Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: I ETA PI on October 19, 2007, 05:06:19 PM
-
If Jesus was a virgin birth by Mary, then why do the geneaologies in Matthew 1-2, and Luke 1-2, use Jesus' geneology through Joseph to demonstrate that Jesus was the heir to King David?
Wouldn't that be false? If Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, then why would they trace the geneology of Jesus through Joseph to King David and Abraham (Luke goes back to Adam), to show Jesus as the legal heir to the throne of Israel?
-
I read someplace, and i could be mistaken, cuase it was a while ago, but there was a ritual, or practice by the Essenes of newly weds not having sex for a year once they are married. But the theory was that Joseph and Mary did have sex during that year and Jesus was born and Mary was supposed to still be a virgin.....hence a virgin birth.
Of course this is not true becuase everything in the bible is 100% true even if it doesn't male sense becuase it is the 100% word of god......as some believe.
-
If Jesus was a virgin birth by Mary, then why do the geneaologies in Matthew 1-2, and Luke 1-2, use Jesus' geneology through Joseph to demonstrate that Jesus was the heir to King David?
Wouldn't that be false? If Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, then why would they trace the geneology of Jesus through Joseph to King David and Abraham (Luke goes back to Adam), to show Jesus as the legal heir to the throne of Israel?
I think you mean Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38? If that's not correct I apologize.
Joseph was still His "legal" father.
From what I've learned, the genealogy in Matthew is traced through Joseph, who was Jesus' legal (but not natural) father. This shows Christ's legal right to the throne of David. Matthew was written mainly to the Jews to reveal to them that Jesus was/is their Messiah.
The genealogy in Luke is supposedly traced through Mary, His mother. Luke is written mainly toward the gentiles.
-
I think you mean Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38? If that's not correct I apologize.
Joseph was still His "legal" father.
From what I've learned, the genealogy in Matthew is traced through Joseph, who was Jesus' legal (but not natural) father. This shows Christ's legal right to the throne of David. Matthew was written mainly to the Jews to reveal to them that Jesus was/is their Messiah.
The genealogy in Luke is supposedly traced through Mary, His mother. Luke is written mainly toward the gentiles.
Legally or symbolically?
Is there proof of this? Or is it just assumed?
Looks assumed to me, but i could be wrong.
Because he's not in the "blood line" and wouldn't that be a serious thing in those times?
In a way, if Jesus was born to this family he'd be like right in the middle of politics wouldn't he? David was a great and important king and now the nation of the Jews is under Roman control and the ruling family is long disposed.......sounds like an excellent setting for rumors of a revolution spurred by the rightful ruling family. there is sure to be a loyal following who think the House of David should rule....especially if the story of David is well documented in the holy Hebrew scriptures......
-
Mary was NOT a virgin.
Joseph (he hopes) fucked Mary, Mary got pregnant, and then Mary gave birth to the kid who became Jesus.
But it makes for a better story to say she was a virgin.
-
Mary was NOT a virgin.
Joseph (he hopes) fucked Mary, Mary got pregnant, and then Mary gave birth to the kid who became Jesus.
But it makes for a better story to say she was a virgin.
Ask your doctor if Paxil is right for you.
-
Legally or symbolically?
Is there proof of this? Or is it just assumed?
Looks assumed to me, but i could be wrong.
Because he's not in the "blood line" and wouldn't that be a serious thing in those times?
Mary was also from the bloodline of David.
In a way, if Jesus was born to this family he'd be like right in the middle of politics wouldn't he? David was a great and important king and now the nation of the Jews is under Roman control and the ruling family is long disposed.......sounds like an excellent setting for rumors of a revolution spurred by the rightful ruling family. there is sure to be a loyal following who think the House of David should rule....especially if the story of David is well documented in the holy Hebrew scriptures......
I may not be understanding what you are saying but David lived about 900 years before Jesus. There were a lot of families born w/in that bloodline that more than likely weren't involved in politics. Joseph was a carpenter.
-
Mary was also from the bloodline of David.
