Aantares    Aantares BB  Hop To Forum Categories  Your Lifestyle & Culture  Hop To Forums  Religion & Spirituality    Biblical Scholar: Dont take Bible literally
      Page: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 
Go To
Post
Search BB
Notify Me
TOS/Tools/Smilies
Reply
  
Biblical Scholar: Dont take Bible literally
 Login/Register
 
Enthusiast...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
Yep, just heard about that suppression order here too. Well, last time we had a chance which would have been Sunday.

I've fixed my careless error.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 2550 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Enthusiast...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
I think that the most obvious indication of the Messiah’s deity is found in Isaiah 9:6-7
(I am quoting from “The Complete Jewish Study Bible”)

A good example of how words can paint false images.

A Jewish study Bible?

Well, no, not at all.

Instead, it is a Messianic Jewish Bible, an entirely different thing altogether.

Why were they not honest enough to admit this?

quote:
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yoletz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar – Shalom (Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace).
As you can see, this son will be more than just a man.


How can Hezekiah be Jesus?

This is from a genuine Jewish Bible: https://www.chabad.org/library...15940#showrashi=true

5For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
Rashi: For a child has been born to us: Although Ahaz is wicked, his son who was born to him many years ago [nine years prior to his assuming the throne] to be our king in his stead, shall be a righteous man, and the authority of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His yoke shall be on his shoulder, for he shall engage in the Torah and observe the commandments, and he shall bend his shoulder to bear the burden of the Holy One, blessed be He.
and… called his name: The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days.


quote:

Then there is Isaiah 52:13- 53:12
I suppose this is probably the most well know section that attests to the Messiah dying for our sins, thus saving us. I am sure you are familiar with it, but just a few highlights:
53:4-6 (This is also from the “Complete Jewish Study Bible”)
In fact, it was our diseases he bore, our pains from which he suffered; yet we regarded him as punished, stricken and afflicted by God. But he was wounded because of our crimes, crushed because of our sins; the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him, and by his bruises we are healed. We, like sheep, went astray; we turned, each one to his own way, yet ADONAI laid on him the guilt of all of us.
(The Complete Jewish Study Bible uses ADONAI in place of YHWH).

A genuinely Jewish Bible would note (again my italic emphasis):

Rashi: Despised and rejected by men: was he. So is the custom of this prophet: he mentions all Israel as one man , e.g., (44:2), “Fear not, My servant Jacob” ; (44:1) “And now, hearken, Jacob, My servant.” Here too (52:13), “Behold My servant shall prosper,” he said concerning the house of Jacob. יַשְׂכִּיל is an expression of prosperity. Comp. (I Sam. 18:14) “And David was successful (מַשְׂכִּיל) in all his ways.”
and as one who hides his face from us: Because of their intense shame and humility, they were as one who hides his face from us, with their faces bound up in concealment, in order that we not see them, like a plagued man who hides his face and is afraid to look.

So the text is referring to Israel itself, not Jesus.

As for Mark 12, this seems to support everything I have been saying:

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

Nothing there about having to believe Jesus is an aspect of God, is there.

So why not follow Jesus' lead?

quote:
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the Law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“’ The Lord said to my Lord: “sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” David himself calls him ‘Lord’. How then can he be his son?”


The Lord said to my Lord???

Who defines what "Lord" means in each instance?

Or had you not noticed?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 2550 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Enthusiast...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
When you brought this up, I had in mind what Jesus said about sin, when he was defending his testimony. In the same chapter, Jesus points out that people who don’t believe what he says, don’t believe God, either. Jesus didn’t use the words they were “alienated from God”. Instead, he says that they follow their father, the devil.


Thank you for the time and effort you put into this full response to my question.

Just one problem.

The Christian Devil does not exist in the Jewish Bible.

Such a thought remains blasphemy to any devout Jew.

Perhaps your minister might be able to discuss that with you.

He would need to understand the impact of the exile and the consequences of being freed by a follower of Zarathustra.

quote:
John 6:23- 24 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world. I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.

John 6:34-41 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.”
“Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does.”

John 6:42-47 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; by the sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not hold to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.


I've gone over that a few times and see nothing of Jesus claiming he is God, or an aspect of God.

Why is it so?

quote:
Paul’s writings echo what Jesus said. And I am bringing them up, whether you are interested or not.
Ephesians 2:1
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts.

Romans 6:22-23
But now that you have been set fee from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Why do you need Paul at all? Surely the word of Jesus should be enough for anyone?

With a nod to Reed:

If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One? : NPR
https://www.npr.org/2014/.../i...ow-did-he-become-one
Apr 7, 2014 - When Bart Ehrman was a young Evangelical Christian, he wanted to know how God became a man, but now, as an agnostic and historian of early Christianity, he wants to know how a man became God. When and why did Jesus' followers start saying "Jesus as God" and ...
You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 2550 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Chronic...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
Allan,

That does indeed sound like Ehrman. There are several Christian sects that do not believe Jesus is God, more that just believe he became God at his resurrection.

Personally I see nothing in his or Paul’s ministry where he needs to be God. God working him through him or with him, like Moses, perhaps. Testing God in the wilderness makes no sense. As for being as one, most married couples use that English concept to be as one couple, one resolve, etc. I can’t help thinking of a father having caught a child playing mom against dad saying, your mother and I agree, are one, on whether you are going to boarding school, playing football, or any number of things that a family might decide.
 
Posts: 9293 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Enthusiast...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
Personally I see nothing in his or Paul’s ministry where he needs to be God. God working him through him or with him, like Moses, perhaps. Testing God in the wilderness makes no sense.


To me it does, if we take it from a Jewish perspective.

Their Mashiach is a mortal man, so why should their God not send his loyal Adversary to make sure he is not getting ideas above his station?

After all, his ancestor David certainly did.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 2550 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Chronic...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
Personally I see nothing in his or Paul’s ministry where he needs to be God. God working him through him or with him, like Moses, perhaps. Testing God in the wilderness makes no sense.


To me it does, if we take it from a Jewish perspective.

Their Mashiach is a mortal man, so why should their God not send his loyal Adversary to make sure he is not getting ideas above his station?

After all, his ancestor David certainly did.


I think you misread what I said. Why would God test himself, even have his adversary test him? And how would he get ideas above his station?
 
Posts: 9293 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
Rashi: Despised and rejected by men: was he. So is the custom of this prophet: he mentions all Israel as one man , e.g., (44:2), “Fear not, My servant Jacob” ; (44:1) “And now, hearken, Jacob, My servant.” Here too (52:13), “Behold My servant shall prosper,” he said concerning the house of Jacob. יַשְׂכִּיל is an expression of prosperity. Comp. (I Sam. 18:14) “And David was successful (מַשְׂכִּיל) in all his ways.”
and as one who hides his face from us: Because of their intense shame and humility, they were as one who hides his face from us, with their faces bound up in concealment, in order that we not see them, like a plagued man who hides his face and is afraid to look.

So the text is referring to Israel itself, not Jesus.
It doesn't matter what Rashi thinks; what's important is what the Dead Sea Scrolls revolutionary group thought. This book was recommended by my favorite channeler to our very own judaswasjames:

https://www.goodreads.com/book...Messiah_before_Jesus

quote:
In a work that challenges notions that have dominated New Testament scholarship for more than a hundred years, Israel Knohl gives startling evidence for a messianic precursor to Jesus who is described as the "Suffering Servant" in recently published fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Messiah before Jesus clarifies many formerly incomprehensible aspects of Jesus' life and confirms the story in the New Testament about his messianic awareness. The book shows that, around the time of Jesus' birth, there came into being a conception of "catastrophic" messianism in which the suffering, humiliation, and death of the messiah were regarded as an integral part of the redemptive process.

Scholars have long argued that Jesus could not have foreseen his suffering, death, and resurrection because the concept of a slain savior who rises from the dead was alien to the Judaism of his time. But, on the basis of hymns found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Knohl argues that, one generation before Jesus, a messianic leader arose in the Qumran sect who was regarded by his followers as ushering in an era of redemption and forgiveness. This messianic leader was killed by Roman soldiers in the course of a revolt that broke out in Jerusalem in 4 B.C.E. The Romans forbade his body to be buried and after the third day his disciples believed that he was resurrected and rose to heaven. This formed the basis for Jesus' messianic consciousness, Knohl argues; it was because of this model that Jesus anticipated he would suffer, die, and be resurrected after three days.
 
Posts: 1013 | Location: Tucson, AZ | Mbr Since: 04-23-2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
A good example of how words can paint false images.A Jewish study Bible? Well, no, not at all.Instead, it is a Messianic Jewish Bible, an entirely different thing altogether.Why were they not honest enough to admit this?

Vicki:
You are off track, here. There are no false images painted, except in your mind. The editor explains where he is coming from, in the introduction. There is no dishonesty.

The Complete Jewish Study Bible that I quoted from "contains information from Jewish sources to explain a thoroughly Jewish book - the Bible- which was written by Jews, about Jews, initially for Jews in the Jewish Land of Israel."

I find it very valuable because it uses the Jewish names of people in the Bible, instead of their anglicized names. Knowing the original Jewish names and discovering their meanings, adds to my understanding of the Scriptures. It also gives the Hebrew names of the books of the OT and has articles from books published by Messianic Jewish authors, Christian theologians, as well as quotes from non- Messianic Jewish sages and rabbis.

I understand that the title "Complete Jewish Study Bible" might be challenging to both non- Messianic Jews and Christians. From page xxiii, "Jews are challenged by the implication that without it (B'rit Hadashah/New Testament) the Tanakh is an incomplete Bible. Christians are challenged by the fact that they are joined to the Jewish people through faith in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus)- so that because Christianity can be rightly understood only from a Jewish perspective, anti-Semitism is condemned absolutely and forever. In short, The Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish unity of the Bible."

This is definitely NOT dishonesty at work.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Chronic...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluelamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
Rashi: Despised and rejected by men: was he. So is the custom of this prophet: he mentions all Israel as one man , e.g., (44:2), “Fear not, My servant Jacob” ; (44:1) “And now, hearken, Jacob, My servant.” Here too (52:13), “Behold My servant shall prosper,” he said concerning the house of Jacob. יַשְׂכִּיל is an expression of prosperity. Comp. (I Sam. 18:14) “And David was successful (מַשְׂכִּיל) in all his ways.”
and as one who hides his face from us: Because of their intense shame and humility, they were as one who hides his face from us, with their faces bound up in concealment, in order that we not see them, like a plagued man who hides his face and is afraid to look.

So the text is referring to Israel itself, not Jesus.
It doesn't matter what Rashi thinks; what's important is what the Dead Sea Scrolls revolutionary group thought. This book was recommended by my favorite channeler to our very own judaswasjames:

https://www.goodreads.com/book...Messiah_before_Jesus

quote:
In a work that challenges notions that have dominated New Testament scholarship for more than a hundred years, Israel Knohl gives startling evidence for a messianic precursor to Jesus who is described as the "Suffering Servant" in recently published fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Messiah before Jesus clarifies many formerly incomprehensible aspects of Jesus' life and confirms the story in the New Testament about his messianic awareness. The book shows that, around the time of Jesus' birth, there came into being a conception of "catastrophic" messianism in which the suffering, humiliation, and death of the messiah were regarded as an integral part of the redemptive process.

Scholars have long argued that Jesus could not have foreseen his suffering, death, and resurrection because the concept of a slain savior who rises from the dead was alien to the Judaism of his time. But, on the basis of hymns found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Knohl argues that, one generation before Jesus, a messianic leader arose in the Qumran sect who was regarded by his followers as ushering in an era of redemption and forgiveness. This messianic leader was killed by Roman soldiers in the course of a revolt that broke out in Jerusalem in 4 B.C.E. The Romans forbade his body to be buried and after the third day his disciples believed that he was resurrected and rose to heaven. This formed the basis for Jesus' messianic consciousness, Knohl argues; it was because of this model that Jesus anticipated he would suffer, die, and be resurrected after three days.


Interesting book, now on wish list until I clear some space.
 
Posts: 9293 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Chronic...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Allan:
A good example of how words can paint false images.A Jewish study Bible? Well, no, not at all.Instead, it is a Messianic Jewish Bible, an entirely different thing altogether.Why were they not honest enough to admit this?

Vicki:
You are off track, here. There are no false images painted, except in your mind. The editor explains where he is coming from, in the introduction. There is no dishonesty.

The Complete Jewish Study Bible that I quoted from "contains information from Jewish sources to explain a thoroughly Jewish book - the Bible- which was written by Jews, about Jews, initially for Jews in the Jewish Land of Israel."

I find it very valuable because it uses the Jewish names of people in the Bible, instead of their anglicized names. Knowing the original Jewish names and discovering their meanings, adds to my understanding of the Scriptures. It also gives the Hebrew names of the books of the OT and has articles from books published by Messianic Jewish authors, Christian theologians, as well as quotes from non- Messianic Jewish sages and rabbis.

I understand that the title "Complete Jewish Study Bible" might be challenging to both non- Messianic Jews and Christians. From page xxiii, "Jews are challenged by the implication that without it (B'rit Hadashah/New Testament) the Tanakh is an incomplete Bible. Christians are challenged by the fact that they are joined to the Jewish people through faith in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus)- so that because Christianity can be rightly understood only from a Jewish perspective, anti-Semitism is condemned absolutely and forever. In short, The Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish unity of the Bible."

This is definitely NOT dishonesty at work.


But if I read this correctly it is not from Jews, but from the canon of Christians, as a start.
 
Posts: 9293 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
How can Hezekiah be Jesus?

This is from a genuine Jewish Bible: https://www.chabad.org/library...15940#showrashi=true

5For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
Rashi: For a child has been born to us: Although Ahaz is wicked, his son who was born to him many years ago [nine years prior to his assuming the throne] to be our king in his stead, shall be a righteous man, and the authority of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His yoke shall be on his shoulder, for he shall engage in the Torah and observe the commandments, and he shall bend his shoulder to bear the burden of the Holy One, blessed be He.
and… called his name: The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days.

Vicki:
Rashi is certainly very respected. But I would also like to point out that he was a revisionist who chose to see the "son" as the son of Ahaz (Hezekiah). An earlier Jewish sage, from the first and second centuries by the name of Rabbi Jose the Galilean, said in the Talmud, "the name of the Messiah will be called shalom, for it is written in Yesha'yahu 9:5(6), 'his name will be called Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'". Rabbi Jose also wrote, "When Messiah comes, shalom will be great and there will be redemption for all of Isra'el!" (Derekh Eretz Zuta 10).

As you can see, Rabbi Jose was not a Christian or a Messianic Jew. He associated Isaiah 9:6-7 with the Messiah, that he did not believe had arrived, yet. This rules out the possibility that King Hezekiah was the "son" in the passage. Of course, Rabbi Jose didn't think Jesus was the "son", either.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
A genuinely Jewish Bible would note (again my italic emphasis): Rashi: Despised and rejected by men: was he. So is the custom of this prophet: he mentions all Israel as one man , e.g., (44:2), “Fear not, My servant Jacob” ; (44:1) “And now, hearken, Jacob, My servant.” Here too (52:13), “Behold My servant shall prosper,” he said concerning the house of Jacob. יַשְׂכִּיל is an expression of prosperity. Comp. (I Sam. 18:14) “And David was successful (מַשְׂכִּיל) in all his ways.” and as one who hides his face from us: Because of their intense shame and humility, they were as one who hides his face from us, with their faces bound up in concealment, in order that we not see them, like a plagued man who hides his face and is afraid to look. So the text is referring to Israel itself, not Jesus.

It is no wonder that Rashi became a revisionist and decided to change the interpretation of Isaiah 53, along with other Jewish scholars, considering how horribly Christians were persecuting Jews in the Middle Ages.

However, this passage was interpreted by other Jewish scholars where the suffering servant is NOT Israel- he is the Messiah, an individual.

Sanhedrin 98b refers to Messiah as "the leper scholar". "The Rabbis said: His name is the 'leper scholar' , as it is written, 'Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted'".

Also, in an interesting allegorical interpretation of the book of Ruth, Midrash Rut Rabbah 45:6 says "The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the Messiah. 'Come hither approach the royal state and eat of the bread,' refers to the bread of royalty and 'dip thy morsel in the vinegar', refers to his sufferings, as it is said, but he was wounded because of our crimes."

Zohar 2:212a states, "There is in a Garden of Eden a palace of the sons of sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and he summons every pain and every chastisement of Israe'el. All of these come and set upon him. And had he not thus taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Isra'el's chastisements for the transgressions of the Torah; as it is written, in fact, it was our diseases he bore" (53:4)

Targum Jonathan states of Isaiah 52:13 "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and increase and be exceeding strong."

These clearly show an interpretation that the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:12 - 53:12 is Messiah, bearing the diseases, sickness, etc. of Israel.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
The Lord said to my Lord???Who defines what "Lord" means in each instance?Or had you not noticed?

Vicki:
Jesus identifies this psalm as Messianic, himself, in Mark 12:35-37. Matt. 22:44, 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 20:42.

If you look at the Hebrew the first Lord is actually YHWH, which refers to God. God speaks to David's Lord (in Hebrew l'adonai) who is invited to sit at God's right hand while He makes his enemies his footstool.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
Thank you for the time and effort you put into this full response to my question.Just one problem.The Christian Devil does not exist in the Jewish Bible.Such a thought remains blasphemy to any devout Jew.Perhaps your minister might be able to discuss that with you.He would need to understand the impact of the exile and the consequences of being freed by a follower of Zarathustra.

Vicki:
The devil exists, whether you see him in the Jewish Bible or not, and despite what you think devout Jews these days believe.

Jesus definitely knew the devil exists and was quite plain spoken about him, to the point of adamantly warning us about his ways. You can't confine the devil to Zarathustra. He exists and influences the worldly who don't realize they are following their father, the devil.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
I've gone over that a few times and see nothing of Jesus claiming he is God, or an aspect of God.Why is it so?

Vicki:
You read it with your mind firmly closed?

I mean, really, you can't open up enough and try to read it through "Christian eyes" or put on your Christian shoes just long enough to read it and see what we Christians see - even if you disagree with it?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
Why do you need Paul at all? Surely the word of Jesus should be enough for anyone?

Vicki:
I recognize the authority of Paul's writings because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, just as the 4 Gospels were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the book of Acts and Revelation, the letters of John, Jude, James, Peter, and the anonymous writer of Hebrews, along with the books of the Old Testament. They are all the written Word of God. To disregard Paul's writings, is to disregard God's Word, and I'm not about to do that.

And I added Paul's words to demonstrate that Paul's words do not contradict what Jesus taught.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things.

Vicki:
Then you need to read through the other Gospels again. Hopefully you will pick up on some incredible statements that Jesus said about himself that indicated that he is God.

In Mark 2:7, after Jesus forgave a paralytic man's sins, the scribes said, "How can this fellow say such a thing? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins except God?"

The fact is, only God can forgive our sins. Yet, Jesus repeatedly forgave people's sins. No wonder the scribes thought Jesus was blaspheming. They understood the claim he was making.

They weren't too thrilled to hear Jesus say that the Son of Man (one of the terms he applied to himself) is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Reed:
But if I read this correctly it is not from Jews, but from the canon of Christians, as a start.

Vicki:
The New Testament was written by Jews, except for possibly the works of Luke. He may have been a convert to Judaism before he believed in Messiah, or possibly a Greek speaking Jew.

Messianic Jews were all there were at the beginning. But then, the gospel spread to Gentiles and eventually believing Gentiles outnumbered believing Jews and the church became Gentilized. Messianic Jews did not emerge again until rather recently. But it is a good thing. I believe that we Christians need to get back in touch with the Hebrew roots of Jesus.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Chronic...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Reed:
But if I read this correctly it is not from Jews, but from the canon of Christians, as a start.

Vicki:
The New Testament was written by Jews, except for possibly the works of Luke. He may have been a convert to Judaism before he believed in Messiah, or possibly a Greek speaking Jew.

Messianic Jews were all there were at the beginning. But then, the gospel spread to Gentiles and eventually believing Gentiles outnumbered believing Jews and the church became Gentilized. Messianic Jews did not emerge again until rather recently. But it is a good thing. I believe that we Christians need to get back in touch with the Hebrew roots of Jesus.


No, the Messanic Jews were not all there were at the beginning. They weren’t even all there were when the Jews following The teachings of Jesus appeared. The texts that the Old Testament is derived from is not all of the Jewish texts, nor are they considered totally accurate to the Jews of the times.

Certainly, the First Messanic Jews most likely would disagree with what happen to some of the texts of the Old Testament.

For what it is worth, the more I see these types of arguments made for literalism and I see how much a lot of the Old Testament is resulted in the New Testament, I cant help but wonder why so many have trouble with the LDS seemingly doing similar things to the New Testament! Yes their rituals are as foreign to many as the Roman Catholic’s rituals are.
 
Posts: 9293 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Enthusiast...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
I think you misread what I said. Why would God test himself, even have his adversary test him? And how would he get ideas above his station?

We are actually saying the same thing.

Christianity says one aspect of God (Himself) directed a second aspect of God (the Holy Spirit) to send a third aspect of God (Jesus) to be tested by a sworn enemy of God (the Christian Devil).

That makes no sense to me. Why would God need to test God, and why would he use a sworn enemy to do this?

On the other hand, Judaism says the Anointed One is a descendant of David (or his reincarnation). In other words, a mortal man who, being only mortal, might get ideas above his station, imagining to himself that it is he who is performing miracles instead of acknowledging it is all God's work. So Adonai sends his loyal ha-satan to suss him out.

Either way, neither makes sense. Why would an all-knowing deity who knows the future need someone else to check things out?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 2550 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Chronic...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
I think you misread what I said. Why would God test himself, even have his adversary test him? And how would he get ideas above his station?

We are actually saying the same thing.

Christianity says one aspect of God (Himself) directed a second aspect of God (the Holy Spirit) to send a third aspect of God (Jesus) to be tested by a sworn enemy of God (the Christian Devil).

That makes no sense to me. Why would God need to test God, and why would he use a sworn enemy to do this?

On the other hand, Judaism says the Anointed One is a descendant of David (or his reincarnation). In other words, a mortal man who, being only mortal, might get ideas above his station, imagining to himself that it is he who is performing miracles instead of acknowledging it is all God's work. So Adonai sends his loyal ha-satan to suss him out.

Either way, neither makes sense. Why would an all-knowing deity who knows the future need someone else to check things out?


Perhaps that is why I was taught that Jesus didn’t become Divine until the resurrection!
 
Posts: 9293 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Enthusiast...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluelamp:
It doesn't matter what Rashi thinks; what's important is what the Dead Sea Scrolls revolutionary group thought. This book was recommended by my favorite channeler to our very own judaswasjames:

https://www.goodreads.com/book...Messiah_before_Jesus


I've put up that same argument a few times, probably after reading Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman's Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls.

http://lawrenceschiffman.com/r...ch/dead-sea-scrolls/
Some scholars now believe that the group called Essene developed from an offshoot of the Sadducees who split from their brethren in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt (168–164 BCE).

That works for me. Still think Paul, if it wasn't him, is based on another bloke signed up by the Jerusalem Sadducees as a hit man targeting the Qumran sect.

Raises a question from your source, though. My reading says it was not the Romans who killed the Teacher of Righteousness. Even if they did, it was under Jewish, not Roman, orders. All part of the stock-standard *division among Jews.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibra...her-of-righteousness
A number of scholars have identified him with Onias III, the last legitimate high priest of the house of Zadok, assassinated at the instance of the illegitimate high priest Menelaus in 171 B.C.E.

Have to say that in one way I sympathise with the Literalists.

Much easier to accept submissively what one is told than to try to sort out this mess.

Be nice to determine exactly what is going on, however the Jews of the time were so fragmented, so divisive, it is all but impossible to work out who is who and what is what.

Even the rabbis acknowledge this. Read somewhere that if two rabbis take diametrically opposed views in the Talmud on any aspect of their religion, both are right!!!

All of which reinforces one of my major themes. No intelligent deity would have created a religion which causes so much confusion, so much division, murderous at times.

Unless, of course, it is deliberate. After all, this deity went out of his way to ensure we mere humans could not get our act together.

Why?

IMO he saw us as a genuine threat.

The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

Many Christians prefer to think God excluded Adam from that garden in Eden solely because he had disobeyed Him.

Not so, of course.

Genesis makes it perfectly clear. Humans had become like the gods in that they now knew. If Adam did eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life and become immortal, we would be identical with everything this God has, except he could not control us in the way he can control his angels and human followers.

*Mind you, we are just as good at creating division. Difference is, we make no bones about it. Our records make it all clear.

Don't know if you can access the BBC program Elizabeth I's Secret Agents.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programm...c6q1w/episodes/guide

The BBC has done an excellent job of illustrating just what was going on between Protestants, Catholics, and the powers that be at the time.

If and when I get my act together, I want to set up a thread where you and I can thrash this out properly. Week or so ago you posted a link which cleared up my confusion on your theme that JC was originally Julius Caesar then became Jesus [the] Christ.

I'm poles apart on the issue of channelling.

As you know, I have two personal experiences which lead me along similar lines. However, most if not all your links contains word-plays which I need to address with you. They are a little too vague, which leads me to wonder if they don't know as much as they want readers to believe.

On a related tack, if you have the time and patience you might read The White Goddess. Struggling through it this time, I see just how much I owe Robert Graves. Many of the concepts I fondly imagine are mine are contained right there.

I've never been capable of absorbing all the information Graves provides. However, to boil it all down, we have migrating tribes with common themes in their mythologies which, over time, they combine, while forgetting what those mythologies were composed for. That leads to all sorts of confusion until we can

He has umpteen examples such as Herakles, who appears in many cultures under different names with much the same message. If I've got it right, he is the same as that Tammuz the Jewish women were crying over. Any number of rising and dying entities who are restored to life. That's an easy one; it is the grain crop, planted, reaped, then planted again.

Same goes, of course, for the Eden Serpent, yet another of the stories the Jews borrowed from the Sumerians and Akkadians.

Graves also has to be the source of my near-conviction that we really do need to concentrate more on the populations around the Black Sea before and after its inundation, one of the sources of the Noah's Flood mythology.

Off to feed the birds.

This Skinnerian enjoys watching the different behaviours in each bird type. Am trying to chase off the common pigeons which arrived a few months ago. Three of them are stubborn SOBs. For the first timer, too, while I had tried to avoid it, I now have lorikeets fighting over the right to eat from my hand.

https://currumbinsanctuary.com...mes/lorikeet-feeding


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 2550 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
I've put up that same argument a few times, probably after reading Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman's Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls.

http://lawrenceschiffman.com/r...ch/dead-sea-scrolls/
Some scholars now believe that the group called Essene developed from an offshoot of the Sadducees who split from their brethren in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt (168–164 BCE).

That works for me. Still think Paul, if it wasn't him, is based on another bloke signed up by the Jerusalem Sadducees as a hit man targeting the Qumran sect.

Raises a question from your source, though. My reading says it was not the Romans who killed the Teacher of Righteousness. Even if they did, it was under Jewish, not Roman, orders. All part of the stock-standard *division among Jews.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibra...her-of-righteousness

A number of scholars have identified him with Onias III, the last legitimate high priest of the house of Zadok, assassinated at the instance of the illegitimate high priest Menelaus in 171 B.C.E.
I tend to think the Teacher of Righteousness Essene stuff is too early for Paul and the sign on the third day martyr Paul partially based his cosmic Christ on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Peraea

quote:
Simon of Peraea or Simon son of Joseph was a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans in between 4 BC and 15 AD.[1] He has been identified as the messiah of Gabriel's Revelation. He is mentioned by Flavius Josephus.

Josephus also mentions a scoundrel Saul who I think is Paul and the complaint against Saul is that he is using collected money for himself. If Saul/Paul was really a hit man type, I tend to think Josephus would have mentioned it. Paul in Corinthians seems aware of the using collected money complaint.

quote:
All of which reinforces one of my major themes. No intelligent deity would have created a religion which causes so much confusion, so much division, murderous at times.

Unless, of course, it is deliberate. After all, this deity went out of his way to ensure we mere humans could not get our act together.

Why?

IMO he saw us as a genuine threat.
It's a divine council battle at times fought through us (channeling). The self serving prosecutors are looking for future self serving prosecutors (but under/controlled by them). The Judge/defense team are into the idea of freely learning to serve others or self.

quote:
The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”


Things like the Tower of Babel and Postmodernism are fascist and fascist forcing isn't freely done even for a good idea aka it's a prosecutor ruse aka it ends badly like it did for the Tower of Babel and for Nazi Germany and supposedly will for Postmodernism aka Jordan Peterson's idea of freely choosing to use certain pronouns or not is the Judge/defense team path.

quote:
Many Christians prefer to think God excluded Adam from that garden in Eden solely because he had disobeyed Him.

Not so, of course.

Genesis makes it perfectly clear. Humans had become like the gods in that they now knew. If Adam did eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life and become immortal, we would be identical with everything this God has, except he could not control us in the way he can control his angels and human followers.
Well as I said earlier, Adam in Eden was like Dorothy in Kansas; yes maybe Eden/Kansas seems to hold one back but constricting yourself to the problems of the self can end badly since again it's a prosecutor ruse.

quote:
*Mind you, we are just as good at creating division. Difference is, we make no bones about it. Our records make it all clear.
and we have to freely learn to unify or not; it can't be forced.

quote:
Don't know if you can access the BBC program Elizabeth I's Secret Agents.
But do they know about the 10th Doctor?

quote:
If and when I get my act together, I want to set up a thread where you and I can thrash this out properly. Week or so ago you posted a link which cleared up my confusion on your theme that JC was originally Julius Caesar then became Jesus [the] Christ.

I'm poles apart on the issue of channelling.

They are a little too vague, which leads me to wonder if they don't know as much as they want readers to believe.
Giving vague hints is all channeling from a non-prosecutor/dead dude is aka we have to freely do our own research. For example years ago they got the hint that Jesus had Roman wives some in the biblical sense (there can be quite a sense of humor in the channeling). Everybody of course was still thinking in terms of a real Jewish guy when years later it became obvious that it was just the use of Julius Caesar for the Jesus historical fiction.

For me it's always been obvious that the channeling source knows physics better than the human physicist asking the questions. The channeling has finally started getting close to the cellular automata math I work with (learned via a different physicist).

quote:
On a related tack, if you have the time and patience you might read The White Goddess... He has umpteen examples such as Herakles, who appears in many cultures under different names with much the same message. If I've got it right, he is the same as that Tammuz the Jewish women were crying over. Any number of rising and dying entities who are restored to life. That's an easy one; it is the grain crop, planted, reaped, then planted again.

Same goes, of course, for the Eden Serpent, yet another of the stories the Jews borrowed from the Sumerians and Akkadians.
For Tammuz/Dumuzi I tend to think short period comet dipping below the horizion leaving a climate change mess at times. There are certainly storm god vs serpent myths which also seem comet related to me. Zoroaster monotheism got layered over Luwian storm gods which kind of does confuse things. The symbols are older than the channeling.

quote:
Graves also has to be the source of my near-conviction that we really do need to concentrate more on the populations around the Black Sea before and after its inundation, one of the sources of the Noah's Flood mythology.
Flood myths with stones like Deucalion certainly can be fragment impact related whenever it occurred. I tend to make Noah like Atlantis Younger Dryas since the Americas also had Tower of Babel-like myths.
 
Posts: 1013 | Location: Tucson, AZ | Mbr Since: 04-23-2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Enthusiast...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
You are off track, here. There are no false images painted, except in your mind. The editor explains where he is coming from, in the introduction. There is no dishonesty.
...This is definitely NOT dishonesty at work.


Oh, it most certainly is.

Reminds me of the posse's insistence that the KJV was a new and accurate translation from the original when in fact in the introduction (preface) the authors themselves made it perfectly clear that it was an improved version taken from earlier translations.

Not a new translation from the originals at all.

So, how many people actually bother to read the introduction when they buy a new Bible?

Not many.

quote:
I understand that the title "Complete Jewish Study Bible" might be challenging to both non- Messianic Jews and Christians. From page xxiii, "Jews are challenged by the implication that without it (B'rit Hadashah/New Testament) the Tanakh is an incomplete Bible. Christians are challenged by the fact that they are joined to the Jewish people through faith in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus)- so that because Christianity can be rightly understood only from a Jewish perspective, anti-Semitism is condemned absolutely and forever. In short, The Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish unity of the Bible."


No challenge there at all to anyone who understands not just the Bible but its culture and its history.

No follower of Judaism could possibly imagine their Tanakh is incomplete, except for the Talmud and the midrashim.

As for Christians are challenged by the fact that they are joined to the Jewish people through faith in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus), that is utter nonsense, as your own posts to me prove conclusively.

The last thing you can afford, the challenge you have consistently avoided, is to accept that Christianity is blasphemous on two accounts for strict Jews.

First, it claims Jesus is an aspect of the Jewish deity. No devout Jew could possibly accept that.

The second, as I have said repeatedly, is it is for all devout Jews blasphemy to say one of Adonai's angels led a revolt which included one-third of all Adonai's angels.

So, as I said, it is utterly dishonest to say or even imply that Christianity and Judaism are one and the same.

They are so far apart they can never be united unless the Jewish prophecy is fulfilled.

http://www.dbts.edu/2012/04/09...-king-james-version/

Not sure if you can accept that particular Baptist source.

I do know Smile   :)

https://www.theguardian.com/st...p/29/comedy.religion


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 2550 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Enthusiast...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Rashi is certainly very respected. But I would also like to point out that he was a revisionist who chose to see the "son" as the son of Ahaz (Hezekiah). An earlier Jewish sage, from the first and second centuries by the name of Rabbi Jose the Galilean, said in the Talmud, "the name of the Messiah will be called shalom, for it is written in Yesha'yahu 9:5(6), 'his name will be called Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'". Rabbi Jose also wrote, "When Messiah comes, shalom will be great and there will be redemption for all of Isra'el!" (Derekh Eretz Zuta 10).
As you can see, Rabbi Jose was not a Christian or a Messianic Jew. He associated Isaiah 9:6-7 with the Messiah, that he did not believe had arrived, yet. This rules out the possibility that King Hezekiah was the "son" in the passage. Of course, Rabbi Jose didn't think Jesus was the "son", either.

What, if anything, has that got to do with the issue?

Care to explain?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 2550 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata       Page: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  
 

    Aantares    Aantares BB  Hop To Forum Categories  Your Lifestyle & Culture  Hop To Forums  Religion & Spirituality    Biblical Scholar: Dont take Bible literally

© 2003-2020 Aantares Online LLC. All Rights Reserved.