>>>MOD WARNING<<<Part 33 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Alright then... what meanings and contexts were changed in the article?

 

You are intelligent. Read it through. I gave 3 examples. Psalm 9.

My name - trevor - means large village, goodly town in Welsh.

I give someone a present and they say 'I give you thanks large village, goodly town'?

 

Wouldn't it have been simpler for you to simply type in the "3 examples. Psalm 9" that you reference instead of attempting to force me to do your legwork for you? Those examples are more than likely still fresh in your mind.. so how about saving a bit of time and give me the examples.

 

That is the main problem they listen to themselves only and rejected God.
I listen to Biblical history, the Bible and to facts of history.
Jewish belief is not God's, Christians are followers of Christ Christ is God, God is not Jewish.

 

Nothing has been change your question has been answer Jesus name was mention in the OT or Tanakh but most of all God himself reveal himself to the Jews, to the leaders of Jews and to the gentiles that Jesus is the promised Messiah as mention in the Tanakh.
http://circumspectnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/TANAKH-Teachings.pdf

Maybe if you can point to us where in the Tanakh that gave the Pharisees or the Sadducee the authority over the Tanakh?

 

The early leaders of Judaism have corrupted the Words of God that Jesus Christ reprimanded them strongly.

Matthew 23
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14]

15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/Jesus-Rebukes-Pharisees-Scribes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmxHKu6sERQ

 

Psalm 9:14 That I may shew forth thy praise in the gates of the daughters of Jerusalem. I will rejoice in thy JESUS?'

'When the great Patriarch Jacob was ready to depart from this world, he by the Holy Spirit was blessing his sons and prophetically foretelling their future experiences in those blessings. In verse 18 of Genesis 49 he exclaims, I have waited for thy salvation, 0 Lord! What he really did say and mean was, "To thy YESHUA (Jesus) I am looking, 0 Lord"; or, "In thy YESHUA (Jesus) I am hoping (trusting), Lord!" That makes much better sense.

Really?

'Let us remember that the angel who spoke to Mary and the angel who spoke to Joseph in his dream did not speak in English, Latin, or Greek, but in Hebrew; and neither were Mary or Joseph slow to grasp the meaning and significance of the NAME of this divine Son and its relation to His character and His work of salvation.'

He was there and heard the angel speaking Hebrew?

Mary and Joseph would have spoken Aramaic.

Please. The man is simply .... well never mind.

 

Ever since the spoken usage of Mishnaic Hebrew ended in the 2nd century CE, Hebrew had not been spoken as a mother tongue.

Revival of the Hebrew language.

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

 

They don't claim to have authority 'over' the Tanakh. Neither have they added to the Tanakh. The Tanakh read in the time of Christ was the Tanakh written in 600BCE.

Again you are wrong. The Pharisees had added 'their' interpretation of the Tanakh to their teaching, supposedly to keep up with changing conditions. This is what the Christian Church has done to the teachings of Christ. These teachings were aimed by Jesus at own people but Christianity has interpreted them as theirs.

The Saduccees stuck to the Torah.

Were the Christian Jesus here today the Church would be in for the same ear blasting as the Rabbi gave the Jews.

http://circumspectnews.com/wp-conten...-Teachings.pdf

1. The 6 & 7th Principles are part of 13 devised in the 11th cent. CE by Maimondes. While they are accepted by Jews today they are relatively new. They would not be recognised by 6th cent BCE Jews.

2. I am not sufficiently 'into' the Hebrew Languge to comment authoritatively on all that is said here, but know enough to say that the are controversial parts.

'The Hebrew word echad is consistently used for &#8220;one&#8221; in the Tanakh to denote plural-singular (compound)
unity, instead of yachid, which is used only in exclusive singular cases.'

against

Echad has a spectrum of meanings in the Hebrew Bible. To say it means "compound unity" puts the word in a tiny box that doesn't match its varied uses by the biblical writers. It's like saying the word elohim only refers to the true God. When, in fact, elohim is used for false gods or goddesses, angelic beings, the judges of Israel, the king of Israel, and the Messiah.

Get the idea.

Got to Skype my son now

 

What I am seeing is a man who is offering a literary translation that might possibly have been overlooked by others in the past. I am no expert linguist wherein I could possibly argue with him. I usually look toward a counseling session with the Holy Spirit on matters like this, seeking discernment. Of course it is not me that is having a problem with what has been stated in that writing, and I am neither expecting or even asking you to accept it as truth. But for you to reject it arbitrarily with nothing more to say than "The man is simply ... well never mind." indicates to me that you are probably entertaining a preconceived notion that will allow you to simply push aside something that you might not understand. That is just a guess on my part.

 

The Pharisees have created the Talmud to augment the Tanakh exerting their authority over the Words of God to rule, regulate and govern the Jews. The last prophets were during the Babylonian exile and no prophets has ever been recognized since then not even Jesus Christ is recognized to be a prophet let alone Son of God.

You said it the Pharisees added stuff to keep up with changing condition and when Jesus Christ came to change their wrong interpretation and handling of the Words of God they rejected him. Today with the advancement of modern technology and education we are learning more and more about the truth just how the Pharisees and Sadducee manipulated the Tanakh for their own power trip to rule over Israel and the world.

The leadership of Judaism made sure that Jews do not accept Christ any Jews who accepts Christ are shun, persecuted or executed. Today, Pharisees have evolved they are now the Rabbi while the Sadducee are now the Zionist they are still blasting away against Christians especially Jeiwsh Christians and have stubbornly holding on to their power against all truth and facts.

Jesus Christ through the church will continue to rebuke leadership of Judaism just like how Jesus rebuked them long ago.
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/Jesus-Rebukes-Pharisees-Scribes

We now know that the name of Jesus was mention in the OT or Tanakh the issue now is interpretation. For Judaism it does not mean or refer to Jesus Christ and they will never admit it they will hide behind ancient Hebrew text writings claiming it is not what it is using linguistic interpretation as an excuse to reject Christ. For Christians it is very crystal clear Jesus Christ is the prophesied Messiah in the Tanakh . We can understand Judaism claim if God himself has not manifested himself in flesh and blood as Jesus Christ.

[video=youtube;VmxHKu6sERQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmxHKu6sERQ[/video]

 

The name Joshua is in the OT, not "Jesus".

 

MOD EDIT>>>DELETED POST REMOVED<<<

Perhaps you can see the difficulty. The Hebrew is one developed from several Semetic languages. Sometimes overlapping with slightly different meanings. Hebrew itself has gone through different stages with the same results.
When you try to translate that into the English you run into great difficulties.

Try Psalm 137:5 'If I forget thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning'. KJV.
But the Hebrew does not say that. It says 'If I forget thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget'
The KJV indicates these missing words in various ways like 'her cunning' in italics or bold. They didn't know what to put.
Why? Because the word 'forget' has about 6 different origins in Semetic languages and it is used twice in this one sentence. So they took a guess.

The new revised version has come up with 'If I forget thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither'. That's because one of the origins of the Hebrew word for 'forget' is from the Ugarit 'shrivel' which fits in.

When you read the Bible you can see the problems of KJV translators by these bold or italic words and phrases. Some of these are inserted because of the rest of the context. Others by trying to make sense - to them - of the verse/passage.

Psalm 109:10. No mention of bread in the Hebrew but what did 'vagabonds' usually seek in King James time. Food.

No emotions. Just a real interest. I want to learn.

I hope the person who 'liked' your post learned something about the errancy of the Bible in interpretation etc.

 

That is subject to interpretation.
If that is the case does this mean that Joshua is the Messiah?
One thing for sure the only and correct interpretation is from God Jesus Christ, Christ that the leadership of Judaism rejected that Jews accepted and they became known as Christians.

 

You didn't bother to read the scripture, did you.. or the quotes from Isaih.......

 

Why do I bother.

You don't even know there were 2 Talmuds. You don't even know they were created centuries after Christ. Long after the Jews were dispersed by the Romans.

Why would prophets be needed after the Exile?

Explain the power that the Jewish Pharisees had over their people during 1500 years of dispersal. ANOTHER THING - THE SADDUCEES DIED OUT AFTER 70 CE. They could not exist after the Temple was destroyed.

s.

And the Christian church rejects those of its members who reject Christ. They are condemned to hell by Christianity's belief.

If you want to believe that Jesus is mentioned in the Tanakh, that's your concern. I doubt any linguist, particularly any serious secular Hebrew linguist, would agree with you IMO.

The problem for you is that it is what it is. It means what it says. You can't change what it says. You can give it your own interpretation in retrospect. The Jews knew what it meant then because they wrote it, and you can't change that. Unless, of course, you can read the mind of scribes 2,600 years deceased. Of course you could try to bring them back like Saul did to Samuel, and ask them.

 

Wow! Have you passed on that piece of information to other non-theists who like to promote the interpretations of other modern day 'scholars'? If not, you should, IMHO.

 

No It doesn't.

If you're going along that path we have a man in the Tanakh whose name is Jonah. The Hebrew meaning is 'Dove'.
In the NT we have Simon Bar-Jonah so we have Simon son of a dove.
Not only that Jonah is Ben Amittai - son of Amittai - but Amittai actually means truth - so now we have Jonah (dove) the 'son of truth'
Other writings call Jonah 'Ben Nun' son of the fish.

You see how easy it is to create a 'tower of babel' by using names and meanings wrongly.

 

OMG. That is the greatest concern that I have on this forum. People using definitions wrongly, yet when I seek clarification of their intent behind the meaning of terms, I get accused of 'trolling' and 'misrepresentation' and 'derailing threads', etc. Tsk Tsk. Welcome to my world.

 

WOW.
I think it should be past on to theists. Modern day scholars are comparing scriptures to the culture and beliefs of the day. And finding out how wrong Christians have got things. If you take the scriptures as they were written in conjunction with the times, beliefs and events of the day the truth is there. Not in retrospective interpretations. These can cause a lot of misunderstanding.

Decades after Jesus died a gospel writer wrote about an incident where Jesus asked Martha who she thought he was. She told him he was the Messiah. Ask many Christians today what Messiah Martha meant and I guess most would agree that it was the Christian Messiah. But when the event occurred the idea of a Christian Messiah had not been thought of. She had been brought up with the belief in the Jewish Messiah. Had Jesus told her he was going to be sacrificed for her, and her peoples sins, she would have been horrified. Human sacrifice was abhorrent to the Jews. Even the disciples didn't believe it until after the Rabbi was killed. Almost everything in the Bible is linked, not to what we think or believe now, but to what was the case in the day. And that must change our perception. We accept that when we read our history, our romantic period novels etc. But not, seemingly, our Bible.
'Well that's what happened in those days' is a favourite saying. Not so when we talk about the Bible. It has to be according to what happens or what we believe now.

As I said a few posts ago modern readers of Shakespeare look at Romeo and Juliet as a love story. Not in Shakespeares day, or by himself. He wrote it as a tragedy. And that was how it was regarded early on.

Times and events have different meanings as time goes by.

And time has gone by so I'm off to bed - after my cocoa of course.

 

Laying out a blanket accusation regarding 'Christians' is not a logical thing to do. Not all 'Christians' fall within that categorical description you have provided.

Aside from your appeal to popularity, you still seem to be placing that condition of the many onto the entire group.

Well, I would categorize myself as being one of those "modern readers of Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet, but I did not categorize it as a love story. So again, you made another blanket accusation regarding what modern readers of that novel was depicting.

No! Actually, people assign different meanings as time goes by. Whether those people be Theist or non-theist, they are subject to the same error. Being subject to the error, does not equate to actually committing such an error.

Love that idea of the cocoa... have another one for me... right now I am sipping on a hot cup of coffee and IMHO the two don't mix very well.

 

I'm sure you're well aware I don't blanket all Christians into the same category. I'm not so pedantic as you. Now there's a word for 23.45 pm.

In some respects I use the term 'many' because of my lifetimes experience with many Christians in various parts of the country UK. Just because I am agnostic doesn't prevent my friendship continuing, or discussions with, Christians - and JW's come to that.

Enjoy your coffee.

 

But you just did previously when you failed to use a limiting term such as "some", or "many". So, when it gets to be about 09:00 hours think about how the term 'pedantic' does not apply to me while you are squirming out from under the error of your thinking when you did make a blanket accusation.

No one said anything about your friends or the manner in which you sometimes use the term 'many'... until I brought it to your attention. But now that I recognize your more accurate usage of the term "many", the excuse you attempted to make in your first paragraph above, is destroyed by your admission that you do know how, when and why you should use the term 'many' or 'some' or 'few', etc. when speaking about other groups of people.

I did, thank you; as well, I enjoyed the evening meal with my son and grand children.

Talk later.

 

Isaiah was very clear he is talking about a Messiah not about what the Pharisees wanted Jews to be.

 

And who wrote the Talmud? Were the authors inspired by God? Were they doing it for political and nationalist reason?
Before the written Talmud there was the Oral Talmud.

According to modern scholarship, the traditions embodied in what later became known as the "Oral Torah" developed over generations among the inhabitants of Judea and were passed down through various modes of cultural transmission, including but not restricted to oral transmission. It is hypothesized that, sometime prior to the Babylonian exile of 586-530 BCE, in applying the Mosaic code to daily life and Temple worship, "a multitude of usages arising out of practical necessity or convenience or experience became part of the routine of observance of the code, and, in the course of time, shared the sanctity and authority which were inherent in the divinely inspired code itself."[3]

Such practices experienced exponential growth from the time of Ezra to the Romans' destruction of the Second Temple due to the changing social and religious conditions experienced by inhabitants of Judea.[3] Many of these practices were advocated by the Pharisees, a sect of largely lower- and middle-class Jews who stood in opposition to the Sadducees, the priestly caste who dominated the Temple cult.[4] The Sadducees were strict traditionalists and rejected the legitimacy of any extra-biblical law or tradition, as well as increasingly popular notions such as the immortality of the soul and divine intervention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah#Historical_Development_of_the_Oral_Law

The more reason they need a true prophet to guide them properly remember even with Moses and the OT prophets the Jews have many times rejected God. This time thy made sure no prophets will be around including John the baptist and most of all Jesus Christ it has all been just the Pharisees or today the Rabbi that are dictating what they want Jews to believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phari...8c..C2.A0600_.E2.80.93_c..C2.A0160.C2.A0BC.29
After defeating the Seleucid forces, Judas Maccabaeus's nephew John Hyrcanus established a new monarchy in the form of the priestly Hasmonean dynasty in 152 BCE &#8212; thus establishing priests as political as well as religious authorities. Although the Hasmoneans were heroes for resisting the Seleucids, their reign lacked the legitimacy conferred by descent from the Davidic dynasty of the First Temple era.

The Pharisee ("separatist") party emerged largely out of the group of scribes and sages.

Their name comes from the Hebrew and Aramaic parush or parushi, which means "one who is separated." It may refer to their separation from Gentiles, sources of ritual impurity or from irreligious Jews.[14] The Pharisees, among other Jewish sects, were active from the middle of the second century B.C.E. until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.[15] Josephus first mentions them in connection with Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus ("Ant." xiii. 5, § 9). One of the factors that distinguished the Pharisees from other groups prior to the destruction of the Temple was their belief that all Jews had to observe the purity laws (which applied to the Temple service) outside the Temple. The major difference, however, was the continued adherence of the Pharisees to the laws and traditions of the Jewish people in the face of assimilation. As Josephus noted, the Pharisees were considered the most expert and accurate expositors of Jewish law.

The church is open to all nationalities and to anyone who chose to accept and worship Christ.

The question was raised where in the Tanakh name of Jesus was mention? It was pointed it was mention and if you chose not to recognize it that is your choice. More and more Jews are starting to accept Christ in spite of the restrictions imposed against them by the Jewish leadership denying them Jewish birth right if they do not accept Judaism.

The Pharisees have made many changes that is why they have the Tamud to inject the changes on the Tanakh to imposed their own national and political agenda. Many Jews rejected the authority of the Pharisees and for that they were persecuted and destroyed just like Jesus Christ was persecuted and executed by the Pharisees. Yes they wrote it not from God but from themselves.