Religion

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:25 am UTC

westcydr wrote:Hmm, except that during the time Jesus would have had to exist, there were not yet translations of the Torah that were doctored to make them look like they had anything to do with him... weird, huh? Now, there were very likely Greek and Roman stories of virgin births around, and gods making babies in ladies, but they were not, and are not, Torah.


This is a very bold claim. Do you have anything to back it up?

The thing is that the Jewish community, at the time, and in fact at all times, worked painstakingly to ensure that the origonal doctrine of the Torah remained constant. I would ask, when did these altercations take place, and at what point did the Jewish community allow the Torah to be changed retroactively for the betterment of Christianity? I'm very curious to know what actual evidence you have to support this claim beyond wild speculation.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Religion

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:30 am UTC

The only greek legend I can think of pertaining to virgin birth was Dionysis, hardly someone Jesus would have tried to model himself after (well, he did make wine...)

I'm curious what passaged in the Torah you believe imply Jesus was the messiah though?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:35 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I'm curious what passaged in the Torah you believe imply Jesus was the messiah though?


I'll save myself some writing with a Google Search. Heads up, I haven't looked in depth at this specific website.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Messianic-Prophecy.htm

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby westcydr » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:47 am UTC

Jonolith wrote:
westcydr wrote:Hmm, except that during the time Jesus would have had to exist, there were not yet translations of the Torah that were doctored to make them look like they had anything to do with him... weird, huh? Now, there were very likely Greek and Roman stories of virgin births around, and gods making babies in ladies, but they were not, and are not, Torah.


This is a very bold claim. Do you have anything to back it up?

The thing is that the Jewish community, at the time, and in fact at all times, worked painstakingly to ensure that the origonal doctrine of the Torah remained constant. I would ask, when did these altercations take place, and at what point did the Jewish community allow the Torah to be changed retroactively for the betterment of Christianity? I'm very curious to know what actual evidence you have to support this claim beyond wild speculation.

You are correct, JEWS did not alter it, the people who created, over centuries, modern Christianity, did, and since we are bringing web sites to prove points here, try this one:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:35 am UTC

westcydr wrote:
Jonolith wrote:
westcydr wrote:Hmm, except that during the time Jesus would have had to exist, there were not yet translations of the Torah that were doctored to make them look like they had anything to do with him... weird, huh? Now, there were very likely Greek and Roman stories of virgin births around, and gods making babies in ladies, but they were not, and are not, Torah.


This is a very bold claim. Do you have anything to back it up?

The thing is that the Jewish community, at the time, and in fact at all times, worked painstakingly to ensure that the origonal doctrine of the Torah remained constant. I would ask, when did these altercations take place, and at what point did the Jewish community allow the Torah to be changed retroactively for the betterment of Christianity? I'm very curious to know what actual evidence you have to support this claim beyond wild speculation.

You are correct, JEWS did not alter it, the people who created, over centuries, modern Christianity, did, and since we are bringing web sites to prove points here, try this one:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org


I'm not really seeing any evidence being produced on this website that backs up your claim. For the most part this seems to be a Jewish propaganda site which operates specifically against Christian Missionaries. Perhaps I'm simply missing a link inside this link, if you'd like to provide it. The claim that the Bible was altered and the the current representation of the Torah is different then the christian old testement is a large one.

User avatar
Aluminus
Posts: 1337
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:51 pm UTC
Location: View From Space

Re: Religion

Postby Aluminus » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:39 am UTC

A tablet was found a few years ago with an inscription...
Time.com wrote:Knohl, who was not involved in the first research on the artifact, claims that it refers to a historic first-century Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C., and should read "In three days, you shall live. I Gabriel command you." If so, Jesus-era Judaism had begun to explore the idea of the three-day resurrection before Jesus was born.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 76,00.html
fyrenwater wrote:Oh dear God, I just imagined this horrible scenario of a psychotic non-people-person running around, trying to steal the people-person section of people-peoples' brains to implant into their own brain.

ndansmith
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Religion

Postby ndansmith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:48 am UTC

westcydr wrote:Hmm, except that during the time Jesus would have had to exist, there were not yet translations of the Torah that were doctored to make them look like they had anything to do with him... weird, huh? Now, there were very likely Greek and Roman stories of virgin births around, and gods making babies in ladies, but they were not, and are not, Torah.

So I am guessing that this is related to the translation in Isaiah 7 of "young woman" as parthenos ("virgin") in the Old Greek (aka Septuagint). Is that the case? I wonder if there is any textual evidence that the translation was made that way by Christians. If not, it would mean that Alexandrian Jews actually did the "virgin" translation, so the Christian redaction theory would be kaput. Are there other passages of Torah you are thinking of? And are we talking about the Torah only, or the entire Tanak?

I will take a look at textual evidence later and see what I can find.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby westcydr » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Jonolith wrote:
westcydr wrote:
Jonolith wrote:
westcydr wrote:Hmm, except that during the time Jesus would have had to exist, there were not yet translations of the Torah that were doctored to make them look like they had anything to do with him... weird, huh? Now, there were very likely Greek and Roman stories of virgin births around, and gods making babies in ladies, but they were not, and are not, Torah.


This is a very bold claim. Do you have anything to back it up?

The thing is that the Jewish community, at the time, and in fact at all times, worked painstakingly to ensure that the origonal doctrine of the Torah remained constant. I would ask, when did these altercations take place, and at what point did the Jewish community allow the Torah to be changed retroactively for the betterment of Christianity? I'm very curious to know what actual evidence you have to support this claim beyond wild speculation.

You are correct, JEWS did not alter it, the people who created, over centuries, modern Christianity, did, and since we are bringing web sites to prove points here, try this one:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org


I'm not really seeing any evidence being produced on this website that backs up your claim. For the most part this seems to be a Jewish propaganda site which operates specifically against Christian Missionaries. Perhaps I'm simply missing a link inside this link, if you'd like to provide it. The claim that the Bible was altered and the the current representation of the Torah is different then the christian old testement is a large one.
Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong, but in no place did I say that the current "representation" of the Torah has changed. I claim that the translations and explanations Christianity has used to try to place Jesus into the Torah have always been out of context, or simply wrong (mistranslations). If you go onto that site, you will see the Jewish responses to the hundreds of claims that Christians make in regards to how Jesus "fits in" to the Torah (and Tanach, which includes more than just the five books of Moses). Why do you consider responsding to missionaries "propaganda"? "response to propaganda" maybe, but I guess what I call propaganda, you might call a valid way of expressing love for Jesus..
As for the other questioner, even modern Christian translations of the passage have stopped using the word "virgin" in English...
For the Jewish answer about the word "alma", and a link on that site going past the main page (the site is a bit of a pain to navigate)..
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.html
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

ndansmith
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Religion

Postby ndansmith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:33 am UTC

westcydr wrote:As for the other questioner, even modern Christian translations of the passage have stopped using the word "virgin" in English...
For the Jewish answer about the word "alma", and a link on that site going past the main page (the site is a bit of a pain to navigate)..
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.html

Thanks for the link. Some modern translations have stopped (e.g. NRSV), but not all.

It is, needless to say, a rather complex issue. Matthew is clearly not citing the passage in its original sense. The "Emmanuel" sign definitely related to providing a prophetic sign to Ahaz as to when "the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" (namely Aram and the Northern Kingdom). What he does seem to be doing is using this language as a type - indicating how this past action of God prefigured a future action. And in this second occurrence, he can take advantage of the fact that the Greek says παρθενος and that Mary was indeed a virgin. That is, by quoting this as a fulfillment, I do not think that Matthew is saying that the original meaning in Isaiah 7:14 is "virgin." That would, of course, be an stretch, given that passage's context.

As for a Christian "mistranslation" of Isaiah 7:14, that is another matter. Matthew quoted word-for-word from the Septuagint (changing the number of a verb from singular to plural). There is no evidence of a textual variant in that passage (just checked in Rahlf's LXX). This means that in all likelihood it was Jewish scribes in Alexandria who originally translated העלמה as η παρθενος. Also note that the LXX was finished before the birth of Jesus. So, if this is a mistranslation, it would be pretty hard to pin it on the Christians. :wink:

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby westcydr » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:22 am UTC

ndansmith wrote:
westcydr wrote:As for the other questioner, even modern Christian translations of the passage have stopped using the word "virgin" in English...
For the Jewish answer about the word "alma", and a link on that site going past the main page (the site is a bit of a pain to navigate)..
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.html

Thanks for the link. Some modern translations have stopped (e.g. NRSV), but not all.

It is, needless to say, a rather complex issue. Matthew is clearly not citing the passage in its original sense. The "Emmanuel" sign definitely related to providing a prophetic sign to Ahaz as to when "the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" (namely Aram and the Northern Kingdom). What he does seem to be doing is using this language as a type - indicating how this past action of God prefigured a future action. And in this second occurrence, he can take advantage of the fact that the Greek says παρθενος and that Mary was indeed a virgin. That is, by quoting this as a fulfillment, I do not think that Matthew is saying that the original meaning in Isaiah 7:14 is "virgin." That would, of course, be an stretch, given that passage's context.

As for a Christian "mistranslation" of Isaiah 7:14, that is another matter. Matthew quoted word-for-word from the Septuagint (changing the number of a verb from singular to plural). There is no evidence of a textual variant in that passage (just checked in Rahlf's LXX). This means that in all likelihood it was Jewish scribes in Alexandria who originally translated העלמה as η παρθενος. Also note that the LXX was finished before the birth of Jesus. So, if this is a mistranslation, it would be pretty hard to pin it on the Christians. :wink:

You have a point.. Except that the Rabbis only rendered the first five books into Greek, the rest of the Septuagint of which you speak is a result of other translators.
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:50 am UTC

westcydr wrote:Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong, but in no place did I say that the current "representation" of the Torah has changed.


This is your exact quote in your first post.

Hmm, except that during the time Jesus would have had to exist, there were not yet translations of the Torah that were doctored to make them look like they had anything to do with him... weird, huh? Now, there were very likely Greek and Roman stories of virgin births around, and gods making babies in ladies, but they were not, and are not, Torah.


You are making the claim that Christians have CHANGED the Torah (The Christian Old Testement) from it's origonal text. This is a vast and sweeping claim to make. You have not said "Christians take things out of context" here, you have said plainly that Christians have "doctored" the text of the Bible. Now, you either have proof of this, or you are intentionally misleading people with this statement, or you've simply misrepresented accidentally.

Frankly, I agree with you that Christians will often times fall back on rhetoric and dogma to explain complex issues rather then attempting to think about them and find any kind of intelligent solution. Close reading of a well translated Bible is key to the understanding of Christ and God, and any translational errors should be fixed and if that takes down a Christian Theology, then hooray.

For the Jewish answer about the word "alma", and a link on that site going past the main page (the site is a bit of a pain to navigate)..
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.html


Honestly, I could care less about a virgin birth or not. Immaculate conception isn't really key to me believing in Christ and his actions. If every instance of "Virgin" is replaced with "Young Girl" in the Bible then that means that the emmaculate conception theology falls flat, but it does not hurt the position of Jesus at all. In fact, i would argue that it makes him even MORE human that way. That his birth, rather then being a miracle, is tied up in a far more complex human issue.

You're too used to talking to Christians who're entrenched in Orthodoxy and Rhetoric. I'm next gen and shizz yo... wiggy. :wink:

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby VannA » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am UTC

Jono - earlier you identified yourself as Arianistic in your interpretations, then states you believe lots of people hold that position..

But Arianism in any of the populated churchs was wiped out..

I'm just curious, as there is nothing I can find to support the claim that even 'lots' of christians deny the trinitarian nature of christianity.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby westcydr » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:18 am UTC

Jonolith wrote:
westcydr wrote:Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong, but in no place did I say that the current "representation" of the Torah has changed.


This is your exact quote in your first post.

Hmm, except that during the time Jesus would have had to exist, there were not yet translations of the Torah that were doctored to make them look like they had anything to do with him... weird, huh? Now, there were very likely Greek and Roman stories of virgin births around, and gods making babies in ladies, but they were not, and are not, Torah.


You are making the claim that Christians have CHANGED the Torah (The Christian Old Testement) from it's origonal text. This is a vast and sweeping claim to make. You have not said "Christians take things out of context" here, you have said plainly that Christians have "doctored" the text of the Bible. Now, you either have proof of this, or you are intentionally misleading people with this statement, or you've simply misrepresented accidentally.

Frankly, I agree with you that Christians will often times fall back on rhetoric and dogma to explain complex issues rather then attempting to think about them and find any kind of intelligent solution. Close reading of a well translated Bible is key to the understanding of Christ and God, and any translational errors should be fixed and if that takes down a Christian Theology, then hooray.

For the Jewish answer about the word "alma", and a link on that site going past the main page (the site is a bit of a pain to navigate)..
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.html


Honestly, I could care less about a virgin birth or not. Immaculate conception isn't really key to me believing in Christ and his actions. If every instance of "Virgin" is replaced with "Young Girl" in the Bible then that means that the emmaculate conception theology falls flat, but it does not hurt the position of Jesus at all. In fact, i would argue that it makes him even MORE human that way. That his birth, rather then being a miracle, is tied up in a far more complex human issue.

You're too used to talking to Christians who're entrenched in Orthodoxy and Rhetoric. I'm next gen and shizz yo... wiggy. :wink:

What i am saying is that the "old testament" is an altered version of the Jewish texts, and never has been the same. WHen a Christian says anything about the "Torah", they mean the altered version that they have been using, NOT the actual Torah of the Jews. According to th Torah, at best, assuming anything about Jesus actually occurred at all, he was a false messiah (and there have been a few of those through history).
Christianity's "Old Testament" is a mistranslation of the Torah, and every connection to Jesus that was "found" is either out of context, even for the OT, or one of the many places where Hellenists or Christians deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew of the Tanach (which includes the Torah).
...But if the connection of Jesus to the Torah isnot your shizz, as you seem to imply, then how are you even a Christian?
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

ndansmith
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Religion

Postby ndansmith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:18 pm UTC

westcydr wrote:You have a point.. Except that the Rabbis only rendered the first five books into Greek, the rest of the Septuagint of which you speak is a result of other translators.

In any case, those other translators were not Christians, because there was no Jesus yet. :)

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Religion

Postby oxoiron » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:20 pm UTC

Jonolith wrote:
oxoiron wrote:
Jonolith wrote:There's an interesting theory that [Jesus] was a Divine Being, and then was distilled of his Divinity entirely, including Divine Knowledge, to be born on earth, and then was given his Divinity back upon his death.
I've heard that one before with the exception of the divine knowledge part. I agree that he would have to give up his physical divinity to suffer and die, but how would he know all about his own future if he gave up his mental divinity? Before things happened, he predicted he would be denied (Peter), betrayed (Judas), executed (Rome) and resurrected (Dad). I suppose you could argue that having knowledge of future events doesn't make one divine, especially if you believe in other prophets who were accurate about the future, although presumably not divine.
That's the best part... He read it in the Torah. It's all right there.
Lets assume that Jesus figured out his special nature by reading prophecies about himself (on a side note, did average Joes Jews learn to read back then?). Does the Torah tell how to perform miracles or are those stories apocryphal or did the big man upstairs do them and let Jesus pretend that he did or is there some other explanation?
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby westcydr » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:03 pm UTC

ndansmith wrote:
westcydr wrote:You have a point.. Except that the Rabbis only rendered the first five books into Greek, the rest of the Septuagint of which you speak is a result of other translators.

In any case, those other translators were not Christians, because there was no Jesus yet. :)

They were hellenists, and fond of the greek style of story, tradgedies with demigods, children of a woman and a god, and all of the fixins that make for a story style of the same type as the great fictions of the era, or a religion, if you are Paul, or more recently, L Ron Hubbard.
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:43 pm UTC

westcydr wrote:What i am saying is that the "old testament" is an altered version of the Jewish texts, and never has been the same.


And I'm asking for any evidence of that. The Torah and the Christian Old Testement are identical. The only potential differences you'll find will be small mistranslation errors that exists in BOTH the Torah AND the Old Testement, such as this "alma" business. The only reason this potential translational error has been latched onto by the Jewish Church and not the Christian Church is because it's a Christian Theology. The Jewish Church may well be correct, and if they are then the Christian Church would be foolish to hang onto the Theology of the Virgin Birth. The texts, and their proper tranlations, are more important then a Theology built from misinterpretation. But this isn't "altered" text, this is a text in transition and translation.

There are many organizations which contain Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars that are working to rectify these minor mistranslations to bring as much meaning to people who aren't speaking in the origonal language as they can. For example, recenty the passes "You will not Kill" has been changed to "You will not Murder" which is far closer to the actual meaning of the passage.

WHen a Christian says anything about the "Torah", they mean the altered version that they have been using, NOT the actual Torah of the Jews.


This is an incredible generalization, which is incorrect, and which you have given no actual support for beyond simply saying it. Just because some people mistook the word "Young Woman" for "Virgin" doesn't bring down the church.

According to th Torah, at best, assuming anything about Jesus actually occurred at all, he was a false messiah (and there have been a few of those through history).


Again, support that. You say alot of things and don't bother supporting any of them with any kind of actual support. I'm not saying I have all the answers but at least I'm attempting to provide some kind of scriptual and historical backing to my comments.

Christianity's "Old Testament" is a mistranslation of the Torah, and every connection to Jesus that was "found" is either out of context, even for the OT, or one of the many places where Hellenists or Christians deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew of the Tanach (which includes the Torah).


You keep talking about "Deliberate Mistranslation". Can you support this? I'll agree that mistranslations occur, but there are multiple societies dedicated to translating the Bible to get the best possible meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_tran ... ern_period
A Basic Wikipedia Search tells me this.

I'm not going to deny that there are organizations who will take what they want from the Bible, but there are ALSO organizations who drink poisoned coolaid.

...But if the connection of Jesus to the Torah isnot your shizz, as you seem to imply, then how are you even a Christian?


I never said that I'm disinterested in connecting Jesus to the Torah, I'm just not going to force it in places where it doesn't belong. For example, this "Alma" business. If the word was indeed "Young Girl" and not "Virgin" then it is foolish to create a theology based on immaculate conception, which is hardly central to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Of course, that's a mind that only works if it's universal. If the Torah says "Virgin" and the New Testement says "Young Woman" or vice versa then there's a difficulty that needs to be looked into.
Last edited by Jonolith on Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:47 pm UTC

VannA wrote:Jono - earlier you identified yourself as Arianistic in your interpretations, then states you believe lots of people hold that position..

But Arianism in any of the populated churchs was wiped out..

I'm just curious, as there is nothing I can find to support the claim that even 'lots' of christians deny the trinitarian nature of christianity.


A Basic Wiki Search Tells Me This...

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

Saying Arminianism was wiped out is alot like saying Calvinism was wiped out. I need to stress, again and again, belief is always personal. Just because they're called "Baptists" doesn't mean a whole lot unless you go in for lables.

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:55 pm UTC

oxoiron wrote:Lets assume that Jesus figured out his special nature by reading prophecies about himself (on a side note, did average Joes Jews learn to read back then?). Does the Torah tell how to perform miracles or are those stories apocryphal or did the big man upstairs do them and let Jesus pretend that he did or is there some other explanation?


Well the OT is filled with stories of individuals who had the ability to call down miracles from God, so Jesus could conclude that doing such a thing would be possible. And Miracles have always been presented as God doing things through people. It's no different for Jesus, and it's not like he misrepresented himself. He talked about God ALOT. It's clear to me that any miracle that came out of Jesus was a combination of what Jesus wanted to DO and the power of God.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby westcydr » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:23 pm UTC

Jonolith wrote:
westcydr wrote:What i am saying is that the "old testament" is an altered version of the Jewish texts, and never has been the same.


And I'm asking for any evidence of that. The Torah and the Christian Old Testement are identical. The only potential differences you'll find will be small mistranslation errors that exists in BOTH the Torah AND the Old Testement, such as this "alma" business. The only reason this potential translational error has been latched onto by the Jewish Church and not the Christian Church is because it's a Christian Theology. The Jewish Church may well be correct, and if they are then the Christian Church would be foolish to hang onto the Theology of the Virgin Birth. The texts, and their proper tranlations, are more important then a Theology built from misinterpretation. But this isn't "altered" text, this is a text in transition and translation.

There are many organizations which contain Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars that are working to rectify these minor mistranslations to bring as much meaning to people who aren't speaking in the origonal language as they can. For example, recenty the passes "You will not Kill" has been changed to "You will not Murder" which is far closer to the actual meaning of the passage.

WHen a Christian says anything about the "Torah", they mean the altered version that they have been using, NOT the actual Torah of the Jews.


This is an incredible generalization, which is incorrect, and which you have given no actual support for beyond simply saying it. Just because some people mistook the word "Young Woman" for "Virgin" doesn't bring down the church.

According to th Torah, at best, assuming anything about Jesus actually occurred at all, he was a false messiah (and there have been a few of those through history).


Again, support that. You say alot of things and don't bother supporting any of them with any kind of actual support. I'm not saying I have all the answers but at least I'm attempting to provide some kind of scriptual and historical backing to my comments.

Christianity's "Old Testament" is a mistranslation of the Torah, and every connection to Jesus that was "found" is either out of context, even for the OT, or one of the many places where Hellenists or Christians deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew of the Tanach (which includes the Torah).


You keep talking about "Deliberate Mistranslation". Can you support this? I'll agree that mistranslations occur, but there are multiple societies dedicated to translating the Bible to get the best possible meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_tran ... ern_period
A Basic Wikipedia Search tells me this.

I'm not going to deny that there are organizations who will take what they want from the Bible, but there are ALSO organizations who drink poisoned coolaid.

...But if the connection of Jesus to the Torah isnot your shizz, as you seem to imply, then how are you even a Christian?


I never said that I'm disinterested in connecting Jesus to the Torah, I'm just not going to force it in places where it doesn't belong. For example, this "Alma" business. If the word was indeed "Young Girl" and not "Virgin" then it is foolish to create a theology based on immaculate conception, which is hardly central to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Of course, that's a mind that only works if it's universal. If the Torah says "Virgin" and the New Testament says "Young Woman" or vice versa then there's a difficulty that needs to be looked into.
Show me where any religious Jews are saying that the Jewish texts have errors that need to be fixed. You really won't find any. The translations that Christians have used (to Greek and English) are in constant flux because people keep finding that things were translated wrong. Of course, no translation can be 100% accurate, because the language roots for Hebrew and English are different. There is no one "right" translation, but there are several "wrong" translations, the most popular being the KJV. If you want proof of the discrepancies between the Translations Jews use and Christians use, just take them side by side. Yes, an immaculate conception theology would be, and is, foolish to make based on a mistranslation. At the time it was done, the idea of virgin births was in vogue, and the vast majority of people who followed it did not read Hebrew, Latin, Greek, or any other language. Only in the past several centuries (mostly this century) did the idea of actually going back and looking at the Hebrew seem sensible to Christians. This is why many of the "proofs" of Jesus in the "OT" will not even add up in the modern Christian translations. I have seen the "100 proofs" pages, and the "300 proofs" pages, and the simple refutations of every last one of them, you can google to find them. When I have the time, I would be happy to go over the wikis, find the sources, and work with the sources, if they have any legitimacy. After all, I can write a Wiki right now that says anything I want, so the sources are more important than the words.
Anyway, the point is, Christians, in the never ending efforts (20 centuries and counting) have cooked up hundreds of arguments (some with words, others with physical force) to try to corce Jews to convert to Christianity, and yet somehow, There are still Jews around..
Occasionally, even when someone is not actively coming at us missionary style, one of us will comment on a Christian that tries to Use any aspect of Judaism towards the goal of preaching Jesus. I do not care what you think about your religion, but I do care what you imply about mine.
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:17 pm UTC

westcydr wrote:Show me where any religious Jews are saying that the Jewish texts have errors that need to be fixed. You really won't find any.


I gave you a great example. "Kill" being changed to "murder". Jewish scholars did that one. You've also given me an example of your own. "Alma" being "Young Woman" instead of "Virgin." You're basically saying "Jews are perfect and Christians aren't" which is just a silly thing to say.

The translations that Christians have used (to Greek and English) are in constant flux because people keep finding that things were translated wrong. Of course, no translation can be 100% accurate, because the language roots for Hebrew and English are different. There is no one "right" translation, but there are several "wrong" translations, the most popular being the KJV.


To be FAIR to King James, he wanted that book translated so that he could read it and he wanted it to sound good. He wasn't terribly interested in getting the translation 100%. He wanted something to read before going to bed, and he was curious about the Bible. It was never really intended to be widespread.

If you want proof of the discrepancies between the Translations Jews use and Christians use, just take them side by side. Yes, an immaculate conception theology would be, and is, foolish to make based on a mistranslation. At the time it was done, the idea of virgin births was in vogue, and the vast majority of people who followed it did not read Hebrew, Latin, Greek, or any other language.


Right, and here I am, as a Christian, saying that I agree with you. We should attempt to keep the translation of the Old Testement, or the Torah if you prefer, as clean and clear as possible.

Only in the past several centuries (mostly this century) did the idea of actually going back and looking at the Hebrew seem sensible to Christians.


This is wildly inaccurate. Some of the first printed Bibles were printed with four columns on each page. One in english, one in latin, one in hebrew, and one in greek, I believe. Translation has always been important for Christianity, just not ALL Christians, which is true of EVERYTHING for EVERYONE, including Jews.

This is why many of the "proofs" of Jesus in the "OT" will not even add up in the modern Christian translations. I have seen the "100 proofs" pages, and the "300 proofs" pages, and the simple refutations of every last one of them, you can google to find them. When I have the time, I would be happy to go over the wikis, find the sources, and work with the sources, if they have any legitimacy. After all, I can write a Wiki right now that says anything I want, so the sources are more important than the words.


I would like to see these "100 proofs" and "300 proofs" if you could give me a link. I attempt to google it and come up with a thousand unrelated sites, and quite a few christian related ones.

Anyway, the point is, Christians, in the never ending efforts (20 centuries and counting) have cooked up hundreds of arguments (some with words, others with physical force) to try to corce Jews to convert to Christianity, and yet somehow, There are still Jews around..


Ok... but that doesn't mean anything here. I'm not "cooking up" anything. I'm reading the Bible, including the Torah, to correlate my faith with the world around me. You're welcome to point things out and make legitimate claims, but attempting to connect me and my faith with liars, morons, and murderers is simply a position that I find to be unnacceptable. I have nothing to do with those people and if you insist that I do then you're simply interested in belittleing me and my faith rather then finding any kind of common ground.

Occasionally, even when someone is not actively coming at us missionary style, one of us will comment on a Christian that tries to Use any aspect of Judaism towards the goal of preaching Jesus. I do not care what you think about your religion, but I do care what you imply about mine.


I'm very interested to know what it is you think I'm implying about your religion or faith. As far as I'm concerned we both believe in the same God, we simply have a disagreement on the issue of Jesus. We both believe in Moses, Abraham, Issacc and Jacob, as well as David and Solomon. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a point we disagree on outside of Jesus. I'm not standing here telling you you're going to hell... what's the problem?

And I'm just going to ask... why SHOULDN'T I attempt to use the Torah to try and find out more about Jesus? If I'm correct then that's EXACTLY where I'd find that stuff out. If I'm WRONG then I should find nothing, if I'm RIGHT I should find out more. Basically, why so afraid of what I might find?

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby westcydr » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:49 pm UTC

Jonolith wrote:
westcydr wrote:Show me where any religious Jews are saying that the Jewish texts have errors that need to be fixed. You really won't find any.


I gave you a great example. "Kill" being changed to "murder". Jewish scholars did that one. You've also given me an example of your own. "Alma" being "Young Woman" instead of "Virgin." You're basically saying "Jews are perfect and Christians aren't" which is just a silly thing to say.

I have never said anyone was perfect, no person is. The concept of a "perfect person" does not even exist in Judaism. Incidentally, the difference between "kill" and "murder" has always been clear to me, and I can't see why anyone would not be able to figure out the Torah divides these up, after all, both war and capital punishment are discussed, where there is clearly killing that is not murder involved. Show me where Jews identified any commandment as "thou shalt not kill", and I will show you someone with a bad comprehension of English.
The translations that Christians have used (to Greek and English) are in constant flux because people keep finding that things were translated wrong. Of course, no translation can be 100% accurate, because the language roots for Hebrew and English are different. There is no one "right" translation, but there are several "wrong" translations, the most popular being the KJV.


To be FAIR to King James, he wanted that book translated so that he could read it and he wanted it to sound good. He wasn't terribly interested in getting the translation 100%. He wanted something to read before going to bed, and he was curious about the Bible. It was never really intended to be widespread.

Yes, well, when so many people find it as the final word on translation, and even base other "modern" translations off of it, it becomes a symbol of the general Christian translation. The fact that it was not really meant to be that becomes irrelevant if it used that way..
If you want proof of the discrepancies between the Translations Jews use and Christians use, just take them side by side. Yes, an immaculate conception theology would be, and is, foolish to make based on a mistranslation. At the time it was done, the idea of virgin births was in vogue, and the vast majority of people who followed it did not read Hebrew, Latin, Greek, or any other language.


Right, and here I am, as a Christian, saying that I agree with you. We should attempt to keep the translation of the Old Testement, or the Torah if you prefer, as clean and clear as possible.
Ok, but to get to this, you would have to start with Hebrew, at least for the Tanach.. the NT, well, that's your own lookout.
Only in the past several centuries (mostly this century) did the idea of actually going back and looking at the Hebrew seem sensible to Christians.


This is wildly inaccurate. Some of the first printed Bibles were printed with four columns on each page. One in english, one in latin, one in hebrew, and one in greek, I believe. Translation has always been important for Christianity, just not ALL Christians, which is true of EVERYTHING for EVERYONE, including Jews.
Even if true, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the only ones who could read any of the versions were clerics, and they often had their own agendas for how they chose to interpret the text. The phenomenon of Jews not being able to read the Hebrew is recent, as are the proselytizing methods that take advantage of this..
This is why many of the "proofs" of Jesus in the "OT" will not even add up in the modern Christian translations. I have seen the "100 proofs" pages, and the "300 proofs" pages, and the simple refutations of every last one of them, you can google to find them. When I have the time, I would be happy to go over the wikis, find the sources, and work with the sources, if they have any legitimacy. After all, I can write a Wiki right now that says anything I want, so the sources are more important than the words.


I would like to see these "100 proofs" and "300 proofs" if you could give me a link. I attempt to google it and come up with a thousand unrelated sites, and quite a few christian related ones.
Of COURSE the "proof"sites are Christian, they are the ones that want to "prove" that Jesus is the Messiah of the Tanach. The refutation sites are going to be Jewish, as they are the ones who are going to be responding to such "proofs".
Anyway, the point is, Christians, in the never ending efforts (20 centuries and counting) have cooked up hundreds of arguments (some with words, others with physical force) to try to corce Jews to convert to Christianity, and yet somehow, There are still Jews around..


Ok... but that doesn't mean anything here. I'm not "cooking up" anything. I'm reading the Bible, including the Torah, to correlate my faith with the world around me. You're welcome to point things out and make legitimate claims, but attempting to connect me and my faith with liars, morons, and murderers is simply a position that I find to be unnacceptable. I have nothing to do with those people and if you insist that I do then you're simply interested in belittleing me and my faith rather then finding any kind of common ground.
I do not equate your personal faith with anyone, but the history of the various Christian Churches DOES. Martin Luther, the father of Lutheranism, was clearly, based on his own writings, and avid hater of Jews, as were the inquisitors, and those who used your religion to justify Pogroms, Crusades, killings, and blood libels in the nameof the various churches. If none of these people are real Christians, than none of their words should be part of Christian Dogma..
Occasionally, even when someone is not actively coming at us missionary style, one of us will comment on a Christian that tries to Use any aspect of Judaism towards the goal of preaching Jesus. I do not care what you think about your religion, but I do care what you imply about mine.


I'm very interested to know what it is you think I'm implying about your religion or faith. As far as I'm concerned we both believe in the same God, we simply have a disagreement on the issue of Jesus. We both believe in Moses, Abraham, Issacc and Jacob, as well as David and Solomon. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a point we disagree on outside of Jesus. I'm not standing here telling you you're going to hell... what's the problem?
Your fellow Christians are saying just that. Seeing as Jesus is a central part of Christianity, and has no significance to Judaism at all, I'd say it was a big difference.
And I'm just going to ask... why SHOULDN'T I attempt to use the Torah to try and find out more about Jesus? If I'm correct then that's EXACTLY where I'd find that stuff out. If I'm WRONG then I should find nothing, if I'm RIGHT I should find out more. Basically, why so afraid of what I might find?

It's not what is found there, it is what, through mistranslation and taking things out of context, is finagled into there. Why don't you talk to an Orthodox Rabbi about the Torah, or are you afraid of what you will find there?
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

ndansmith
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Religion

Postby ndansmith » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:02 am UTC

I'll throw in a couple ideas to stir the pot concerning the text of the Tanak:

- Our oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text (which is often considered the authoritative Tanak) is less than 1000 years old.
- Our oldest extant copy of the Septuagint, which was translated from Hebrew in the first few centuries BCE, is from the 4th century AD.
- The Septuagint and the Hebrew have some striking differences (including alternate vowel interpretations, length, and arrangement within books).
- The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are our oldest extant Hebrew copies of the Tanak, vary from time to time from the Masoretic text.

Anyhow, that is my bowl of fun facts for the day.

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:38 am UTC

Yes, well, when so many people find it as the final word on translation, and even base other "modern" translations off of it, it becomes a symbol of the general Christian translation. The fact that it was not really meant to be that becomes irrelevant if it used that way.

Ok, I am holding, in my hands currently, a Bible that was printed by "The Council of Translators", The New Rivised Standard Version. They outright say that the King James Bible has defects and they worked very hard to, from the origonal texts, create a Bible that was as well translated as possible. The Council of Translators contain people of all faiths.

I am not reading outdated material here and if you have a better translation, I'd like to know about it.

Ok, but to get to this, you would have to start with Hebrew, at least for the Tanach.. the NT, well, that's your own lookout.

This is a bold endevor, and something I hope to do, but for the time being I find it more likely that I will be able to get to the heart of the matter using a well translated document that is in my own language, translated by experts in the field, then stumble around attempting to read a document in a language I am completely hopeless in attempting to gleen some kind of knowledge.

Even if true, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the only ones who could read any of the versions were clerics, and they often had their own agendas for how they chose to interpret the text. The phenomenon of Jews not being able to read the Hebrew is recent, as are the proselytizing methods that take advantage of this.

Why do you think the protestant movement happened? The Printing Press came out and people started getting their hands on Translated Bibles and started seeing that what the Catholic Church was giving them was a bunch of crap. This is a case of translation being WILDLY in favor of fighting injustice.

Also, I'd say that the first 400 years of Christianity were full of people who could read those documents. The disciples certianly could, and were well versed in them, and they converted many Hebrews who also could read those documents. It wasn't until the Church because a legal entity that the dumbing down of everything happened, and then the Dark Ages happened. And let's face it... NOBODY read during the dark ages.

But saying that everyone in the first 1500 years of Christianity was illiterate is just wildly innaccurate.

Of COURSE the "proof"sites are Christian, they are the ones that want to "prove" that Jesus is the Messiah of the Tanach. The refutation sites are going to be Jewish, as they are the ones who are going to be responding to such "proofs".

Super. I'm still asking for the site because I can't find it.
I do not equate your personal faith with anyone, but the history of the various Christian Churches DOES. Martin Luther, the father of Lutheranism, was clearly, based on his own writings, and avid hater of Jews, as were the inquisitors, and those who used your religion to justify Pogroms, Crusades, killings, and blood libels in the nameof the various churches. If none of these people are real Christians, than none of their words should be part of Christian Dogma.

Kay. You're not going to see me put up a fight for orthodoxy, rhetoric, or dogma. I'm only interested in what the book says. I couldn't care less about what murderers have to say about anything.

Your fellow Christians are saying just that. Seeing as Jesus is a central part of Christianity, and has no significance to Judaism at all, I'd say it was a big difference.

Well sure, that's a big difference, and that is obvious. But I don't think that puts us on opposing sides here. We have alot in common with one another with the one exception of a disagreement on who Jesus was and what he stood for.
It's not what is found there, it is what, through mistranslation and taking things out of context, is finagled into there. Why don't you talk to an Orthodox Rabbi about the Torah, or are you afraid of what you will find there?

My brother is marrying a jewish girl who's father is a Rabbi. Lots of conversation happens there.
You keep assuming that I'm reading a mistranslation by default. I think that's going to get you into trouble, especially when there are a bunch of organizations, including jewish organizations, who have gone out of there way to create a well translated Bible, which you seem to be unaware exist. People kept translating after the King James Bible, and they stopped using the KJ as a source document years ago.

I'll say it again, you seem entirely certian that I am interested in propping up some kind of rhetoric or dogma. I have no interest in doing that and you'd do yourself a favor if you'd grab onto that. I've had a few people who've said that my beliefs make me not a Christian, so radical are my views on Christianity. I disagree with them, of course, but if you just insist to assume that I'm an idiot, or I'm reading bad documents, or I have any kind of agenda beyond a search for truth, then you're just going to frustrate yourself.

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:42 am UTC

ndansmith wrote:I'll throw in a couple ideas to stir the pot concerning the text of the Tanak:

- Our oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text (which is often considered the authoritative Tanak) is less than 1000 years old.
- Our oldest extant copy of the Septuagint, which was translated from Hebrew in the first few centuries BCE, is from the 4th century AD.
- The Septuagint and the Hebrew have some striking differences (including alternate vowel interpretations, length, and arrangement within books).
- The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are our oldest extant Hebrew copies of the Tanak, vary from time to time from the Masoretic text.

Anyhow, that is my bowl of fun facts for the day.


You'll never find older ancient documents. And differences always happen between translations. It's just an impossibility to prevent them. That doesn't remove any kind of importance from those documents and if they did we'd have to stop teaching ANY ancient text.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby westcydr » Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:53 am UTC

Jonolith wrote:
Yes, well, when so many people find it as the final word on translation, and even base other "modern" translations off of it, it becomes a symbol of the general Christian translation. The fact that it was not really meant to be that becomes irrelevant if it used that way.

Ok, I am holding, in my hands currently, a Bible that was printed by "The Council of Translators", The New Rivised Standard Version. They outright say that the King James Bible has defects and they worked very hard to, from the origonal texts, create a Bible that was as well translated as possible. The Council of Translators contain people of all faiths.

I am not reading outdated material here and if you have a better translation, I'd like to know about it.

Ok, but to get to this, you would have to start with Hebrew, at least for the Tanach.. the NT, well, that's your own lookout.

This is a bold endevor, and something I hope to do, but for the time being I find it more likely that I will be able to get to the heart of the matter using a well translated document that is in my own language, translated by experts in the field, then stumble around attempting to read a document in a language I am completely hopeless in attempting to gleen some kind of knowledge.

Even if true, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the only ones who could read any of the versions were clerics, and they often had their own agendas for how they chose to interpret the text. The phenomenon of Jews not being able to read the Hebrew is recent, as are the proselytizing methods that take advantage of this.

Why do you think the protestant movement happened? The Printing Press came out and people started getting their hands on Translated Bibles and started seeing that what the Catholic Church was giving them was a bunch of crap. This is a case of translation being WILDLY in favor of fighting injustice.

Also, I'd say that the first 400 years of Christianity were full of people who could read those documents. The disciples certianly could, and were well versed in them, and they converted many Hebrews who also could read those documents. It wasn't until the Church because a legal entity that the dumbing down of everything happened, and then the Dark Ages happened. And let's face it... NOBODY read during the dark ages.

But saying that everyone in the first 1500 years of Christianity was illiterate is just wildly innaccurate.

Of COURSE the "proof"sites are Christian, they are the ones that want to "prove" that Jesus is the Messiah of the Tanach. The refutation sites are going to be Jewish, as they are the ones who are going to be responding to such "proofs".

Super. I'm still asking for the site because I can't find it.
I do not equate your personal faith with anyone, but the history of the various Christian Churches DOES. Martin Luther, the father of Lutheranism, was clearly, based on his own writings, and avid hater of Jews, as were the inquisitors, and those who used your religion to justify Pogroms, Crusades, killings, and blood libels in the nameof the various churches. If none of these people are real Christians, than none of their words should be part of Christian Dogma.

Kay. You're not going to see me put up a fight for orthodoxy, rhetoric, or dogma. I'm only interested in what the book says. I couldn't care less about what murderers have to say about anything.

Your fellow Christians are saying just that. Seeing as Jesus is a central part of Christianity, and has no significance to Judaism at all, I'd say it was a big difference.

Well sure, that's a big difference, and that is obvious. But I don't think that puts us on opposing sides here. We have alot in common with one another with the one exception of a disagreement on who Jesus was and what he stood for.
It's not what is found there, it is what, through mistranslation and taking things out of context, is finagled into there. Why don't you talk to an Orthodox Rabbi about the Torah, or are you afraid of what you will find there?

My brother is marrying a jewish girl who's father is a Rabbi. Lots of conversation happens there.
You keep assuming that I'm reading a mistranslation by default. I think that's going to get you into trouble, especially when there are a bunch of organizations, including jewish organizations, who have gone out of there way to create a well translated Bible, which you seem to be unaware exist. People kept translating after the King James Bible, and they stopped using the KJ as a source document years ago.

I'll say it again, you seem entirely certian that I am interested in propping up some kind of rhetoric or dogma. I have no interest in doing that and you'd do yourself a favor if you'd grab onto that. I've had a few people who've said that my beliefs make me not a Christian, so radical are my views on Christianity. I disagree with them, of course, but if you just insist to assume that I'm an idiot, or I'm reading bad documents, or I have any kind of agenda beyond a search for truth, then you're just going to frustrate yourself.

The NRSV Bible, according to the website, claims to have among the thirty Translators "A Jewish Scholar". It ALSO claims to be a second revision of.... you guessed it, the KJV (http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/btuhome.html). Since they could not even get a Rabbi, and in Christian circles, a "Jewish scholar" does not always mean a scholar of Judaism, you have just another Christian Bible. If you want what I would call a definitive translation, try a Jewish source, since Jews have been studying the language of Hebrew since before there were Christians, I'd say that the ones who know the most about it would be the ones most learned in the language and culture of Judaism. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch has a decent one out there, for instance. Christian experts in Christianity are not, by definition, experts in Judaism, and being that they already believe in Jesus, they are hardy going to be considered unbiased in presenting an english translation of any Hebrew texts when it comes to Jesus. The Christian OT and the Jewish Tanach have major differences in English, and these are almost all related to translations adjusted to try to place Jesus in the texts. He's not there, plain and simple. Go to a library, get a Jewish Tanach, and compare.. Or, go to any Jewish site on the matter, and you can compare..You can then use the sources they use, Christian and Jewish, to compare for yourself. (sites such as http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html are in existence only because there are Christian missionaries out there in the first place, have a look if you like). Oh, a refutation of the "300 proofs" is here, http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/j4j_no.html by the way.
You must trust some church leaders, as they are the ones who translate the Bible for you. Also, are you one who goes to a Church? I am sure that Church has a basis in Some Christian philosophy that comes from some form of Protesant or Catholic basis... Many of the leaders who shaped both Churches committed horrible acts towards non-beleivers, and many more wrote evil, hateful things in the name of their religion against them. If you discount all of their words, you don't have much to work with...
Now, I am pretty sure that your brother is not marrying an Orthodox Rabbi's daughter. There is a good chance that Rabbi does not discuss Orthodox Jewish views simply because he does not follow them.
I think our problems will be summed up as thus: There is NO Christian translation of the Bible I will consider to be accurate, and there is no Jewish translation that would allow for Jesus in it. You call it close-mindedness, I guess, I call it not getting lost in translation. Jews have been studying the Bible almost an eon longer than there have been Christians, and for the most part, we still don't buy Christian revisions. Today is not the day I will buy them, and tomorrow's not looking so hot, either. If you don't try to give a Jewish view on the Torah or Tanach, I won't try to give a Christian one on the old or New Testament. Deal?
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby VannA » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:20 am UTC

The whole last page has been an argument as to whether or not there is enough evidence within the Hebrew texts to support Jesus as the prophesied Messiah? Or is it a debate on whether or not a Messiah was prophesied within the original Hebrew?

In either case, it would be.. blindingly naive.. to believe that there were not alternate political agenda's even at the time of Jesus' supposed acts, so no true requirement for the book to state it would need to be there.

Could Christ read? When did he learn? Admittedly there is a large gap in what I understand of his personal recorded history, especially as most of it is from secondary or tertiary sources, but why does a carpenter's son learn to read?

Especially when we are told he didn't learn of his supposed destiny till he was in his 30s?
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

ndansmith
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Religion

Postby ndansmith » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:51 am UTC

Jonolith wrote:And differences always happen between translations.

Yes, but a difference in translation does not make the Greek version of the story of David and Goliath 45% shorter. Nor does it cause the order of content to be different in Jeremiah. :-)

VannA wrote:Could Christ read? When did he learn? Admittedly there is a large gap in what I understand of his personal recorded history, especially as most of it is from secondary or tertiary sources, but why does a carpenter's son learn to read?

According to Luke, he could read:
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[e]

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
That is the impression I get, unless he just opened the scroll, stared at it a bit, and expected everyone to know what he was looking at but not reading. :wink: Also, Jesus probably learned to read Hebrew because he was a Jew.

VannA wrote:Especially when we are told he didn't learn of his supposed destiny till he was in his 30s?

Again, Luke:
When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

He might have had a hunch before then. I have never really heard the idea that Jesus only found out about himself by reading in the scriptures.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby VannA » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:06 am UTC

I don't mean this as an insult, or disrespect.

My 10 year old brother knows more about steam trains, simply because he was interested in them, than the steam-train museum curator and ex-engineer that was there, last time we went.

He could rattle off facts, design specs, crazy amounts of information, and he was totally at home in the cab.

What I mean to indicate, is that kids are smart, kids can understand things we think they cannot, and if something interests them, then wooo.

But yes, that passage indicates that Jesus had a solid interest in, and was naturally talented with, interpretation of the scriptures and discussion thereof.

I'm not sure that means he knew he had an epic destiny.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
proof_man
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:21 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby proof_man » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:58 am UTC

to humbly interject, i just wanted to add that lots of the beliefs of christianity were around before the christian version of the bible. the components of the text were selected and edited to reflect a particular belief structure. thus, it does not matter if the bible does not literally say something that all christians believe, because the belief exists outside of the text and the text was selected with the intention of being interpreted in a particular way that would support these beliefs. thus, picking out inconsistencies between the beliefs of christianity and the original words of the new testament isn't that big of a deal because christianity decided what scriptures to read and teach with a certain understanding of their faith already in mind. besides the antinomianists, christians did not just encounter the new testament with a fresh frame of mind and then base their religion out of what they read.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby VannA » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:00 am UTC

Heh.

THe bible is not the word of man, its the word of God.

It even says so.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:45 am UTC

VannA wrote:The whole last page has been an argument as to whether or not there is enough evidence within the Hebrew texts to support Jesus as the prophesied Messiah? Or is it a debate on whether or not a Messiah was prophesied within the original Hebrew?


Nope, it's pretty much been me saying "The Old Testement and Torah are the same book. Just look at them." and westcydr going "No they aren't" and providing nothing to support that claim.

In either case, it would be.. blindingly naive.. to believe that there were not alternate political agenda's even at the time of Jesus' supposed acts, so no true requirement for the book to state it would need to be there.


This is true, which is why it's important to get a text that is as close to translation as we can make it. I'm not looking for the Bible that best represents my belief, I'm looking for the Bible that best represents itself.

Could Christ read? When did he learn? Admittedly there is a large gap in what I understand of his personal recorded history, especially as most of it is from secondary or tertiary sources, but why does a carpenter's son learn to read?


There's a large period of time that we simply do not know about Christ. Between the ages of twelve and thirty, we know nothing about him. It would be safe to assume that this would be the period of that that he was in study.

As for why? If you had a hunch you were the Messiah, wouldn't you? ndansmith throws out some nice scriptural passages for this.

Especially when we are told he didn't learn of his supposed destiny till he was in his 30s?


Hrm... can you back that up? The Bible doesn't really let us know WHEN Jesus came upon this realization or this "destiny"(Although I don't believe in destiny. Removal of free will and so on) for all we know he was fully aware of it at the age of sixteen. He just didn't act upon it until the age of thirty.

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:44 am UTC

westcydr wrote:The NRSV Bible, ect.ect.ect....


Alright mate, I had a whole thing written that took me an hour and a half to write and I scrapped it in favor of this.

You're going to have to start putting up some serious evidence that The Old Testament and the Torah are different books for me to continue taking you seriously. So far the only thing you've actually put up was a link to a Jewish Site arguing against Christian Missionaries, and this link: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/j4j_no.html#Genesis1

The majority of his points are either cleared up in a new translation, such as the one I have, total nit-picking, such as his totally non-definative analysis of the word "is", or simply theological arguements, which aren't definative. I'd say that his strongest points are the points he makes against Trinitarianism, but I don't believe in the Trinity anyway, so he's preaching to the choir.

Ultimately you're not showing me anything that says "The Old Testament and the Torah are different." All you've shown me is one person's arguement for specific passages that run up against a different arguement using those same passages. I'm not saying his arguement is WRONG or which arguement I agree with. What I am saying is that it is an arguement, not definitive proof.

If I read through the Torah, and the Old Testament together, I am going to see the same words, and the same passages, in the same order. If I choose to believe that some of those passages represent a prophesy of Jesus, then that's my business. If I choose to believe that the passages say that I should eat chocolate pie every day, that also is my business. If I choose to believe that God has orgasms while killing puppies, that is also my business.

What I'm driving at here is that you have a major complaint about people misinterpreting the Bible which I share. I said before that I do not believe in the Trinity because I feel that it isn't supported Biblically. However, your claim is that the Torah and the Old Testament are different books, and I am challenging you, outright, right now, to prove it.

Show me a passage that differs wildly in the Torah from the same passage in the Old Testament and I'll start taking your claim seriously. Saying "The word "is" USUALLY doesn't represent the wanna wanna wanna" isn't going to cut it. It's speculative, at best, and the removal of the single two letter word hardly makes the passage any clearer.

I don't care if you have a chip on your shoulder against Christian Missionaries. I am not trying to convert you and I don't care if you're a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or Athiest, but if you are making the claim that the Torah and the Old Testament are different books, I need you to back that up with something more credible then nit-picking at the word "is".

If you cannot provide credible information on this point, I see no reason to continue talking to you.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby westcydr » Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:58 am UTC

Jonolith wrote:
westcydr wrote:The NRSV Bible, ect.ect.ect....


Alright mate, I had a whole thing written that took me an hour and a half to write and I scrapped it in favor of this.

