Question about the Messiah.

reply to post by WarminIndy


You have done your homework, this is evident. When comparing religions in the past, I have realized their root is from the same. Maybe I am wrong... really don't care. I see what I see.

Just wanted to let you know I have enjoyed reading your posts.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Jesus never spoke in Koine . . .

Obviously he did.
The New Testament was written in Greek.
Jesus did not live in Judea, he lived in what was called, Galilee of the Gentiles. And before that, probably Hellenistic (duh!) Alexandria.
You are just making a whole lot of statements and claims that you could not possibly know are true, but just say them as if they were in order to make what looks like an argument.
This is just ridiculous to say that the difference in word forms for "holy" or "saints" is that one are alive and the other are dead.
And the word "holy" is an adjective, so whatever you are claiming about "declensions" is irrelevant.
The difference between the two forms, form verse 3 to verse 14, is the gender, male or female, so I think you need to check what you are smoking.

Fapomet

gladtobehere
I consider myself to be a student of religion though I often get confused by different interpretations and varied explanations.

Please correct me as needed.

Its my understanding that Jews, Christians and Moslems all believe that a savior or Messiah will reappear.

However, these groups dont agree on who that Messiah will be.

Christians and Moslems both believe that the Messiah will be Jesus ie the Second Coming.

But Jews think it will be someone else.

So what happens when the alleged Messiah appears and he isnt the "right one"?

Can we expect even more discontent? Will this future event be a reason for more turbulence?

Question. How could you possibly call yourself a student of religion, and not spell Muslim right? Or even know that Muslim's don't believe Jesus will be the messiah? They're not waiting for the same second coming that christians are.

None of that matters, because there will be no "second coming" or first coming for that matter. There is no "messiah" and all religions are a bad joke.

Actually, Moslem has been one of the ways it was spelled,and in the Middle Ages and Renaissance they were called Mohammedians. And what he is referring to that he didn't know was that in the Islamic faith, they believe it is the Mahdi to come. Buddhists believe Maitreya is coming. Please refer to my earlier post about which messiah.

The Bible is clear that Jews will accept Jesus just before the end, the times of the Gentiles have not been fulfilled yet.

And as per the statement about Muslims, a woman who is Muslim is called a Muslimah. Just thought I would throw that in for future reference.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Jesus never spoke in Koine . . .

Obviously he did.
The New Testament was written in Greek.
Jesus did not live in Judea, he lived in what was called, Galilee of the Gentiles. And before that, probably Hellenistic (duh!) Alexandria.
You are just making a whole lot of statements and claims that you could not possibly know are true, but just say them as if they were in order to make what looks like an argument.
This is just ridiculous to say that the difference in word forms for "holy" or "saints" is that one are alive and the other are dead.
And the word "holy" is an adjective, so whatever you are claiming about "declensions" is irrelevant.
The difference between the two forms, form verse 3 to verse 14, is the gender, male or female, so I think you need to check what you are smoking.

edit on 7-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Oh, I see, because Jesus spoke and the writers wrote it in Koine, then bingo, Jesus spoke Koine. Really? Is that the best you can do?

What language is Talitha kumi in? And what language is eloi, eloi lama sabachthani in? Aren't those both Aramaic? Yes, both Aramaic. Now listen, as you can't fathom Jesus being Jewish there are several things you need to think about.

1: He prophecied to the Jewish Nation.
2: He was circumcised on the eighth day, as the law of Moses said.
3:His mother had to fulfill the days of her uncleaness according to the law of Moses.
4:When he was 12, his parents had left Him behind at the TEMPLE in Jerusalem after going there for a feast day.
5:When He preached and read from the Tanahk, He read from Isaiah.
6:When they asked Him about the greatest law, He said the Shema Y'Israel.
7:He kept the passover.
8:He was called Rabbi.
9:He wore a prayer shawl.
10:In the disussion with the woman at the well, she made it abundantly clear He was Jewish and she was not. She recognized Him as such and said "You know the Jews have no dealing with us"

He was never prophesied by a Jewish prophet to any gentile nation. His mother kept the LAW OF MOSES, which the gentiles did not. The gentiles did not go to the temple in Jerusalem for feast days. The gentiles never kept the Passover. The Jews had the Sabbath. The gentiles never quoted Shema Y'Israel. The gentiles did not wear prayer shawls with the tzi-tzis. And here is the Biggie...the temple was designed in such a way that the gentiles were at the outer court and NEVER went into the temple, let alone to read from the Scroll.

