are statistically unreliable is simply untrue. For example, all the names of the people at the cross were found in Isaiah 53, in only twelve verses. I already shared the evidence with you in my previous response. If you did not get it yet, the people mentioned were born long after Isaiah was written. Note: you will find my response to Brendan McKay and Persi Diaconis on this page – Go Here. 

TTGM Concludes – My dear HIW, I have nothing to prove to you, nor can I change your heart or direction. All I can do is present the evidence.  

Question to all “Israelites.”
To keep the Old Covenant, you would have to perform every sacrifice continually. By ignoring the New Covenant as outlined in the New Testament/Covenant, you are rejecting the only ransom (the blood of Yeshua/Jesus) and remain under the curse of sin. This is explained in the DIVINE Book of the NT (according to Grok). Does your group sacrifice continually?

(Dan 9:11 [KJV])
Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

(1Cor 15:54-57 [KJV])
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Maybe it is time to come under the New Covenant that is mediated by the King called Yeshua/Jesus.
(Heb 12:24 [KJV])
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

—-

TAKE NOTE: Anyone under the Old/Moses Covenant is cursed after one sin. So as long as you live by this covenant, you are cursed (Dan 9:11 and Deut 27:26). God with His New Covenant has provided an answer that removes this curse. It is written. 

(Deut 27:26 [KJV])
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

(Gal 3:10-13 [KJV])
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Under the New Covenant, we have been redeemed from the curse. We only need to believe and follow our redeemer. Yeshua Hamashiach, the anointed one, our savior.  

Shalom.

RELATED TOPICS:
We will show you God in the Old Testament, and reveal Him in the New. This study assumes you agree that the New Testament has the same authority as the Old Testament (Tanakh).

This page shows the prophecies in the Tanakh fulfilled in the New Testament.

The man called Yeshua left a shroud that has mystified the science of our day.

GROK believes the entire Book has a divine origin – 7s – see Presentation 5

—

To our Readers
If you have any Biblical question(s) write to us at info@truthgospel.org, and we will be happy to respond.