I may not be understanding what you are saying but David lived about 900 years before Jesus. There were a lot of families born w/in that bloodline that more than likely weren't involved in politics. Joseph was a carpenter.
let's say based on the Gospels Joseph was a carpenter but of the line of David and Jesus was born and started the movement he did. It would be viewed a political movement by most being that he is of the line of David. His message would be like that of Gandi, non violent, but alarming to the current authorities none the less. Why do you think they are always talking about "the line of David" ? If he is the son of God what does it matter what line he is from?
-
let's say based on the Gospels Joseph was a carpenter but of the line of David and Jesus was born and started the movement he did. It would be viewed a political movement by most being that he is of the line of David. His message would be like that of Gandi, non violent, but alarming to the current authorities none the less. Why do you think they are always talking about "the line of David" ? If he is the son of God what does it matter what line he is from?
It matters to the Jews that believe in the Old Testament Prophecies that their Messiah would come from the bloodline of David.
But re: it being viewed as a political movement that's true. This is why when Jesus died on the cross, the Jews rejected Him as being the Messiah because most of them WERE looking for a political "savior." Something about they don't realize that He WILL be a political "savior" at His 2nd Coming. The first time He came, he came as a "spiritual" savior.
-
It is also often claimed that the idea of a vigrin Mary wasn't really created until around 330 or so....before then, it wasn't mentioned.
Both Luke and Matthew trace through Joseph. At least in the bible I saw this weekend...it was in a church pew, so I hope it was a correct bible.
-
It is also often claimed that the idea of a vigrin Mary wasn't really created until around 330 or so....before then, it wasn't mentioned.
Both Luke and Matthew trace through Joseph. At least in the bible I saw this weekend...it was in a church pew, so I hope it was a correct bible.
The Virgin birth was pretty clearly added 100's of years after Jesus died. I doubt even hardline Christians will argue that.
Revelations is the fun stuff though. Since so much of that is ludicrous, christians won't even debate it. They'll just pretend that book means nothing.
-
The Virgin birth was pretty clearly added 100's of years after Jesus died. I doubt even hardline Christians will argue that.
This was written 100's of years after Jesus?
Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Immanuel = "God with us"
More like 100's of years BEFORE Jesus was even born.
And the Gospels were written before 70 AD, within 40 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
-
This was written 100's of years after Jesus?
Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Immanuel = "God with us"
More like 100's of years BEFORE Jesus was even born.
And the Gospels were written before 70 AD, within 40 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
No, that is from the OT.
The virgin birth was attached to Jesus to justify him as the messiah.
When the gospels were written, and when they were changed to better suit the prophecy are totally different.
-
No, that is from the OT.
Yes.
The virgin birth was attached to Jesus to justify him as the messiah.
Yes, it was attached to Jesus because that is whom the prophet Isaiah was speaking of. That's whom the writer of Isaiah was writing about.
When the gospels were written, and when they were changed to better suit the prophecy are totally different.
The gospels were changed? When and by whom?
-
Yes.
Exactly. By being in the OT, it was BEFORE Jesus was born.
Yes, it was attached to Jesus because that is whom the prophet Isaiah was speaking of. That's whom the writer of Isaiah was writing about.
Exactly again. When writing about Jesus, they realized it would help their cause to claim that Jesus matched the prophecy. This was not done until the mid 300's.
The gospels were changed? When and by whom?
Every fucking time they've been written, and every fucking edition printed.
Is your Bible in Aramaic?
Was your "Gospel of John" written by hand from John?
-
Revelations is the fun stuff though.
Are you pretty familiar w/that?
-
Exactly. By being in the OT, it was BEFORE Jesus was born.
Exactly again. When writing about Jesus, they realized it would help their cause to claim that Jesus matched the prophecy. This was not done until the mid 300's.
Is that a fact? Or simply a conspiracy theory? Got any evidence to back that up?
Every fucking time they've been written, and every fucking edition printed.
So, after the invention of the printing press, the Gospels were changed every time that they were printed?
Is your Bible in Aramaic?
The New Testament was originally written in Greek.
Was your "Gospel of John" written by hand from John?
John says in his gospel that he is the one who testifies of these things. Any reason not to believe him? If so, then why believe any ancient writings? Why not just toss ancient history out the window?
If we want to disregard the New Testament, then we must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Ceasar. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy...and they are very consistent.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Just one example:
Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C.. The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D.. The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years. We have only 49 copies.
Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C.. The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D.. The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years. We have only 10 copies.
The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.). The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.). The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years. We have 5,686 copies.
-
Is that a fact? Or simply a conspiracy theory? Got any evidence to back that up?
So, after the invention of the printing press, the Gospels were changed every time that they were printed?
The New Testament was originally written in Greek.
John says in his gospel that he is the one who testifies of these things. Any reason not to believe him? If so, then why believe any ancient writings? Why not just toss ancient history out the window?
If we want to disregard the New Testament, then we must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy...and they are very consistent.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Just one example:
Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C.. The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D.. The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years. We have only 49 copies.
Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C.. The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D.. The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years. We have only 10 copies.
The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.). The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.). The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years. We have 5,686 copies.
The best part of all of this is that you had to go online and reference all this stuff, with dates for accuracy, probably taking you quite some time.
Now tell me, are you doing this to convince me? Or to convince yourself?
Have you read the earliest copies of the new testament? If you haven't read them for yourself, then how can you speak with any authority as to what they say, and how it may differ from your current version of the bible?
-
The best part of all of this is that you had to go online and reference all this stuff, with dates for accuracy, probably taking you quite some time.
Now tell me, are you doing this to convince me? Or to convince yourself?
Have you read the earliest copies of the new testament? If you haven't read them for yourself, then how can you speak with any authority as to what they say, and how it may differ from your current version of the bible?
Are you going to answer my questions or are you just going to avoid them?
Do you have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory?
So, after the invention of the printing press, the Gospels were changed every time that they were printed?
So, according to you, the New Testament was written in Aramaic?
Do you have any good reasons to doubt that John wrote the Gospel of John?
I posted some facts about the New Testament manuscripts as compared to other ancient texts. Yes, these are facts.
Yes, I have been reading the Bible, different versions of it, in different languages for many years. And yes, they are all consistent.
Yes, there are many seminaries that possess some of the ancient, Greek copies of the New Testament.
Did you know that all Presbyterian ministers are required to learn Hebrew and Greek before they can graduate from seminary?
So yes, both the Old and the New Testament mention virgin birth 100's of years before you say they did. If you have any proof to the contrary, please do show us because I'd love to see it. ;D
-
Are you going to answer my questions or are you just going to avoid them?
Do you have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory?
So, after the invention of the printing press, the Gospels were changed every time that they were printed?
So, according to you, the New Testament was written in Aramaic?
Do you have any good reasons to doubt that John wrote the Gospel of John?
I posted some facts about the New Testament manuscripts as compared to other ancient texts. Yes, these are facts.
Yes, I have been reading the Bible, different versions of it, in different languages for many years. And yes, they are all consistent.
Yes, there are many seminaries that possess some of the ancient, Greek copies of the New Testament.
Did you know that all Presbyterian ministers are required to learn Hebrew and Greek before they can graduate from seminary?
So yes, both the Old and the New Testament mention virgin birth 100's of years before you say they did. If you have any proof to the contrary, please do show us because I'd love to see it. ;D
Do you have proof that the New Testament mentions virgin birth before 330 AD?
Where do you get the idea that I said John didn't write his gospel? I asked if your bible was hand written by John. It's not. It's a printed version that has been transfered into many different languages, through many variations.
Have you heard of a man named King James? I believe he has a 'version' of the bible too.
And yes, each time a new version of the bible is printed, it is changed. Each new language, each new version, etc.
Is the version I can read at church this sunday hand written, word for word, in the language it was originally written?
Have you ever read an American book printed in German? It's very different. The translations aren't 100%.
Have you read the earliest versions of the New Testament? Do you have John's handwritten gospel available to you? Unless you have these exact versions in front of you, available for you to read in person, you have no backing. You can go to google and copy anything you want. But, that doesn't mean a thing.
-
Revelations is the fun stuff though.
Do you feel you're pretty familiar w/that?
-
Do you feel you're pretty familiar w/that?
Thank you!
-
Thank you!
???
Revelations is the fun stuff though. Since so much of that is ludicrous, christians won't even debate it. They'll just pretend that book means nothing.
I don't think it means nothing and I'd like to talk about it if you are interested.
-
???
I don't think it means nothing and I'd like to talk about it if you are interested.
Are double negatives one of your Christian tricks of confusion? Because I have no clue what you're saying.
-
This was written 100's of years after Jesus?
Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Immanuel = "God with us"
More like 100's of years BEFORE Jesus was even born.
And the Gospels were written before 70 AD, within 40 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
Hold it there. You know better than to quote Isaiah.
The original Isaiah says "young woman" will get pregnant. Moreover, that is in a prophecy for Isaiah to King Ahaz of Judah. Isaiah was talking about events in the king's time. This has nothing to do with the "messiah".
The greek mis-translation of Isaiah used the term "virgin" instead of "young woman." Imagine how easy it is to get the words "maid" and "maiden" mixed up. Matthew misused that greek mistranslation of Isaiah.
The only reason Jesus "had" to have been born of a virgin is because the writer of the gospel of Matthew was reading a bad greek translation of Isaiah.
-
Hold it there. You know better than to quote Isaiah.
The original Isaiah says "young woman" will get pregnant. Moreover, that is in a prophecy for Isaiah to King Ahaz of Judah. Isaiah was talking about events in the king's time. This has nothing to do with the "messiah".
The greek mis-translation of Isaiah used the term "virgin" instead of "young woman." Imagine how easy it is to get the words "maid" and "maiden" mixed up. Matthew misused that greek mistranslation of Isaiah.
The only reason Jesus "had" to have been born of a virgin is because the writer of the gospel of Matthew was reading a bad greek translation of Isaiah.
You hold it there, columbusdude82. The original Hebrew says "almah" in Isaiah 7:14. "almah" is an ancient Hebrew word which can mean
1. "`almah ("עלמה") (al-maw') a lass (as veiled or private) -- damsel, maid, virgin
2. "young unmarried woman",
3. "a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family"
4. "maid or newly married"
For example: In Songs of Solomon 6:8, "almah" is used for "virgins"
"Sixty queens there may be, and eighty concubines, and virgins[almah ("עלמה") or plural: alamot ("עלמות")] beyond number;" Songs of Solomon 6:8 (NIV)
There is another Hebrew word for virgin, "bethulah". It means strictly "virgin", but not necessarily a "young virgin". Why would Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would also be a young woman.
The LXX(Septuagint) is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. This translation was made around 300-200 B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt by 72 ancient Hebrew scholars who were closer to and more familiar with ancient Hebrew, their Holy scriptures and their own culture of the time of Isaiah. In Isaiah 7:14, they translated the word "almah" into the Greek word "parthenos", which means "virgin". This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11). If the Hebrews translated the word into the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here. It was not a mistake, not an error or a mistranslation.
-
Do you have proof that the New Testament mentions virgin birth before 330 AD?
Well, of course. We have ancient Greek copies of Luke 1 and Mathew 1 that date way before 330 AD. These are available to you at Universities and Theological seminaries, museums, and libraries across the US, Europe and the Middle East. So there is your proof.
Where do you get the idea that I said John didn't write his gospel? I asked if your bible was hand written by John. It's not. It's a printed version that has been transfered into many different languages, through many variations.
Have you heard of a man named King James? I believe he has a 'version' of the bible too.
King James, as in the King James translation of the Bible? Never heard of him.
And yes, each time a new version of the bible is printed, it is changed. Each new language, each new version, etc.
Is the version I can read at church this sunday hand written, word for word, in the language it was originally written?
Have you ever read an American book printed in German? It's very different. The translations aren't 100%.
Have you read the earliest versions of the New Testament? Do you have John's handwritten gospel available to you? Unless you have these exact versions in front of you, available for you to read in person, you have no backing. You can go to google and copy anything you want. But, that doesn't mean a thing.
Right. The Gospel of John in my Bible was not hand written by John, it is a printed copy of what John wrote. So, what's your point?
The Gospels were not changed. I already told you, we have 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. They can be cross checked for accuracy, and they are very consistent.
Are you from the US? Are you saying that, when you read an American History text book, you are not going to believe what the US constitution says or that it was drafted and signed by the founding fathers? Are you saying that you won't believe it until you go to Washington DC and read the original? What about historical texts for which there is no longer an original, the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Caesar, etc.? Are you saying that this guys never existed? That they never wrote those texts? Are you saying that copies that survived are useless because, according to you, they have been completely changed?
And I have read many versions of the Bible in both Spanish and English, and the message, the doctrines, teachings, etc. are all the same in any version and in any language that I have read. So, no, they did not change. They all still say that we are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. They all still say that Jesus is the Son of God. They all still say that if you repent and believe in Jesus Christ, your sins will be forgiven and your life will change. I testify that this is true. I repented of my sins and believed in Jesus Christ and my life changed. If I could choose to live any other life, I'd still choose this one, the life that faith in Jesus Christ has given me.
Would you like to see an example of some recent, historical evidence of the life changing power of Jesus Christ? Then look up the historical origin of "Alcoholics Anonymous" and the life of its founders.
-
Once again, my dear loco, you demonstrate how intensely you possess the gift of denial. :D
Here is Isaiah 7:
1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
2 Now the house of David was told, "Aram has allied itself with [a] Ephraim"; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field. 4 Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.' "
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test."
13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [d] will call him Immanuel. [e] 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."
18 In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River [f] —the king of Assyria—to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also. 21 In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. 23 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels, [g] there will be only briers and thorns. 24 Men will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns. 25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run.
Isaiah is talking to King Ahaz. Ahaz asks about his enemies, the prince of Damascus and the king of Israel. Isaiah says that a kid will be born, and before the kid reaches the age when he can tell right from wrong, those two kings will be laid waste.
This is something that was supposed to happen in Ahaz's time, not centuries later. The Jews (after all, this is originally their scripture and their prophets) will tell you that this "prophecy" has nothing to do with the messiah, or with Jesus.
I leave it to anyone with a clear mind to read this passage, and decide if they can conscientiously impose an extraneous interpretation clearly not supported by the text just to make Matthew 1 "fit"...
-
Once again, my dear loco, you demonstrate how intensely you possess the gift of denial. :D
Here is Isaiah 7:
Isaiah is talking to King Ahaz. Ahaz asks about his enemies, the prince of Damascus and the king of Israel. Isaiah says that a kid will be born, and before the kid reaches the age when he can tell right from wrong, those two kings will be laid waste.
This is something that was supposed to happen in Ahaz's time, not centuries later. The Jews (after all, this is originally their scripture and their prophets) will tell you that this "prophecy" has nothing to do with the messiah, or with Jesus.
I leave it to anyone with a clear mind to read this passage, and decide if they can conscientiously impose an extraneous interpretation clearly not supported by the text just to make Matthew 1 "fit"...
You are the one who is in denial.
You said:
The original Isaiah says "young woman" will get pregnant
The greek mis-translation of Isaiah used the term "virgin" instead of "young woman."
I addressed that. I showed you that Isaiah does say "young virgin" and that the 72 ancient Hebrew scholars who did the translating did not mistranslate and did not make a mistake.
As for the prophecy, I will get to that next. ;)
But it will have to wait as I'm busy at work right now.
The Jews (after all, this is originally their scripture and their prophets) will tell you that this "prophecy" has nothing to do with the messiah, or with Jesus.
It was precisely the Jews, Jesus' disciples (after all, this is originally their scripture and their prophets) who told us that this prophecy is all about Jesus. Even today, it is the Jews who tell us that Isaiah is talking about Jesus. Ever heard of Jews for Jesus?
-
Hold on again. Now I'm busy at work too, but I just have to address the last sentence.
You can't be serious. You disregard the views of all the rabbinical authorities of Judaism today, and equate "the Jews" with "Jews for Jesus," a small fringe minority in Judaism. How typical...
What about the overwhelming vast majority of Jews today, who are not for Jesus!!!
-
Hold on again. Now I'm busy at work too, but I just have to address the last sentence.
You can't be serious. You disregard the views of all the rabbinical authorities of Judaism today, and equate "the Jews" with "Jews for Jesus," a small fringe minority in Judaism. How typical...
What about the overwhelming vast majority of Jews today, who are not for Jesus!!!
Read the Old Testament and the History of Israel. The overwhelming vast majority of Jews have always, at first, rejected God's true prophets throughout their history, including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezequiel, Elijah, etc. Israel would often accept the lies of the many false prophets of the time, while rejecting and even killing the true prophets of God. It wasn't until these men's prophecies came true many years later that they were finally given recognition and acceptance as God's true prophets, unfortunately, for some of them, after they had already been killed. It was no different with Jesus, the vast majority rejected him and had him killed, but a minority accepted and believed in him.
And since when is the vast majority right by default? Truth is not a democracy.
-
Be sure not to express these views around any Jewish folks. They will be tempted to kick you in the nuts :)
-
Be sure not to express these views around any Jewish folks. They will be tempted to kick you in the nuts :)
These are not views. It is as recorded in the Old Testament. And Jesus, his disciples, and the hundreds of early Christians were all Jews. And even today, we have many Jews who are Christians.
And why would a Jew be tempted to kick me in the nuts? Christians support Jews, and Jews know this.
-
Fundamentalist Christians only support Jews in that they are using them to try and bring on the Rapture.
-
Fundamentalist Christians only support Jews in that they are using them to try and bring on the Rapture.
What are you talking about? You go from one topic to the next, don't you? How about sticking to the thread's topic?
-
What are you talking about? You go from one topic to the next, don't you? How about sticking to the thread's topic?
OK :)
Virgin birth... fiction made up by someone reading the greek mistranslation of Isaiah :)
-
OK :)
Virgin birth... fiction made up by someone reading the greek mistranslation of Isaiah :)
Now, that's more like it. I'll get back to you on this. ;D
-
OK :)
Virgin birth... fiction made up by someone reading the greek mistranslation of Isaiah :)
You still insist that the Greek version of Isaiah 7:14 is a mistranslation? Who has the gift of denial now? ::)
You do not understand ancient Hebrew better than the 72 Hebrew scholars who translated Isaiah 7:14 in 300 B.C.. They translated the Hebrew word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 into the Greek word "parthenos", which means "virgin". They understood what the Hebrew text meant here.
Here is a task for you. Show us one instance in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word "almah" is used to refer to a "young woman" who has already lost her virginity? Go ahead.
-
Didn't they unearth of discover a complete book of Isaiah when they discovered the dead sea scrolls? How does it compare to the Isaiah we have in the KJV?
-
Didn't they unearth of discover a complete book of Isaiah when they discovered the dead sea scrolls? How does it compare to the Isaiah we have in the KJV?
Specifically, the nearly intact Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the most recent manuscript version of the Masoretic text from the 900's AD. (Scholars have discovered a handful of spelling and tense-oriented scribal errors, but nothing of significance.) In light of Isaiah's rich Messianic prophecy, we thought it would be rewarding to reproduce a portion of the English translation of the actual Hebrew text found in the Great Isaiah Scroll. Specifically, the following corresponds to Isaiah 53 in today's Old Testament.
Translation of the actual Great Isaiah Scroll (Isaiah 53), beginning with line 5 of Column 44:
5. Who has believed our report and the arm of YHWH to whom has it been revealed And he shall come up like a suckling before him
6. and as a root from dry ground there is no form to him and no beauty [+to him+] and in his being seen and there is no appearance
7. that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and knowing grief
8. and as though hiding faces from him he was despised and we did not esteem him. Surely our griefs he
9. is bearing and our sorrows he carried them and we esteemed him beaten and struck by God
10. and afflicted. and he is wounded for our transgressions, and crushed for our iniquities, the correction
11. of our peace was upon him and by his wounds he has healed us. All of us like sheep have wandered each man to his own way
12. we have turned and YHWH has caused to light on him the iniquity of all of us He was oppressed and he was afflicted and he did not
13. open his mouth, as a lamb to the slaughter he is brought and as a ewe before her shearers is made dumb he did not open
14. his mouth. From prison and from judgment he was taken and his generation who shall discuss it because he was cut off from the land of
15. the living. Because from the transgressions of his people a wound was to him
16. And they gave wicked ones to be his grave and [a scribbled word probably accusative sign "eth"] rich ones in his death
17. although he worked no violence neither deceit in his mouth And YHWH was pleased to crush him and He has caused him grief.
18. If you will appoint his soul a sin offering he will see his seed and he will lengthen his days and the pleasure of YHWH
19. in his hand will advance. Of the toil of his soul he shall see {+light+} and he shall be satisfied and by his knowledge shall he make righteous
20. even my righteous servant for many and their iniquities he will bear. Therefore I will apportion to him among the great ones
21. and with the mighty ones he shall divide the spoil because he laid bare to death his soul and with the transgressors
22. he was numbered, and he, the sins of many, he bore, and for their transgressions he entreated.
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls-2.htm
Here's Isaiah 53 from the King James Version of the Bible, which was translated from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scripture. Compare it to the portion of the Great Isaiah Scroll reproduced on the prior page - it's dramatic!
Isaiah 53 in the King James Version of the Holy Bible:
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls-3.htm
Column VI
The Great Isaiah Scroll 6:7 to 7:15
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-6.htm
Verse 14: A Virgin: The Hebrew word in the text that is translated virgin is "almah." It has a definite article in Hebrew as can be seen in the last word in the first line in the Hebrew text above. It is "ha'almah" or literally "the virgin." Only after the beginning of the Christian dispensation did Jewish scholars insist that the word means a young woman who is not necessarily a virgin and therefore they say a virgin birth was not predicted. Irenaeus is the first one to answer that argument and his points have not been improved upon. One of the most telling arguments he uses is that the Septuagint translators not only translated the verse here but they told what it meant, to them, before the advent of Jesus. It is obvious from their translation that they believed that one who would be called "God with us" required a virgin birth.
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/7-8.htm#alma
-
Looks very different to me.
But if the meanings are the same then i guess you may have a point in this discussion. (you and c-82 can delve into that ;D)
But, it does go to show how translations will change.
-
Really? How do they look "very different" to you? I disagree, and so do both Jewish and non-Jewish scholars.
I think is amazing how you have two English translations coming from two different sources, the two different sources being about 1,000 years apart. They look very similar to me and the meaning of the text does not change or contradict.
BTW, this was only to answer your question about comparing the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah with the King James Version. This comparison has Isaiah 53, but this thread is about to Isaiah 7:14, for which I don't have a line by line comparison like this one.
I did include information about Isaiah 7:14 in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah at the bottom of my post above.
-
Don't get me wrong. i think it's remarkable it's this close.
But it's not exact.
Hopefully this will help yours and C-82 discussion about Isaiah.
-
Don't get me wrong. i think it's remarkable it's this close.
But it's not exact.
Hopefully this will help yours and C-82 discussion about Isaiah.
Here you go:
Isaiah 7:14 (King James Version) <--- Translated from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scripture
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel
Isaiah 7:14 (Great Isaiah Scroll)
(14) therefore [+YHWH+] [m..adonay] himself will give to you [{a sign}]
29.[{Behold}] the virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and he shall call his name Immanuel.
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm#c6
-
My dear loco, EVEN IF Isaiah were referring to a virgin birth, it is absolutely clear from Isaiah chapter 7 that he is talking about events to occur DURING THE REIGN OF KING AHAZ, not many centuries later.
Some chick (virgin or not - hold that thought) is pregnant, and before her child can tell right from wrong, Ahaz's two enemies will be destroyed. That is on the order of 12-18 years, say, not several centuries!
-
So Isaiah is talking to this king? Telling the king he will see a sign which is the virgin birth?
-
My dear loco, EVEN IF Isaiah were referring to a virgin birth, it is absolutely clear from Isaiah chapter 7 that he is talking about events to occur DURING THE REIGN OF KING AHAZ, not many centuries later.
Some chick (virgin or not - hold that thought) is pregnant, and before her child can tell right from wrong, Ahaz's two enemies will be destroyed. That is on the order of 12-18 years, say, not several centuries!
My dear columbusdude82, I will address that part shortly. I just wanted us to be clear that Isaiah 7:14 does say "virgin" in the Hebrew text and that the Greek version is a correct translation.
-
My dear columbusdude82, I will address that part shortly. I just wanted us to be clear that Isaiah 7:14 does say "virgin" in the Hebrew text and that the Greek version is a correct translation.
So, if the greek version is a correct translation, which translations are wrong?
-
Excellent link: http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html (http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html)
Here is what REAL Jews have to say on the matter (not Christians hiding behind a menorah pretending to be Jews).
I was going to copy the whole thing and paste it here, but I guess it's more convenient to have it as a link.
loco, I tend to defer to the Jews (the real ones) on such matters, because it's their prophecies and their holy books.
Trust me, it was really hard abandoning Christianity for me, but at some point, the intellectual, moral, and personal objections got too much...
-
Excellent link: http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html (http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html)
Here is what REAL Jews have to say on the matter (not Christians hiding behind a menorah pretending to be Jews).
I was going to copy the whole thing and paste it here, but I guess it's more convenient to have it as a link.
loco, I tend to defer to the Jews (the real ones) on such matters, because it's their prophecies and their holy books.
Trust me, it was really hard abandoning Christianity for me, but at some point, the intellectual, moral, and personal objections got too much...
So, Isaiah, the guys who wrote the Septuagint, the disciples, Paul, Simeon (the priest who saw Jesus as a baby and declared that prophecy was fulfilled and that He was the Messiah) aren't "real Jews"?
John wrote in his Gospel that Jesus went unto His own and they received Him not. So, it's not surprising that many Jews didn't (and don't) recognize Jesus as the Messiah. But, that certainly does not mean that the ones who did (and do today) aren't "real Jews". If they are of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they are Jewish, period.
-
Paul was the theological brain behind Christianity, and Simeon may or may not have been a real person, and if he was real, he may or may not have said what the NT said he did. There is no independent corroboration.
Isaiah was not talking about Jesus, we've been over that, and the guys who wrote the Septuagint, well, did they write it or just translate it from Hebrew to Greek? If they were just strictly translators, then it doesn't matter what they thought!
-
Paul was the theological brain behind Christianity, and Simeon may or may not have been a real person, and if he was real, he may or may not have said what the NT said he did. There is no independent corroboration.
Isaiah was not talking about Jesus, we've been over that, and the guys who wrote the Septuagint, well, did they write it or just translate it from Hebrew to Greek? If they were just strictly translators, then it doesn't matter what they thought!
You're were saying something about "squirming" on another thread....... ;D
Those were "real Jews" and they believed that Jesus was the Messiah. So, your initial claim about "real Jews" not believing that Jesus was the Messiah simple doesn't work. If Isaiah isn't talking about Jesus, when who is this alleged child born of a virgin (or who is this woman, who conceives this child, without having sex with a man)?
As far as the virgin birth goes, I thought I posted this earlier. But, usually when a woman is described as a virgin, the surrounding context indicates that she has not been with a man.
Mary states that in the gospel of Luke, when the angel tells her about giving birth to Jesus, How can this be, since I've not known a man?
Whoever claim that the Hebrew word, that is translated as virgin, may not have been such doesn't have much to support the charge.
Look at the description of Rebekah, Isaac's bride-to-be, in Genesis 24:16, The damsel was fair to look upon, a virgin. Neither had any man known her. The laws of the Levitical priests stated that their wives had to be virgins. They could not be profane women (sluts), harlots, divorcees, or widows.
-
Isaiah believed that Jesus was teh Messiah? I think rabbis the world over beg to disagree :)
Do you deny that there are lots of Jews out there who don't think Jesus is the Messiah?