You're going to have to start putting up some serious evidence that The Old Testament and the Torah are different books for me to continue taking you seriously. So far the only thing you've actually put up was a link to a Jewish Site arguing against Christian Missionaries, and this link: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/j4j_no.html#Genesis1

The majority of his points are either cleared up in a new translation, such as the one I have, total nit-picking, such as his totally non-definative analysis of the word "is", or simply theological arguements, which aren't definative. I'd say that his strongest points are the points he makes against Trinitarianism, but I don't believe in the Trinity anyway, so he's preaching to the choir.

Ultimately you're not showing me anything that says "The Old Testament and the Torah are different." All you've shown me is one person's arguement for specific passages that run up against a different arguement using those same passages. I'm not saying his arguement is WRONG or which arguement I agree with. What I am saying is that it is an arguement, not definitive proof.

If I read through the Torah, and the Old Testament together, I am going to see the same words, and the same passages, in the same order. If I choose to believe that some of those passages represent a prophesy of Jesus, then that's my business. If I choose to believe that the passages say that I should eat chocolate pie every day, that also is my business. If I choose to believe that God has orgasms while killing puppies, that is also my business.

What I'm driving at here is that you have a major complaint about people misinterpreting the Bible which I share. I said before that I do not believe in the Trinity because I feel that it isn't supported Biblically. However, your claim is that the Torah and the Old Testament are different books, and I am challenging you, outright, right now, to prove it.

Show me a passage that differs wildly in the Torah from the same passage in the Old Testament and I'll start taking your claim seriously. Saying "The word "is" USUALLY doesn't represent the wanna wanna wanna" isn't going to cut it. It's speculative, at best, and the removal of the single two letter word hardly makes the passage any clearer.

I don't care if you have a chip on your shoulder against Christian Missionaries. I am not trying to convert you and I don't care if you're a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or Athiest, but if you are making the claim that the Torah and the Old Testament are different books, I need you to back that up with something more credible then nit-picking at the word "is".

If you cannot provide credible information on this point, I see no reason to continue talking to you.

If somehow, the Old Testament has Ch 13 of Deuteronomy in it (I'm sure there are better translations, but this is the first I found, http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm), which states that a false prophet is one who leads Jews from the laws of God, as well as to neither add or take from the law, and yet still claims to accept Jesus, AND his taking away from the law, then somehow, in translation, you either have a total contradiction, or an entirely different set of books. The ENTIRE NT brings about bringing Jews away from the law, even in it's own concepts.. (If only one person "fulfills" the law, then al others are, by definition, "taken" from it.
If this text is in there, then the entire NT, and all religions that come from it, have some 'splainin to do. Or, as you say, they can be entirely different religions, but in no way shape or form call themselves Judaism. Again, I don't see where the argument is, as you have stated that Christians do not feel the need to follow the laws, and have no reason to tell other to do so.
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

User avatar
Mancho
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:51 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Mancho » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:43 pm UTC

If I may interject, "Immaculate Conception" refers to the conception of Mary, untainted from original sin. The conception of Jesus would likey be called "Miraculous Conception," but "Immaculate Conception" is totally wrong. My $0.02

User avatar
tday93
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:07 am UTC
Location: Surf City, CA no, seriously, we own the trademark (suck it Santa Cruz)
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby tday93 » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:20 pm UTC

If your looking for a translation that's as accurate as possible try the Amplified Bible. Its pretty much freshly translated so you don't have to worry about all the "KJV" drama.

Also, Baha'i FTW

so there's my $1.50
"Given the choice between accomplishing something and just lying around, I'd rather lie around. No contest." -Eric Clapton

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:27 am UTC

westcydr wrote:
If somehow, the Old Testament has Ch 13 of Deuteronomy in it (I'm sure there are better translations, but this is the first I found, http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm),


I'm looking at Chapter 13 of Deuteronomy right at this moment. Your link contains an EXTREMELY old and outdated translation, but I can tell you with certianty that the points remain in tact.

which states that a false prophet is one who leads Jews from the laws of God, as well as to neither add or take from the law,


Jesus never took away from the law. He quoted from it regularily. If you are encountering Christians who are saying that the laws of Moses are obsolete or should be thrown away, then they are wrong. We don't USE the laws of Moses, much in the same way we don't follow the tenants of Aristotle. They're still of value, to learn and understand in the context in which they were given.

and yet still claims to accept Jesus, AND his taking away from the law, then somehow, in translation, you either have a total contradiction, or an entirely different set of books.


OR what's more likely is that you're reading something into it that I am not, or you are dealing with people who do not hold the same world view that I do. I believe in Jesus, as well as the importance of the Laws of Moses. Jesus felt that the Laws of Moses were VERY important. He was asked directly if the Laws of Moses were obsolete due to his teachings, and he said that they were not.

The ENTIRE NT brings about bringing Jews away from the law, even in it's own concepts.. (If only one person "fulfills" the law, then al others are, by definition, "taken" from it.


I just totally disagree. The NT is not about bringing Jews away from the law. The Old testement laws were put in place by God and Moses, and they were VERY clear on one point. If you did not follow these laws in a spirit of LOVE then they were without meaning. Love is central to the Laws of Moses, and understanding them requires Love. You don't throw away Love and you don't encourage someone to move away from love.

If this text is in there, then the entire NT, and all religions that come from it, have some 'splainin to do.


That's a fair statement, but it's true of almost every passage of the Bible. You'll find someone, somewhere, who finds fault with some insignificant passage (Such as picking at the word "is"), and you'll have to defend the value of that passage.

Or, as you say, they can be entirely different religions, but in no way shape or form call themselves Judaism. Again, I don't see where the argument is, as you have stated that Christians do not feel the need to follow the laws, and have no reason to tell other to do so.


Again, you have a chip on your shoulder. I'm not TELLING anyone anything. I'm creating an arguements using the tools I have.

I'd also like to point out that my major contention with you has always been that you made a claim that the Old Testament and the Torah were different books. Well, you attempted to put me on the spot by saying that if Deuteronomy 13 exists then my faith is invalid. I am telling you right now, Deuteronomy 13 exists in the Old Testament and my faith is not shaken for a moment.

You seem to think that Jesus showed up and told everyone to hate the Jews and followed it up with a bunch of ways to ignore the Laws of Moses. If you read the NT you find that he does the exact opposite. Now, I don't care what OTHER PEOPLE have said about what Jesus said. I care about what JESUS said. And if other people are telling you that Jesus said to ignore the Torah, or Old Testament, then those people are wrong, not Jesus.

So once again I put it to you. Prove to me that the Torah and the Old Testament are different Books. I'm also going to challenge you on another point. Have you even bothered reading a copy of the New Testament to see what it says? Or are you just going off of what your Rabbis tell you about it. It's one thing to be told what's in a book, and quite another to actually see what the book itself says. I say this mainly because I believe the New Testament has been completely misrepresented to you in entirety.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby VannA » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:40 am UTC

Now, I don't care what OTHER PEOPLE have said about what Jesus said. I care about what JESUS said. And if other people are telling you that Jesus said to ignore the Torah, or Old Testament, then those people are wrong, not Jesus.


I find this delightful, given the secondary source nature of the Bible itself :D
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

Jonolith
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:45 am UTC

Re: Religion

Postby Jonolith » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:50 am UTC

VannA wrote:I find this delightful, given the secondary source nature of the Bible itself :D


As well as the secondary nature of every document on earth. Find me a document that's not second hand, and I'll show you an interview you had with someone, and then I'll show you how that document might not be second hand to you, but it sure is for me.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Religion

Postby VannA » Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:15 am UTC

I believe they are called Autobiographies
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests