Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hate to be stereotypical...

but Jews have to be God's chosen people...I mean they are so blesssed...

I have never heard of a homeless Jewish person! lol

Accountants, comedians, producers, etc
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Ann Coulter Wants Jews To Convert To Christianity Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
Dauphin wrote:


The Jewish law, which is incomplete, was intended for Jews. The living law, which is Christ, is intended for the world. The law is not abolished in Christ; it is fulfilled.

For example, Jews imitated God by keeping the Sabbath. As God rested on the seventh day, so did Jews. The Christian church doesn't keep the Jewish sabbath. A Jew might interpret that as meaning that Christ abolished the Sabbath, but this would be totally incorrect.

Christ described himself as "The Lord of the Sabbath". The entire purpose and meaning of the Sabbath is fulfilled in Him. We don't need the sabbath to imitate God; we have Christ. In imitating Him, the spirit of the Sabbath is fulfilled, even as the ritualistic observance is rendered obsolete.

Christ is the living Torah, the eternal word. This idea is put best in the opening to the Gospel According to John:
"In the beginning was the Word:
the Word was with God
and the Word was God
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things came into being,"

It is this Word that Christians adhere to. The Jewish law is but a foreshadowing of the living Law which is intended for the world.


None of these ideas are found in Torah - nowhere in the so-called "old testement" writings do we find these ideas that the messiah would be 'the law fulfilled' what to speak of him being God...if these ideas cannot be supported there - then - what the 'new testement' says on this subject - is moot. People would do well to understand who Jesus really is...

On the Book of John:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John


If direct confirmation of everything Christ said was contained in the Torah, what would be the purpose of Christ's public ministry? Does the Torah bar future divine revelation?
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Ann Coulter Wants Jews To Convert To Christianity Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
If direct confirmation of everything Christ said was contained in the Torah, what would be the purpose of Christ's public ministry? Does the Torah bar future divine revelation?


Well there is the issue that if we are to accept something as being sound Hebrew teaching - then - it ought to be verifiable from the Torah and other Hebrew writings.

Like the idea that the human messiah would be God incarnate - there is no basis for this teaching in the Hebrew tradition.

If the argument is that we have to accept 'future revelation' in this connection then we have to see that reflected in the Hebrew tradition as well and - we do not.

Here is one example of mistranslation and misinterpretation in this connection.

It is asserted that the messiah dies [is sacrificed] for everyone's sins - yet - the idea of original sin - isn't a Hebrew teaching - there are no texts in the Torah or other writings that support a transmission of sin from Adam to everyone else. In the Hebrew tradition Adam wasn't a literal person.

The idea that messiah would be crucified is based on a wrong translation of Psalms 22.17:

Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]:

So in the King James bible it reads this way:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way:

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the important words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse - to Jesus and his murder!

So the original Hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done?

The Hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the English as they pierced my hands and my feet].

That is a fact.

Another text that is oft misquoted to support the Crucifixion/messiah theory is Zechariah 13.6 which reads [in the hebrew Bible] like this:

And one shall say unto him: "What are these wounds between thy hands?' Then he shall answer: 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'

This text has nothing to do with Jesus nor the messiah! It has to do with false prophets of the line of the ancient Baal religion. These texts [Zechariah 13-6] in context may be a warning to false prophets - with the advent of/during the messianic age.

Literally "wounds between your hands." The false prophets like the prophet of Baal [I kings 18.28: And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with swords and lances, till the blood gushed out upon them] - apparently inflicted wounds on themselves - to defend against the accusation of being a false prophet - the idea was that a man would deny having inflicted wounds on himself - instead saying that he received them at home - "in the house of my dear ones."

So on the face of it when one takes the mistranslated Psalms 22.16 text and misapplies it with this Zecharaiah 13.6 quote - it may look like there is a seeming pattern which speaks of the murder of messiah - by Crucifixion - when in fact it doesn't in the least.

There is much much more to it than that! So let's start there.

Can you find 'old testement' quotes that teach 'original sin' and some [and not Isaiah's 'suffering servant' descriptions] that say anything about messiah having to come once die by Crucifixion for everyone's sins and come again 2000+ years later to complete the mission?

Since i bring up the Isaiah quotes let's look at this:

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. [Isaiah 53.10, King James version]

The same text from the Hebrew Bible reads quite differently and enters an interesting point about the messiah:

Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: [Isaiah 53.10, Hebrew Bible]

There is a significant difference contrasted in - to bruise him - and - to crush him by disease - obvious changes.

Also - when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin - contrasted to - to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution - this change goes to the heart of the false theory of original sin and false theory of messiah being a sacrifice for sin.

In text 3 of chapter 53 of Isaiah we read:

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. [Isaiah 53.3, King James version]

He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [Isaiah 53.3, Hebrew Bible]

Can you see all these specious changes there within the King James translation?

Why are these changes introduced?

It is that there was no reference to Jesus being a man of pains, and acquainted with disease - so instead - they changed it to - a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief - do keep in mind the changes to the later verse [10] - where it should read - it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease - however - it reads like this in the King James - it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief - so these are important disparities which all can see.

Messiah shall be someone who is diseased and - Jesus wasn't recorded in the gospels as being diseased - he is recorded as having cured them - of course - we can see in these texts what disease it may be - a clue:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53.4, King James version]

Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53.4, Hebrew Bible]

So "griefs" and "diseases" are two distinct states - and they aren't mutually exclusive states either.

In that text the change to "griefs" from "diseases" - is carried through but - one part remains the same - we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted - what these words - stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted - are traditionally speaking of - is skin disease - like leprosy etc., something quite different from "griefs" or "sorrows"!

So of course - another part should be explained in context to this - in text 5 we read:

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. [Isaiah 53.5, King James Version]

Whereas in the original it really reads:

But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. [Isaiah 53.5, Hebrew Bible]

Just see these changes - was "wounded" [not killed] and - "for" is quite different from "because of". This text does not support the theory that messiah shall 'have' to die for anyone's sins [how the sacrificial theory relates to the messianic age is another discussion] - what to speak of sins brought about by the non-biblical original sin theory.

There is also a change in the 'timing' - in the KJV we see it's 'with his stripes we are healed' - yet in the Hebrew it's 'with his stripes we were healed'

So that is all for now - anyone open-minded enough - will see these things...


Last edited by don muntean on Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:20 pm; edited 10 times in total
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a posting I did last year:

In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven away, and her that I have afflicted; And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a mighty nation; and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from thenceforth even for ever. [Micah 4.6-7]

Of course the messiah that is expected - shall not be seen through any second advent of Jesus - because Jesus isn't the prophetically expected [hebrew] messiah - the 'why not' part of that is discussed in detail in my last post above.

So it should be noted that the expected Hebrew messiah [a complex subject matter] - is a human being - not God - not an incarnation [partial or otherwise] he isn't a demigod - he isn't a 'supernatural' nor divine being at all. - though he is 'different' - in that he has a 'general soul' or - a 'slightly universal' soul.

He doesn't have magic powers. Like in the days of old - God shall work the wonders - during the messianic age.

So what are a few points about this - in the Prophetic tradition.

But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken. For let all the peoples walk each one in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. [Micah 4.4-5]

In that quote we see that the messianic age - shall be multi-faith.

But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel. [Micah 5.1-2]

In that quote we see that the Messiah's maternal roots could be traced to this place [Beth-lehem]. To say 'which art little to be among the thousands of Judah' indicates that this was an obscure place - not a place of greatness.

It is a misnomer that he is to be born in Beth-lehem - clearly the texts confirm he is born among the exiles.

In saying 'out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days' confirms that he has been reincarnating toward this point for a long time - 'whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days'.

We also see that Beth-lehem shall not be a part of a State of Israel 'until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth' or - he is born - the text says 'Therefore will He give them up' - so is He talking about Beth-lehem - the Hebrew people in exile [and thus Jerusalem] or - both?

The full point is 'Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - so 'them' identifies - both those in exile and - Beth-lehem.

So they 'shall return' to where - to an already renewed and infant State or - to just a geographical location or - both?

We must consider that were it not for Jesus and the Faith surrounding him - Beth-lehem would certainly have become a nearly deserted and forgotten place [by the time messiah is born somewhere in the exile] and - for Hebrews it [was] is an 'obscure place' a place of 'no mention'.

So we have to then ask - when did Beth-lehem again become part of a State of Israel?

It was on June 05, 1967 - so 'He [will] give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth and - that then should indicate that - he must have to be born just prior to that event.

Consider 'He [will] give them up until the time that she who is to give birth has given birth' - the word 'until' is important - so they are no longer 'given up' right after he is born and - if the messiah is to [alone] accomplish all this - how would he do so - as an infant child? So the use of 'until' means that as soon as he is born - no more position of being 'given up' or separated from the renewed State.

We can also add that the formal reclamation of all of Jerusalem could/would also coincide with this noted event:

Now why dost thou cry out aloud? Is there no King in thee, is thy Counsellor perished, that pangs have taken hold of thee as of a woman in travail? [Micah 4.9]

After that - there is this description in Zechariah 1.14-17:

...so the angel that spoke with me said unto me: 'Proclaim thou, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil. Therefore thus saith the LORD: I return to Jerusalem with compassions: My house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth over Jerusalem. Again, proclaim, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.

So that part - 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.' - that means that God is angry at the nations of the world for it's treatment of His exiled because He was 'but a little displeased' and yet the nations after the exile were to have 'helped for evil' [or helped forward the afflictions] and they were 'at ease' with doing so - thus God says 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy' - so when we see fruition of the Micah 5.1-2 events we see that God permits all of Jerusalem to be again under an Israeli State.

The State of Israel was first reclaimed after WWII - after the well known last general pogrom [directly under the Nazis and other's indirectly] came to an end - as noted in that quote God thinks that the world could have done more to prevent so much loss and instead they were 'at ease' with the Nazis - for too long - and God sanctioned this renewal - but - with this renewed State - there was a line as it were through [dividing] Jerusalem - until 1967.

It should be mentioned that many propagandists have taken Zechariah 14.2 - 'For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, but the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.' - to mean that there shall be a future war there and 'the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city' - but this not so - as that was fulfilled in 30 C.E. - with the Exile - it should be noted that Muslim rulers later allowed the reestablishment of a Jewish community in Jerusalem thus 'the residue of the people [that] shall not be cut off from the city' means that even after the exile the people were being enabled by God - for a return to a former status as a State or - the end of the Exile!

In text 3-4 we read that sometime after the exile comes "The Day of the Lord" - we note this point in texts three and four:

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fighteth in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleft in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, so that there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

So God indeed left mercy and an open door through this 'residue of the people [that] shall not be cut off from the city' - so that means that at some point [after the 30 C.E. exile] - the residue of the exile again comes to Jerusalem.

Additionally - if the world ends up in a sorry state over this point - there may well come this 'visit' - that produces a mountain dividing earthquake - so - in text 7 we read - And there shall be one day which shall be known as the LORD'S, not day, and not night; but it shall come to pass, that at evening time there shall be light. - of course we 'everyone' have choices - that impact everything.

So to the point again - there must have been a State of Israel - already in existence and intended by God - before the time of his birth - as noted by 'then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - it means that there is a State for him and his family and 'the children of Israel' to return to.

So yes these are my humble interpretations but - it could well be that he is already here - what aspects of the future of the State of Israel [and the world] are to be impacted by his appearance - is another discussion.

One thing is sure - whenever it is that he is born - there must have to be a State of Israel - already in existence and intended by God [with a securing of Beth-lehem and [all of] Jerusalem with the timing of his birth] - before the time of his birth - as noted by 'then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - it means that there is already a State for him and 'the residue of his family' and 'the children of Israel' to return to.

We can see within this last quote [and through the other's so far] that there is a clear allusion to an existing Jerusalem and State - to the seeming surprise of God [and the remnant of the people who later begin to return] some time before messiah is born - further - we've seen that God is to show-up in anger - which is noted as being - directed toward the nations - for their helping forward the afflictions of His exiled - when He was 'only a little displeased' - so - at the end of the last and worst pogrom [nazi] God indeed 'showed up' to reclaim Jerusalem and - as expected and 'planned' - He was 'surprised' to see some of His exiled - already there and - because He was sore displeased with the nations - for their 'at ease' adventures in the continual pogroms - He was pleased with finding some remnant of His exiled there and He thus began the process - for messiah to be born and - coinciding it with the removal of the dividing-line through Jerusalem [in June 1967]:

And the word of the LORD of hosts came, saying:

'Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great fury. Thus saith the LORD: I return unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and Jerusalem shall be called The city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts The holy mountain. Thus saith the LORD of hosts: There shall yet old men and old women sit in the broad places of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age. And the broad places of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the broad places thereof. Thus saith the LORD of hosts: If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvellous in Mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts. [Zechariah 8.1-6]


Last edited by don muntean on Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

westmanguy wrote:
I hate to be stereotypical...

but Jews have to be God's chosen people...I mean they are so blesssed...

I have never heard of a homeless Jewish person! lol

Accountants, comedians, producers, etc


That's absurd... :roll:
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My goodness! That's alot of material. This discussion is moving far beyond the scope of a forum. Perusing your posts, there are two things I want to say:

1. I'm not interested in the translations of the King James Bible. It is not approved by the Magisterium. I'd prefer if you quote from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome and its direct english translation, the Douay-Rheims. It's online here: http://www.drbo.org/

2. "So it should be noted that the expected hebrew messiah [a complex subject matter] - is a human being". That's an interesting objection, since Christ is a human being.

If I have a few hours to read through and study your arguments, I may respond in the future. It's unreasonable, though, to expect me to be able to respond adequately to these objections right now. I'd need to examine the veracity of the Hebrew translations for myself. I'm much more used to debating protestants who agree with Catholic interpretations of the Old Testament, or athiests who don't care. If you're seriously looking for a debate, you should consider posting on the forums at catholic.com, under the apologetics section. There are tons of people there who are quite a bit more knowledgeable then me and have alot more time on their hands. :P
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
My goodness! That's alot of material. This discussion is moving far beyond the scope of a forum. Perusing your posts, there are two things I want to say:

1. I'm not interested in the translations of the King James Bible. I'd prefer if you quote from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome and its direct english translation, the Douay-Rheims. It's online here: http://www.drbo.org/

2. "So it should be noted that the expected hebrew messiah [a complex subject matter] - is a human being". That's an interesting objection, since Christ is a human being.

If I have a few hours to read through and study your arguments, I may respond in the future. It's unreasonable, though, to expect me to be able to respond adequately to these objections. If you're seriously looking for a debate, you should consider posting on the forums at catholic.com, under the apologetics section. There are tons of people there who are quite a bit more knowledgeable then me and have alot more time on their hands. :P


Well I'll go with the Hebrew translations of the Hebrew texts - it's obvious why...as for taking time to review my quotes - they are quite straightforward and should take only a few minutes to read...I'm not looking for any debate - the question was entered here more than once as to why Hebrews reject the notion that Jesus is the messiah - so - I presented some information on why that is. That's all...
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
Dauphin wrote:
My goodness! That's alot of material. This discussion is moving far beyond the scope of a forum. Perusing your posts, there are two things I want to say:

1. I'm not interested in the translations of the King James Bible. I'd prefer if you quote from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome and its direct english translation, the Douay-Rheims. It's online here: http://www.drbo.org/

2. "So it should be noted that the expected hebrew messiah [a complex subject matter] - is a human being". That's an interesting objection, since Christ is a human being.

If I have a few hours to read through and study your arguments, I may respond in the future. It's unreasonable, though, to expect me to be able to respond adequately to these objections. If you're seriously looking for a debate, you should consider posting on the forums at catholic.com, under the apologetics section. There are tons of people there who are quite a bit more knowledgeable then me and have alot more time on their hands. :P


Well I'll go with the Hebrew translations of the Hebrew texts - it's obvious why...as for taking time to review my quotes - they are quite straightforward and should take only a few minutes to read...I'm not looking for any debate - the question was entered here more than once as to why Hebrews reject the notion that Jesus is the messiah - so - I presented some information on why that is. That's all...


It takes a few minutes to read, but a few hours to verify and study. I can't just take your word that the Jews translate things better.

It's a little strange to throw so much material at someone without expecting a response.
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
I'm not looking for any debate - the question was entered here more than once as to why Hebrews reject the notion that Jesus is the messiah - so - I presented some information on why that is. That's all...