The Torah was in HEBREW. You have a flawed logic..this is what you are proposing..

1:Jesus spoke in the New Testament
2:the New Testament was written in Koine
3:Therefore, Jesus spoke in Koine.

That's a very flawed logic. The inscription by Pilate was in Greek, Latin AND Hebrew. Why? Because people spoke Hebrew. And if it were in Hebrew, then it was a spoken language that Pilate knew about.

You know, your logic is kind of like a Superman comic book translated into Spanish. Superman must have spoken Spanish because it was written in Spanish. Do you see the flawed logic? Jesus was Jewish, plain and simple. He had a Jewish mother named Mariam and a Jewish step-father named Yosef. But by your logic we could assume Jesus spoke English instead because my Bible has English.

jmdewey60
"[DISRAELI] But what on earth is the relevance, to the Corinthian Christian, of being guiltless on the day when Jerusalem is destroyed. And why should this moment be described as "the end"? "

1 Corinthians says, in part,
. . . keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day . . .

"The end" would probably be the end of their lives, and "the day" would be the judgment after.

The "our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed." could be the revelation of his sovereignty in the demise of those who stood against him, which would have happened during the lifetimes of a lot of those people of Corinth that Paul was writing to

In other words, you are furiously back-pedalling away from your earlier interpretation of the same passage, which is the interpretation I was criticising;

Number one, 1 Corinthians 1:7&8,
Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.
He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2011 NIV)
Suppose that the "revelation" is that Jesus is Lord, which would have been made manifest on the day that the Jerusalem temple was destroyed, where the former entity who held that title was shown to be powerless to save His own 'holy house'.
That would have been the "Day of our Lord Jesus Christ", or at least 'a day' of that type, meaning a day of judgement, the anti-type being the hypothetical "last day" when the world is 'no more'.

If you can switch so casually from one intepretation to another, that rather gives away how you're choosing them for tactical reasons, rather than because you've thought the passages through properly. "What did I say last time? Can't remember. Never mind, this will do."

.

["[DISRAELI] On the day when Jerusalem was destroyed, there were many people in the world who did not know God and were not yet obeying the gospel of Christ"

There isn't anything in that passage that would indicate that was what the writer meant.

2 Thessalonians ch1 vv7-9 says that those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord. There isn't anything in that passage that would indicate he meant only some of them. The wording is "Those who do not know God". The New Testament would equate not having accepted the gospel with not knowing God. Therefore it is evident that many people in the world fell into that category in A.D.70. Yet it is also evident that that they did not all suffer exclusion from the presence of God, because the gospel continued to be preached and accepted.

Therefore the events of A.D. 70 do not satisfy the statements in these and other passages.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Oh, I see, because Jesus spoke and the writers wrote it in Koine, then bingo, Jesus spoke Koine. Really? Is that the best you can do?

This is the direction that the consensus is trending among biblical scholars, that Jesus preached to the multitudes in the Greek language.
You have an opinion that is based on some sort of Judaizing cult, that wants people to not believe in the New Testament because it is in a "pagan" language.
The country of Palestine had been under Greek rule since Alexander the Great went through there.
The common language amongst the educated people of the region was Greek.

What language is Talitha kumi in? And what language is eloi, eloi lama sabachthani in? Aren't those both Aramaic? Yes, both Aramaic. Now listen, as you can't fathom Jesus being Jewish there are several things you need to think about.

It's normal to incorporate loan words in a regional dialect.
It doesn't mean he was speaking that language in general.
How did Jesus have conversations with Tyrians and Romans?

1: He prophecied to the Jewish Nation.

He was sent to the "lost sheep". That means that Judaism had led them astray.

6:When they asked Him about the greatest law, He said the Shema Y'Israel.

This is stated in what looks to me like an intentionally deceptive way.
Jesus did not answer by saying, "The Shema, of course" as if he was endorsing a Jewish practice.
He was asked what was the (singular) greatest law.
His answer was "to love others as yourself", but he said it by quoting a passage with that statement in it.
It just so happens that it starts with a statement that shows that this law comes from God.
There is only one God, regardless of if this one God is who the Jews claim He is, or not.

7:He kept the passover

He went to Jerusalem on Passover, which was basically required at that time to be considered a proper Jew.
I'm not denying that Jesus was a Jew, he just didn't accept how the religion was being run, which is the same attitude as you find in the Prophets.
Most Jews at that time did not speak Aramaic (Syrian) since there were more in the diaspora than in the Jewish homeland, which was a rather small province in Palestine.

8:He was called Rabbi.

Only by his disciples, and they meant "master", since by definition they were the disciples of a "master".

btw: Isaiah is not part of the Torah, do did not necessarily need to be read in Hebrew, and he could have been just as likely reading it in Greek.

The inscription by Pilate was in Greek, Latin AND Hebrew. Why? Because people spoke Hebrew. And if it were in Hebrew, then it was a spoken language that Pilate knew about.

The dialect of the Aramaic language that the Jews spoke in Judea was called "Hebrew" by Greek speakers though that name is not technically correct as far as being a description of the language that is found by that name in the Bible.

reply to post by DISRAELI

In other words, you are furiously back-pedalling away from your earlier interpretation of the same passage, which is the interpretation I was criticising;

No.
You can say that if you want but my original explanation said that the "revelation" of Jesus was the manifestation of his reign of power carrying out judgment on those who rejected and killed him.
And I also pointed out that there are two separate statements in the passage that you are citing but never quite get around to actually quoting.

If you can switch so casually from one intepretation to another, that rather gives away how you're choosing them for tactical reasons, rather than because you've thought the passages through properly. "What did I say last time? Can't remember. Never mind, this will do."

If I wanted to be "tactical" I would be dogmatic.
I was just switching from saying "it can be this or that" to, after studying it, "it is most likely this".

2 Thessalonians ch1 vv7-9 says that those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord.

I know.
You said that already.
What you are trying to do is to assign to it a specific meaning that the writer did not specify.
You are claiming that he means that at the end of the world there will be some people who never quite got the message, when there is nothing in there that shows that he is referring to anyone other than who they were dealing with right then.

. . . they did not all suffer exclusion from the presence of God . . .

Look at the parables of Jesus in the gospels.
He was talking about what happened later in 70 AD, giving them a warning of what would happen if they rejected him.
This is where the writer is getting this language from, the parables, to describe what was coming onto the people persecuting them, those who had rejected the Gospel, and were trying to eliminate those who were preaching an alternative to bringing offerings to the temple.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I had so many rebuttals, but just to keep it simple and on track, yes I know Isaiah was in the Tanahk. I didn't say it was the Torah.

But here's the thing, can you tell us what language the Book of Isaiah is in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Hebrew or Greek? Specifically the Book of Isaiah, Hebrew or Greek?

reply to post by jmdewey60


When you use phrases like "it most likely is" really is just an assumptive thought. Just because you think it is doesn't mean it is, that simply means you want it to be that way.

reply to post by WarminIndy

. . . yes I know Isaiah was in the Tanahk. I didn't say it was the Torah.

You are writing in "Jew Speak". Tanach or Tanahk is a modern word made up by Jews who don't like the Christian term, "Old Testament". I think that you must to be either a Jew or someone who thinks that Judaism is "just as good" as Christianity.

You seem to be writing deliberately to seemingly imply that anything in the Jewish Bible had to be read in Hebrew. While that may be true in a synagogue service today, it was not necessarily that way in the time of Christ, especially when it comes to books outside of the Torah.
The point being, you can't take Jesus reading from the Prophets as proof that Jesus spoke Hebrew as if he was the product of a Babylonian rabbinical school.

But here's the thing, can you tell us what language the Book of Isaiah is in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Hebrew or Greek? Specifically the Book of Isaiah, Hebrew or Greek?

That doesn't prove anything because there are lots of Greek writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

reply to post by WarminIndy

When you use phrases like "it most likely is" really is just an assumptive thought. Just because you think it is doesn't mean it is, that simply means you want it to be that way.

An actual thought process is foreign to a cult member who is trained to believe everything taught by it as being absolutely true.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

. . . yes I know Isaiah was in the Tanahk. I didn't say it was the Torah.

You are writing in "Jew Speak". Tanach or Tanahk is a modern word made up by Jews who don't like the Christian term, "Old Testament". I think that you must to be either a Jew or someone who thinks that Judaism is "just as good" as Christianity.

You seem to be writing deliberately to seemingly imply that anything in the Jewish Bible had to be read in Hebrew. While that may be true in a synagogue service today, it was not necessarily that way in the time of Christ, especially when it comes to books outside of the Torah.
The point being, you can't take Jesus reading from the Prophets as proof that Jesus spoke Hebrew as if he was the product of a Babylonian rabbinical school.

But here's the thing, can you tell us what language the Book of Isaiah is in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Hebrew or Greek? Specifically the Book of Isaiah, Hebrew or Greek?

That doesn't prove anything because there are lots of Greek writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

edit on 7-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Since Isaiah was the book in question, that's the book I asked you about. Was the Book of Isaiah in Hebrew or Greek? That's a simple question.

Explain this one to me

I think that you must to be either a Jew or someone who thinks that Judaism is "just as good" as Christianity.

What would it mean to you if I were Jewish? What would that make me in your mind if I were Jewish? And since Judaism is the mother faith of Christianity, as it was born out of Judaism, then how can we say the mother was not as good as the child?

You are writing in "Jew Speak".

Jesus said "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy nind and with all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself, ON THESE TWO HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS" The Torah and the Tanahk are what those commandments are hung onto. The Law and the prophets, Torah and Tanahk.

Jesus used "Jew Speak".

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

When you use phrases like "it most likely is" really is just an assumptive thought. Just because you think it is doesn't mean it is, that simply means you want it to be that way.

An actual thought process is foreign to a cult member who is trained to believe everything taught by it as being absolutely true.

edit on 7-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

And where do assumption rise from? Your first assumption of me is that I must be Jewish...then I might be someone who thinks Judaism is "just as good" but you accused me of using "Jew speak", where does your assumption rise from?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Jesus said "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself, ON THESE TWO HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS"

This looks like, to me, to be possibly leading the reader to assuming that this was the same conversation as the one mentioned earlier, where you claimed that Jesus was saying that a particular Jewish recitation was the answer. It's not.

The Torah and the Tanahk are what those commandments are hung onto.

That's completely backwards.
The "Law", meaning the holy books of the Jews, are only valid in that they do have those truths (as mentioned by Jesus) in there, otherwise it would be completely worthless.

reply to post by WarminIndy

And where do assumption rise from? Your first assumption of me is that I must be Jewish...then I might be someone who thinks Judaism is "just as good" but you accused me of using "Jew speak", where does your assumption rise from?

Rabid partisanship, and using terminology expressly anti-christian.
Also using words like "accused" to play the victim, while you are the one in attack mode, forcing me into a defensive mode to support Christianity.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Jesus said "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself, ON THESE TWO HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS"

This looks like, to me, to be possibly leading the reader to assuming that this was the same conversation as the one mentioned earlier, where you claimed that Jesus was saying that a particular Jewish recitation was the answer. It's not.

The Torah and the Tanahk are what those commandments are hung onto.

That's completely backwards.
The "Law", meaning the holy books of the Jews, are only valid in that they do have those truths (as mentioned by Jesus) in there, otherwise it would be completely worthless.

edit on 8-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

There is where you are completely wrong. The LAW means those books by Moses which is known in your GREEK as the Penteuch (5 Books of MOSES). The prophets means those books that are not the Torah (the 5 Books of Moses). When He said "The LAW" it means that section of books otherwise known as the Torah, and are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The Tanahk is "The Prophets".

The law was written by Moses, the Tanahk is the collection of books written of the sayings of the prophets. The Torah and the Pentateuch are the same thing. And Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy, one of the books in the the Pentateuch, the Torah.

Why don't you tell Jesus it's completely backwards, He's the one quoting from Deuteronomy. The Shema Y'Israel is found here....

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

Shema Y'Israel
Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad.

Hear Oh Israel
The Lord our God, the Lord is One

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Shema Y'Israel.

Mark 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

What book has Jesus referred to here? Exodus.

In this one chapter Jesus quoted from TWO books in the Torah. And you were saying there was no truth in the Torah?

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

And where do assumption rise from? Your first assumption of me is that I must be Jewish...then I might be someone who thinks Judaism is "just as good" but you accused me of using "Jew speak", where does your assumption rise from?

Rabid partisanship, and using terminology expressly anti-christian.
Also using words like "accused" to play the victim, while you are the one in attack mode, forcing me into a defensive mode to support Christianity.

edit on 8-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Wow. After all that time earlier this year in discussion with you, you assume I am Jewish. Because I have presented you with facts and truths that you conveniently overlook to support your own religion, you then accuse me of being a religion that I am not. You then accuse me of being anti-Christian, which I am not. And then accuse me of playing the victim card. All because you don't want to accept the historicity of facts.

I am NOT Jewish, I do not follow the religion of Judaism. I am a Christian and I have been all along. You knew this from previous debates and discussions.

I do, however, have Ashkenazi great-great grandparents from Hungary. But that in no way makes me Jewish. And you probably have Jewish ancestry that you don't know about. But that's not the point. The point is you have decided to place me with a group of people that you dislike simply because I disagree with you.

Now let's get on with historical facts.

The fact is Isaiah, which you never answered about, was written in Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove it. And the Book of Isaiah is exactly the same in the Dead Sea Scrolls that is in the King James Bible. The same.

That kind of blows the theory that everything was written in Koine Greek. Jesus read from the Hebrew book of Isaiah when He said in the synagogue, "Today, this scripture is fulfilled in your ears". And what was that He read?

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me and has anointed ME". The Ruach HaKodesh Adonai. You might disagree with that and choose to say it is the word paraclete. However, the Septuagint never says paraclete. The word paraclete simply means helper or advocate. It does not mean "The Spirit of the Lord". If you choose to say "Pneuma" and pneuma is never associated with paraclete, then perhaps pneuma should have been used. But the word pneuma is also a generic word.

But because Jesus said "The Spirit of the Lord" it is a proper name, not generic. Paraclete and pneuma are generic words that have no intrinsic proper attributes. But the Greek writer Demosthenes also uses the word paraclete when speaking about advocates.

The paraclete or intercessor created through each good deed is called "angel" (Ex. R. xxxii., with reference to Ps. xxxiv. 8; comp. Job xxxiii. 23—"an interceding angel," A. V. incorrectly translating "a messenger," "an interpreter"). In the sense of "Intercessor," the name "Paraclete" is given also to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament (John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7 [A. V. incorrectly, "Comforter"]; I John ii. 1 [A. V. "advocate"]), just as the Midrash calls the Holy Spirit "Synegor," which is the same as "Paraclete" (Lev. R. vi. 1; Deut. R. iii. 12). In the same sense Philo speaks of the "Logos" ("De Vita Mosis," iii., § 14) as the "Paraclete" who is to procure for the high priest forgiveness of sins, just as he uses the term "paraclete" elsewhere in the sense of "advocate" and "intercessor" ("In Flaccum," §§ 3, 4; "De Opificiis Mundi," § 6: "God is in no need of an 'intercessor,'" i.e., a helper).

As WE need the helper, then it for OUR intercession. Jesus, as God manifest in the flesh, did not need an intercessor for Himself. Therefore, that leaves only one other name, the Ruach HaKodesh Adonai. Which is what Jesus would have said from the Book of Isaiah.

reply to post by WarminIndy

The Tanahk is "The Prophets".

Not.

The name Tanakh is an acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions: Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence TaNaKh.
en.wikipedia.org...

By definition the above would be called the Old Testament by a Christian. Jews don't like the word "old" in that title so came up with a term that they liked.
If I hear someone use the Jewish designation, I assume that person is either a Jew or a cult member of some "Judeo-christian" group. A normal Christian will just call it the Old Testament.

. . . quoting from Deuteronomy. The Shema Y'Israel is found here....

Which is backwards too. The Shema is a thing that the Jews would say every day, with part of it coming from that passage in Deuteronomy.

And you were saying there was no truth in the Torah?

Jesus could argue with the scribes and Pharisees, using their own storybook, without his validating the stories as being factual history.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The Tanahk is "The Prophets".

Not.

The name Tanakh is an acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions: Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence TaNaKh.
en.wikipedia.org...

. . . quoting from Deuteronomy. The Shema Y'Israel is found here....

Which is backwards too. The Shema is a think that the Jews would say every day, with part of it coming from that passage in Deuteronomy.

edit on 8-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Will you please post again just for those who don't read your post....

Again, what is included in the Tanahk? Why do agree with me in your rebuttal if you don't agree with me otherwise?

The Nevi'im? What is the Nevi'im again?

And again, what language did you just cite? You mean Hebrew? The Masoretic text was in Hebrew and included the writings and teachings of the prophets? Isn't that what I said? I believe I did. I didn't use Jew Speak, but Wikipedia did.

Thank you for explaining how it got its name. But while the Torah is included, the Torah is also the first five books of Moses, the Pentateuch.

Right!

I said the Tanahk included the teachings of the prophets. The Law and the prophets, that's what Jesus said.

jmdewey60
]Which is backwards too. The Shema is a thing that the Jews would say every day, with part of it coming from that passage in Deuteronomy.

I posted twice what the Shema is. I used the Hebrew and the English. It began with Moses.

And you are disgruntled because I apparently never said The Old Testament? I've said it so many times before in a lot of threads.

Did you know that John says in Revelation that the redeemed sing the song of Moses? Were you aware of that?