Alright. I'll just post a general response, then:

"An Answer to the Jews" by Tertullian:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.htm

Chapters 9, 10 and 11 deal with Old Testament prophesy.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
don muntean wrote:
Dauphin wrote:
My goodness! That's alot of material. This discussion is moving far beyond the scope of a forum. Perusing your posts, there are two things I want to say:

1. I'm not interested in the translations of the King James Bible. I'd prefer if you quote from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome and its direct english translation, the Douay-Rheims. It's online here: http://www.drbo.org/

2. "So it should be noted that the expected hebrew messiah [a complex subject matter] - is a human being". That's an interesting objection, since Christ is a human being.

If I have a few hours to read through and study your arguments, I may respond in the future. It's unreasonable, though, to expect me to be able to respond adequately to these objections. If you're seriously looking for a debate, you should consider posting on the forums at catholic.com, under the apologetics section. There are tons of people there who are quite a bit more knowledgeable then me and have alot more time on their hands. :P


Well I'll go with the Hebrew translations of the Hebrew texts - it's obvious why...as for taking time to review my quotes - they are quite straightforward and should take only a few minutes to read...I'm not looking for any debate - the question was entered here more than once as to why Hebrews reject the notion that Jesus is the messiah - so - I presented some information on why that is. That's all...


It takes a few minutes to read, but a few hours to verify and study. I can't just take your word that the Jews translate things better.

It's a little strange to throw so much material at someone without expecting a response.


A response doesn't have to be a debate...it can be a discussion.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
don muntean wrote:
I'm not looking for any debate - the question was entered here more than once as to why Hebrews reject the notion that Jesus is the messiah - so - I presented some information on why that is. That's all...


Alright. I'll just post a general response, then:

"An Answer to the Jews" by Tertullian:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.htm

Chapters 9, 10 and 11 deal with Old Testament prophesy.


Don't those writers know how to compose paragraphs? :roll:

In any event - [among the errors] the same mistranslation of Psalms 22.17 is reflected there in that discussion. The discussion is much more apologetics and much less sound interpretation of the Hebrew texts...


Last edited by don muntean on Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
I can't just take your word that the Jews translate things better.


:roll:
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as my knowledge goes (which is limited) the Bible says Jews are the chosen people....

Am I reading the Bible wrong? :?
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don said:
Quote:
Why do Jews reject Jesus as the Hebrew messiah? Most people don't understand scriptures well enough to understand the reasons...others won't try to understand for various reasons.


I have read books on the subject. It makes for fascinating study but it really comes down to a choice. Jewish scholars who have converted argue for the divinity of Christ just as well as Jewish scholars argue against it. The 22nd Psalm is a good example.

Quote:
The twenty-second psalm continues to ignite controversy, in the dialogues between Christians and Jews, concerning the messiahship of Yeshua of Nazareth. The crux of this dispute reaches critical mass in verse 17 (16 in Christian editions), which many Christians translate, "They have pierced my hands and my feet." Jewish translations adhere to the majority reading within the family of the Masoretic text, "like a lion are my hands and feet." In the midst of the fierce clash, it is indisputable that this psalm, whether reading from the Christian or Jewish editions, bears remarkable similarities to the crucifixion of Yeshua of Nazareth, as depicted in the Gospels.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
Quote:
I can't just take your word that the Jews translate things better.


Don replied :roll:

The Psalm 22 debate has been finalized with the publication of the Dead sea scrolls. The Christian defintion is the correct one.

Quote:
In 1947, a discovery of a collection of ancient texts would revolutionize our understanding of the Bible, Judaism and Christianity. About If there is one place in this entire debate where one may find an unbiased source, it is the Dead Sea Scrolls. Separated from the debates of Jews and Christians, the Dead Sea Scrolls represent an independent witness to the Hebrew text. The discovery of the scrolls attest to the accuracy of the transmission of the Hebrew Bible, throughout the centuries, however, they also note a variety of textual variants. One of the places where the Dead Sea Scrolls differ from the Masoretic Text is in Psalm 22:16(17). The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated by Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich notes,


Quote:
"Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic text has "Like a lion are my hands and feet," whereas the Septuagint has "They have pierced my hands and feet." Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads, "They have pierced my hands and my feet"!"
Abegg, Flint and Ulrich, The Dead Sead Sea Scrolls Bible, pg. 519


http://www.messianicart.com/ch.....salm22.htm
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Ann Coulter Wants Jews To Convert To Christianity

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB