It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What I don't get about Jesus

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
What I don't get about Jesus is why people believed him when he said he was the son of God.


He never said he was the son of God.




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Hi In Nothing---

You may be right about that (we weren't there, but...) yet it seems to me that your answer needs a little further qualification (forget the 4th gospel's weirdo 'higher' Christological theology for a moment) and concentrate on the Passion Narratives in the Synoptics:

'And Yosef Kaiphah asked him flat out: "By the Most High EL, I adjur you to swear, yes or no, Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?" to which the Greek Speaking Gospel Iesous replied in the 2nd Gospel ("Mark", whoever he was, 14:61ff)

EGW EIMI" lit. 'I am [who I am]', which is reference to the Yahwistic Judaean Divine Name (Heb. haShem, which is not ever to be spoken by anyone BUT a High Priest and ONLY at Yom Kippur, and especially NOT to be spoken TO a High Priest!)

The phrase recalls YHWH (orig. Yehei Esher Yehei) : I am who I am: of Exodus chaper 3 at the Burning Bush answering 'who are you?'

To which the High Priest rends his garments (naming outloud HaShem is techncally 'blasphemy' in post-Exilic Judaea) screaming, 'what more need of we of witnesses? We heard him speak his blasphemies from his own lips !"

The other gospels soften the speech a little; the 1st Greek Canonical Gospel ('Matthew", whoever he was) states:

"are you the Christ, the son of God?" to which Iesous replied, 'You have spoken well...' in other words, Matthew (and 'Luke' whoever he was) has the meaning 'that would be an affirmative...'

Notice how short the answers are, probably because 'I adjure you' was used in the conversation, which is the language of oath-taking.

Apparently this 'Iesous' had a big bug up his arse about swearing an oath with anything other than a Yea or a Nay ('...anything added could be manipulated by any son of Belial.." = meaning: when under oath, it's best to keep your answers succint, otherwise your enemies might be able to twist your words...")

cf: Bedeck no dogs' ears with golden rings
Neither place your pearls on swines' necks,
Lest trampling your jewels under foot,
they should turn, and attack you with them !

which rings like a common proverb of the time...

Either way, it's hard to know what he called himself. We also recall:

"and he said to the 12, Whom do the sons of men say the Bar Enasha (Son of Man) is?' And they answered, saying, Rabbi, Some people are saying that you are The Prophet [like Moses] who is to come; others say you're among the sons of the prophets; others say that you are Yohanon bar Zechariah (i.e. the Baptist) raised from the dead !" And he asked Simon son of Jonah, Kephah, Kephah, whom do YOU say the Bar Enasha is? and [Peter] answered him saying, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living One !' And Iesous said, 'Blessed are you, Shimeon bar Yonah! For flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven !"

Where we see "Christ" (Aram. Meshiaq' = 'smeared one') often standing in apposition to 'son of the most high EL' or "son of the blessed One" or "son of the Living EL' &tc.

Technically according to the canonical Greek Speaking Iesous, he did not say (at least in the Synoptic canonical Greek gospels) 'I am the son of God'---but it was a title which was intimately tied up with the Messiah-Christ title, and to whomever the title would be attached--and there were many persons who were called 'Christs' in those days (even as late as AD 136 with Bar-Kokhba, another Daviddic pretender during the 2nd Failed Jewish Revolt against Rome...)







[edit on 4-12-2009 by Sigismundus]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
If Jesus was Not the son of G-D than what was the need for the Virgin birth?

Before Jesus no one refered to G-D as father. Jesus states numerous times that he came from the father! He was alive before he was born. Se Genesis 1 is not the Begining. The begining is John 1. In the Begining was G-D, and Jesus was with him (the word). We are not Children of God. Nope, we are adopted into the family through faith in the Son.

Jesus WAS Killed because HE said HE was Equal to G-D! John 8:58~! Do not fool yourself to believe Jesus was anything but the Son.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by Kargun]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Hi Kargum--

What makes you think there was a 'need' for a Virgin Birth myth in the NT at all?

Except maybe to cover up a scandal --requiring the idiotic dragging in obscure verses from proto-Isaiah 7:14 which has NO THING whatsoever to do with 'viriginity' or any Messiah figure, but was related to the Assyrian invasions of Palestine c. 722 - 701 BCE

"Behold, YHWH himself shall show you a Sign: that woman (ha-almah) shall conceive and bear a son and you will call his name EL is On Our Side' (Heb. Emannu El)--and before the child is old enough to decide between good and bad, the land which you hate will have lost both of its rulers."

Woman (Herb. Almah) is hardly 'virgin' (Heb. Bethulah) and the verse has nothing of the miraculous about it, but was used as a calendar mark (in 9 months + 3 years, your enemies will be destroyed).

Maybe the 4th gospel knew something most Christians never dare contemplate: "WE were not born of Fornication, at least WE know who OUR father is !" (see 'John' whoever he was, chapter 8 : v.33-34)

cf: 'Luke' (whoever he was): the Magnificat: chapter 1: 48-49

ὅτι ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῆς δούλης αυτοῦ.
ἰδού γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μακαριοῦσίν με πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί,

"For he has looked upon the HUMILIATION (tapeinosin, 'sexual disgrace') of his servant: but now, behold, shall all generations name me Happy !"

The Greek word in most other contexts refers to barren-ness (i.e. the disgrace of a wife who cannot bear children, i.e. a worthless vessel in most middle eastern minds, shockingly even today) or it could mean an unwanted pregnancy i.e. forced or date rape &tc.

Either way, there is no need for a VIRGIN BIRTH theology, and the earliest Nazorean Christians did not have this theology into their creeds - even the geneaological tables of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir ('Iesous') show lineage through Joseph (and NOT Miriyam of Galilee)...

And speaking of Dorot (genealogical tables) have you ever read the 1st canonical Greek Gospel genealogy of 'Iesous' in the 1st Gospel ('Matthew', whoever he was) with all of its FAKE 14's (who WAS Yosef's father anyway? Heli or Yakkov...hmmm), meaning that the kings of Judah between BCE 680 and BCE 625 had to be, well...ditched altogether to make the schema work---I mean, closely read it?

You'll notice that only 5 WOMEN are MENTIONED, all of them had some shall we say issue with sexual promiscuity &tc.

TAMAR (=rape)
RAHAB (=prostitution)
RUTH (=seduction : recent widow acts the whore to nab a rich husband)
BATHSHEBA ('nuff said)
MIRYAM of GALILEE (what WAS the writer of 'Matthew' trying to tell us, exactly, do you think?)

'Mary' was listed as being last in a long line of (shall we say) 'loose' females afer all...the ONLY females mentioned in the whole list...

Maybe a Virgin Birth Story would make a good cover after all....hmmmm



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Hi Kargum--


"Behold, YHWH himself shall show you a Sign: that woman (ha-almah) shall conceive and bear a son and you will call his name EL is On Our Side' (Heb. Emannu El)--and before the child is old enough to decide between good and bad, the land which you hate will have lost both of its rulers."

Woman (Herb. Almah) is hardly 'virgin' (Heb. Bethulah) and the verse has nothing of the miraculous about it, but was used as a calendar mark (in 9 months + 3 years, your enemies will be destroyed).





First your Isaiah quote is wrong and misleading.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Now you quote Isaiah 7:15 and change it to suit your own opinion. "curds and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose good. Now 7:16 "For before the Child shall know to refuse evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."

Okay just using logic here. What type of sign from the lord is it when a "young woman" gives birth? seriously? The word used in Mathew 1:23 is Almah.

Liberal theologians went to Gesenious, an outstanding scholar who has an extensive Hebrew lexicon to get him to say what you are saying. That Almah means young lady. Gesenius admitted that the best and most common translation for Almah is Virgin.

When the word Almah is used in the OT it always means virgin. Ex Rebekah before she married Isaac. A very good friend of mine, a Hebrew scholar told me that In the times of the OT if you were to use Almah as a young lady you would be implying that she was not a virgin. You would be calling her a whore and would never be used in that way unless you were looking to get in a fight!

The simple fact that the word almah means "a virgin" is proven by the Septuagint. The fact that seventy-two Hebrew scholars, six from each tribe, went to Alexandria to translate the OT into Greek all agreed Almah means virgin. There they translated it into the Greek word parthenos.
Parthenos, my friend does not mean young woman. It means Virgin!

For example ! Athena was the virgin goddess of Athens, and her temple was called the parthenon because why? I don't think it was because she was a young woman.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Hi Kargun

I take it your Koine Greek is not up to snuff.

You DID know (didn't you?!!!) That ALMAH is paleo-Hebrew NOT Greek ('almah' '=' young woman', nothing miraculous there) and that the 1st canonical Greek Gospel in your 'bible' is NOT written in paleoHeb but is in fact written in a late 1st century Koine Greek dialect (probably out of Anitoch), and only quoted the Greek LXX (Seputaginta) sparingly - in this case fairly closely (curiously, and few people outside of scholarship know this at all but the author of the 1st Gospel, 'according to Matthew' whoever he was, quotes some weirdo loose 1st century Koine Greek paraphrase of obscure Aramaic Targums when he chooses to drag in old testament and pseudipigraphical quotations of the Jews for 'midrashic' (i.e. fulfulment legend) treatment. If you do NOT know what a HAGADDIC MIDRASH is, you need to do a little research on the subject before spouting off things you do not understand.

Since your posting indicates a bit of befuddlement in terms of WHAT is GREEK and WHAT IS HEBREW look up the Hebrew word BETHULAH - it literally means "virgin" -- but it DOES NOT OCCUR at proto-Isaiah 7:14ff -- the author if protoIsaiah (whoever he was) seems to have written ALMAH (at least his later followers who compiled a very contradictory Hebrew text family called the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah which existed in AT LEAST (2) VERSIONS among the Dead Sea Caves 1 and 4 (and there were 3 authors, chapters 1-39 written by one, 40-55 by another, and 56-66 by a 3rd ---all of whom lived several hundred years apart) but in NONE of the versions of this Book in paleoHebrew does the term BETHULAH occur--only the common word ALMAH ('woman') was used.

And ALMAH ('woman')carries a WHOLE DIFFERENT meaning altogether from BETHULAH ('girl, virgin').

So you are basing your WHOLE faith on a mis-translation from ALMAH (Hebrew) when Matthew's version of Isaiah chose to use (in deliberate Hagaddic Midrashic fashion) the specific term PARTHENOS (Greek) to make up / justify / back up his Virgin Birth Legend? (sort of like his fake translation of Zechariah 9:9 having 'Iesous' riding into town on TWO animals (now THAT's a TRICK !) because his own paltry Greek translation of the paleoHeb text family he happened to be using said so !!)

Well, ouch. You should know first off that the Greek LXX Septuaginta is not a LITERAL translation of a SINGLE LITERAL Hebrew Underlay ('vorlag') neither does it represent ANYTHING like a UNIFIED collection of translations ---but rather, the LXX in antiquity was messy hotchpotch of contradictory translations of VARIABLE WORTH and ACCURACY (trying to recapture the VOWELS which were NOT there in the text when bringing the sense into Greek IS NOT EXACT) and is a process which changed / improved/ was debated over time--

Certainly it is a myth (and quite naive) to believe that 72 Rebbes (all sequestered from each other no doubt !) ALL came up with the EXACT WORD FOR WORD translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures into Greek? !!

So...riddle me this ...

If there REALLY WAS such an unanimity amonst the socalled '72' Rebbes when translating the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures into the LXX Greek as you claim as 'historical' (right, yeah, like 72 rebbes could ever possibly agree on a single translation !! Remember the old saying, '2 Jews 3 opinions'...) then HOW ON EARTH do you explain the Greek author of the 1st Gospel ('Matthew') sometimes following Symmachus' looser translation? Or sometimes following Aquila? or sometimes following Theodotion's Greek translation? Or sometimes following none of the above, as in attempting some kind of Aramaic paraphrase into Greek?

Do you REALLY believe the LXX is a unified translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish writings? Can you even READ it?

In the third century, the Christian (later, heretic) Origen (184 - 255 CE) made a LIST of the troublesome MSS-textual differences between the Hebrew and the Greek versions all floating around out there,and set out to arrange the Church's 'Old Testament' in 6 (sometimes 7) columns:

(1) the Hebrew Vorglag ('underlay') that he used, based on the proto-Masoretic text--he mainly seems to have chosen to ignore the other Vorlagen Hebrew underlays found at Qumran in AD 190 'in Rock Caves near Jericho' and stuck with the proto MT throughout for the most part (2) a Greek transliteration of the unpointed unvowelled Hebrew protoMT lettering, (3) Aquila's translation into Greek, (4) Symmachus's translation, (5) the various Septuagint (LXX) versions floating around in his day that he could lay his hands on -- and (6) Theodotion's translation.

The volumes were compiled in Caesarea, probably between 230 and 240 CE--the result, called the Hexapla ("six-fold"), was massive, and was copied by scholars until the 7th century when it was burned by Muslim extremists, so all that survives (that we iknow of !) are some lengthy copies of various books e.g. the Psalms.

Even the normally careful Origen did not observe modern editorial conventions. His version of the LXX draws from several different manuscript families and embraces readings that bring the text closer to the Hebrew text of his day.

Thus, this fifth LXX column, while establishing the first "standardized text" of the Christian Church, created problems for modern scholars who would seek to recover a pre-Christian more oriented to the Hebrew Vorlag version of the LXX.

Further rescensions of the Greek text in the fourth century are attested. Hesychius (fl. 3/4th c.) is said to have created a rescension for the Church in Egypt; Lucian (d. 312 CE), in Antioch.

There were other recensions into Greek too.

Thus, we find the Greek Church Fathers quoting the same Old Testament texts, but in VERY different forms. Apparently the insistence on letter-for-letter accuracy in handling the Hebrew Scriptures did not trouble the earliest Christians for centuries, and only then after a similar insistence appeared in Judaism and Islam: virtually ANY Greek version of the Old Testament read in the Church merited the term 'LXX-Septuagint'.

As for 'parthenos' normally the Greek word means 'young girl of marriagble age' and could mean either 'virgin' or just 'young girl' without any reference to 'virgo intacta'--the term is used generically even in the LXX--it is the author of the 1st canonical Greek Gospel that makes a meal out of it--for his own Midrashic agenda...



[edit on 6-12-2009 by Sigismundus]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Sorry I wasn't clear with you. ALMAH is a hebrew word. It means virgin as quoted by my sources.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Hi again, Kargun--

So....NOW you are in a better position to understand what I am talking about and some of the background into the story here :

The author of the 1st gospel ('Matthew' whoever he ws) is writing in KOINE GREEK and is clearly using a Greek mis-translation of ALMAH ('woman' or 'person about which nothing is known') into PARTHENOS to make a Hagaddic Midrashic Case for the Virigin Birth story he is in the process of relating (for whatever reason; the first 4 females in his genealogy did not fare too well morally) --but you should know by now that by NO means was the Greek Septuaginta LXX anything like a single unity in the 1st century (neither was the Hebrew Vorlag Underlays to the various LXX's to judge by the Dead Sea Scroll Caves 1-11 and Origen's HEXAPLA) since there were several other COMPETING versions out there of both the Hebrew texts and the Greek translations of them floating around (the 1st gospel used a version of it that deliberatbley suited his Midrashic purposes to make ALMAH into PARTHENOS).

But back to protoIsaiah.

IF the alleged Messianic 'prophecy' in protoIsaiah 7:14 was NOT about the Assyrian invasions BCE 722-701, and it really WAS about some miraculous messianic 'viriginity' 700 years into the future, the prophecy IN THE HEBREW text would have used the consonants for 'BETHULAH' which is the legal term used when discussing whether or not blood can be spilt or not on a wedding night, in other words, Virgo Intacta--and NOT 'Almah'. As in Judges 21:12 and other places, the additional phrase 'which no man hath yet touched' or some similar phrase would have been employed 'to remove all doubt' about e.g. virginity. So TWO strikes against ALMAH meaning specifically PARTHENOS (or 'virgo intacta') if you will.

ALSO: PARTHENOS does NOT always every time mean 'virgin'. The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon gives several instances of the secular use of parthenos for women who were not virgins" (p. 148, n. 45); "the MT of Isa. 7:14 does not refer to a virginal conception in the distant future. The sign offered by the prophet was the imminent birth of a child...naturally conceived" (p. 148).

The literal meaning of ALMAH later in the Talmud, viz. Marriage Contracts, the term BETHULAH is always used when speaking of a literal virgin and always when Virginity is an issue.

This would have been the case if the author of the 1st canonical gospel was correclty reading Bethulah in Isaiah 7:14, but it is NOT the case: the word BETHULAH does NOT appear in proto-Isaiah 7:14, but ALMAH, meaning 'woman' especially 'which nothing is known...' and in the male grammatical form can refer to a young man 'about which nothing is known..' i.e. his status is 'concealed'.

The Hebrew term haAlmah comes from the cognate root (A-L-M) to indicate a specific person of unknown or unclear status whom they typically see for the first time.

(NB: the root : haAlim : means to 'conceal', to 'hide').

HaAlmah (as well as the masculine HaAlaym) is only used rarely in the old testament and is not used to refer to his or her virginal status, but does speak of someone who is youthful and 'probably unmarried' (but not necessarily).

A quick example of the masculine use is in 1 Samuel 17:56 when the king spied a young man he had never seen before being of uncertain status, and wanted to know about him.

See also: Exodus 2:8, where Miraim is seen by the 'the Daughter of Pharoah', who regards her to be an Almah i.e. a slave (girl) seen for the first time about whom she knows nothing yet.

When Eliezer first saw Rebeccah, in Genesis 24:16 she is called BETHULAH but in Genesis 24:43, Eliezer speaks of her first appearance to him, as someone he saw for the first time who may or may not fulfill what he had hoped for, and in that relating the fact that he knew nothing about her, he specifically refers to her as an ALMAH (thereby showing doubts (in a neutral sense) about her virginal status).....

In Psalm 68:26 the plural form of almah ('ALMOTH') is used to describe women who are playing drums in a parade, seen for the first time by the crowds and behind them follows various tribal chieftans: who these female drummers are is not known.

In other words, every instance of its use for either a man or a women relates to a person who is initally seen, where little or nothing is known of that person, and his or her actions are not evident.

For any Greek translation to use PARTHENOS (which generally means 'virgo intacta' but not necessarily so) to back up a Virgin Birth Midrash of 7:14ff is playing fast and loose with the Hebrew in the text in order to use the translated-into-Greek passage as a Haggadic Midrashic Proof Text...

Here is a better clearer translation in its context:

Therefore YHWH himself will give to you a sign. Behold (Heb. Heini) THAT young female stranger before us shall become pregnant and bring forth a son and she will call his name EL is on our Side (a war-chant).

The word HEINI ("Behold", "look over there !" &tc.) is used where the speaker wishes to point something out, especially in a crowd.

In this case she needs to be seen 'right there and then' for the meaning to be consistant, and thus any future tense use of the word refers to what will happen to her, which, in this case is that she will become pregnant, have a son and call him EL IS ON OUR SIDE ('Emmanu EL').

The act of naming of the child is the culmination of this prophecy The word ALMAHis never applied to any woman that the speaker knows, nor would a husband apply it to his wife, although it could be used to describe a woman that is being brought into the picture to be introduced as a future wife.

But once he meets her and knows something about her, her status as an ALMAH is over, since she is no longer 'concealed' (i.e. a total stranger)

The term ALMA in the OT was also applied to young ladies with a broad range of moral values, from the chaste to the profligate--either way, hardly a word that you could get a viable prophecy of a virgin birth out of an executed armed-Daviddic pretender 700 years later.





[edit on 6-12-2009 by Sigismundus]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by reasonable
 


Oh, trust me, that is most definitely a two way street. Neither the religious, or those who aren't, rarely have any idea or concept of God that is even remotely accurate.


So true. I know so many believers who think their works are going to get them into heaven. I have met many non-religious types who think its hopeless and lean towards atheism.

I have met only one christian in my life and he baptized me.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
I'm really at a loss here. Why do so many people take this at face value without any proof whatsoever?


It's called Faith, a transcendental certainty.

Not to be confused with belief... Beliefs can change on a moment's notice. Faith, on the other hand, does not change, cannot be assailed, and need not be defended.

I mean, why do you take anything at face value? Are you telling me you don't? Are you telling me that you only accept things that have been proven beyond a shadow of doubt?

If you tell me that, I'll say you're a liar. If you tell me that you only accept that which can be proven by empirical evidence, I'll tell you that you're a befuddled imbecile who is destined to a life of disappointment and hopeless longing.

Because nothing has EVER been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science has never proven anything that was not disproven, amended, retooled and ultimately discarded within a few generations.

The ironclad scientific facts of centuries past bring knowing chuckles today, just as our ironclad facts of today will elicit chuckles centuries in the future.

Everything you think you know is in constant transition from fantasies into lies into facts and then into discarded myths. The only thing that remains steadfast is the Truth that you know in your heart — your Faith.

But here's what's most telling... While Science has never proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt — while scientific knowledge is constantly disproven and amended and retooled and ultimately discarded — somehow spirituality and religion manage to survive intact, essentially unchanged, for thousands of years.

This tells me that humanity values its own capacity for spirituality far more than its capacity for calculating the (unproven & unprovable) distance to the edge of the known Universe.

In essence, humanity values its unchanging Faith beyond its capacity for assembling transient "facts"... Our capacity for having Faith in the miraculous is what distinguishes us from the animals, it's what makes us Human.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 12/6/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
What I don't get about Jesus is why people believed him when he said he was the son of God. Let's say for a minute that he did heal the sick, walk on water, and come back from the dead. In today's world, someone like that would most likely be called a demon. What proof do we have, besides his own word, that he is the son of God?

This, of course, assumes the whole thing isn't a story made up by some Jewish guys trying to undermine the authority of the Roman Empire. I'm really at a loss here. Why do so many people take this at face value without any proof whatsoever?


That is a good and honest question. Even more astounding is how many people in this day and age believe He is everything He claimed (me included). But in His day, don't you think He must have been of a very powerful character? He must have had a charisma never before encountered by those who made His acquaintance. Kahlil Gibran used poetry and prose to describe what it may have been like to know Jesus firsthand, in his book title Jesus: Son of Man. There are websites that have the complete works online. I am just going to quote one which pertains to what you ask:



leb.net...

Pilate's wife to a Roman lady
I was walking with my maidens in the groves outside of Jerusalem when I saw Him with a few men and women sitting about Him; and He was speaking to them in a language which I only half understood.

But one needs not a language to perceive a pillar of light or a mountain of crystal. The heart knows what the tongue may never utter and the ears may never hear.

He was speaking to His friends of love and strength. I know He spoke of love because there was melody in His voice; and I know He spoke of strength because there were armies in His gestures. And He was tender, though even my husband could not have spoken with such authority.

When He saw me passing by He stopped speaking for a moment and looked kindly upon me. And I was humbled; and in my soul I knew I had passed by a god.

After that day His image visited my privacy when I would not be visited by man or woman; and His eyes searched my soul when my own eyes were closed. And His voice governs the stillness of my nights.

I am held fast forevermore; and there is peace in my pain, and freedom in my tears.

Beloved friend, you have never seen that man, and you will never see Him.

He is gone beyond our senses, but of all men He is now the nearest to me.






[mod edit: added required source link and EX tags]
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Hi Bombeini

Unfortunately we do not have any eyewitness accounts detailing the exact claims of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir, only late 3rd and 4th-5th Century hand copied Greek texts (at least one language removed from the 'mother tongue' of this individual, Galilean Aramaic) which means we have no idea what was actually spoken by him.

When the badly written Greek is translated 'back' into Galilean Aramaic, the tone is a little strident, e.g. the first canonical gospel 'Matthew' whoever he was...

[And a Syro-phonecian gentile comes up to him and says to him, Son of David, have mercy upon me ! My daughter is suffering from a bleeder-daemon, come and help her...for pity's sake]

But Iesous said to her, Lady, the Bar Enasha ('Son of Man' from Aramaic Daniel chapter 7:13-15) was sent ONLY to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro'el, and anyway, since when would it be right to take the children's bread out of their mouths and throw it away to the unclean dogs under the table?'

He might have been loving to the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisro'el, but he sure did not care for the goyim (gentiles, non-Jews) much.

In fact the term 'dogs' is a common abusive term used by Jews in Palestine to denote 'unclean idolatrous' Gentiles in documents of the period prior to the period in which R. Yehoshua lived (see Miqsat Maaseh haTorah, from Caved 4 from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, dated to about 160 BCE)

So this kind of double standard is a big issue for scholars who would like to see a more 'universal Jesus' underneath all the fake overpainting in the councils-approved canonical Greek gospels to make him appear more godlike, when much of his language would be classified as 'racist-zionist' by today's standards....

Judging a personage of history by modern standards is a dangerous thing to do, admittedly, but sometimes you have to draw the line and say, well...racism is racism.

Sorry to burst your belief-bubble, but nice Rebbes walking around telling nice harmless little stories just don't get themselves crucified for armed sedition against Rome during a Passover in 36 CE during the 100th anniversary of the Roman Invasion (starting in BCE 63 with Pompey's brutal conquest of Jerusalem).



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


I can assure you you didn't "burst" my belief. Jesus Himself said enter the narrow gate for WIDE is the road to destruction and MANY will enter thereof, and I can see which road you have chosen to travel. And I too am sorry to burst your non-belief bubble but I know better than I know my own name that one day you will bow and know that Christ is Lord.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Hi Bombeni--

So you follow Daviddic Pretenders who arm their disciples with swords on hills on the 100th Anniversaries of Roman Invasions?

Not sure how narrow that gate was, but his little excursion with his band of merry men at Pesach in 36 CE sure got him into a heap o'trouble, it seems to me !



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bombeni
Even more astounding is how many people in this day and age believe He is everything He claimed (me included).


What's not astounding at all is that far MORE do NOT believe than do believe. Sceptics for Jesus far outnumber believers.



Originally posted by Bombeni
But in His day, don't you think He must have been of a very powerful character? He must have had a charisma never before encountered by those who made His acquaintance.


Really?
Then why didn't ONE person record meeting this amazing person?

Philo - nothing.
Seneca - nothing.
Justus - nothing.
Many others - nothing.


Did you know that we do NOt have even ONE authentic claims to have met a historical Jesus.

Not one.

No historian or writer of the period recorded Jesus or his events.
What we have is anonymous STORIES from many years later.


K.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by Bombeni
Even more astounding is how many people in this day and age believe He is everything He claimed (me included).


What's not astounding at all is that far MORE do NOT believe than do believe. Sceptics for Jesus far outnumber believers.



Originally posted by Bombeni
But in His day, don't you think He must have been of a very powerful character? He must have had a charisma never before encountered by those who made His acquaintance.


Really?
Then why didn't ONE person record meeting this amazing person?

Philo - nothing.
Seneca - nothing.
Justus - nothing.
Many others - nothing.


Did you know that we do NOt have even ONE authentic claims to have met a historical Jesus.

Not one.

No historian or writer of the period recorded Jesus or his events.
What we have is anonymous STORIES from many years later.


K.




WOwee, that makes it all that more amazing doesn't it??!!!!

At this festive season, let me remind us all, that God did not send His Son to condemn the world, but that all may find salvation for their eternal souls through His Shed Blood. Peace and Good Will toward you all!



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Hi Sigus

en.wikipedia.org...

In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl.

In Hebrew Almah always means virgin Unless you are saying the girl is a whore! Even if it means "only" young woman it still says she is a virgin. Do you know the hebrew word for a young woman that has had sex? I do~

...the Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and then later the Prophets and the Writings) into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always means "virgin"[17].

but I guess you are smarter than 72 of the most versed hebrew scholars of all time.

Also how we use Almah now does not relate to how we used it then.



If you take away the Virgin away from is 7:14 I ask you this. What type of sign is it that a young woman bears a child? Not a very impressive sign I must say. Heck my wife just did that. It is all about context.

Now you may write 30 paragraphs about your knowledge in hebrew to greek to latin but what you are saying still does not make sense. I get what you are saying that it "can " mean young woman but seriously, that does not fit.

Oh and give me a break on the invasion. A prophet speaks of the future.

You may call me a prophet.
Obama wins if my wife has a child!


[edit on 15-12-2009 by Kargun]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Kargun]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Kargun]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Hi Kargun

You are aware, aren't you that the whole fairy tale about '72 Rebbes' all miraculously coming up with the same translation of the unpointed Hebrew Vorlag to the Greek LXX is just a pious myth to get Greek Speaking Jews in the 1st century BCE in the Diaspora to believe in a single 'inspired' text in their own language (these diaspora Jews no longer spoke Hebrew or Aramaic after a while), when Origen in the 220s CE (and the Dead Sea Scroll text fragments that we do possess dating from 250BCE through 68 CE) show without a shadow of a doubt that there was NO ONE SINGLE TEXT VERSION of the Greek Old Testament i.e. the LXX (aka the Septuaginta) in existence, just families of non matching MSS with varioius and sundry attempts in various places by Rebbes of various lingiuistic abilities to bring varioius and sundry and non-matching unpointed (un-vowelled) consonantal Hebrew Vorlag texts into another language, i.e. Koine Greek.

Hence, Theodotion's Greek version of the LXX which is quoted so often in the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Levite (aka Book of Revelation, which tends to shun the 'standard' LXX used by Jerome when doing his Latin version in the 5th century.)

Hence, Aquila's Greek version of the LXX, which is VERY different from Theodotion's Greek translation - in fact his unpointed Vorlag in Hebrew also seems to have been different from Theodotion's. Hence Symmachus' Greek translation which is different from Theodotion AND Aquilla's Greek translation, and may have used YET ANOTHER unpointed Hebrew Vorlag consonantal underlay as his base-text (or he may have had a few DIFFERENT consonantal Hebrew text versions in front of him when he set to work).

Origen lined up all these CONTRADICTORY Hebrew-to-Greek 'translations' in his HEXAPLA (12 volumes) which showed just how mangled and NON-UNIFORM the Greek LXX versions floating around in his own day actually was in the 220s CE.

So try if you can, to stop spreading jejune myths about the LXX, a subject which you cleraly do not fully understand -- and of course no Rabbi will ever tell you, since it undercuts their own pointed (vowelled) Masoretic text which Rabinnic Jews (and Protestants today) use as their definitive text.

As for linguistics, you are not very conversant with this subject it seems to me: FYI: Heb. 'Almah' means in paleo-Hebrew 'young woman' and there are many cases where 'almah' can mean 'a member of a harem' i.e. hardly meaning a virgin. Usually when a 'virgin' is meant, the word chosen is followed by the phrase 'which no man hath known...' (i.e. who has not touched a man sexually): naturally, this phrase is missing from Isaiah 7:14 because VIRGIN is NOT meant here.

If the writer of Proto-Isaiah (who later collected the oracles of this Proto-Isaiah prophet person) wanted to refer to a VIRGO INTACTA he would have used the technical word BETHULAH.

But he chose ALMAH, which means, 'young woman, whose status is unknown or not important' and often applied to harem girls.

This is probably the case here in proto-Isaiah (you did know there are THREE Isaiah's didn't you?) where the prophet is pointing out a member of the royal wives (who are NOT virgins, but young and 'fertile' shall we say) and saying, Look, THAT HAREM GIRL OVER THERE IS GOING TO CONCEIVE (the paleo Hebrew tense here is actually a 'prophetic perfect' tense which literally means "THAT HAREM GIRL IS (i.e. already) PREGNANT' --since the Hebrew tenses referring to 'past' and 'future' in Paleo Hebrew prophetic poetry are often polar-reversed, and made more complicated at time by using the so-called VAV consecutive precursor....so, you cannot always be sure if sometning is a FUTURE or a PAST or even a PRESENT event: he might have seen 'the glow' newly pregnant women sometimes are said to throw off in their eyes, being a 'prophet' he might have been sensitive to that kind of thing) AND SHE'LL BEAR A SON (i.e. he is saying 'in 9 months time' - remember that this is POETRY, expressed in poetical-prophetic language) and YOU WILL CALL HIS NAME (since she's one of your wives Mr King) EMMANU-EL, i.e. 'EL IS ON OUR SIDE' (which is a war chant of 'success').

It does NOT mean, God with Among Us.'

It would have been expressed in prose as : Look, in 9 months time we wouldn't be having this conversation, for the tide of the war will change completely - and in 2-3 years from now, both of your enemies will have lost their thrones...'

He IS speaking about the future, but the NEAR future, not some Daviddic Pretender crucified for armed Sedition against the Maiestas of the Divine Emperor Tiberius by the Occupying Roman Authorities in Judaea some 750 years into the future : it would be like a modern psychic reader telling you that there will be a TERRIBLE hurricane in the year 2761 in Burma. Who gives a damn?

But of course, Messianic Apocalyptic minded Jews of the 1st Century BCE and CE (when the Dead Sea Scroll Sectarians were in their vogue, and the earliest Nazorean Christianities began to spread before the outbreak of the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome broke out in earnest at the 70th anniversary of the death of Herod and the annexing of Judaea under DIRECT Roman rule in 66CE) took ANY verse considered to be able 'to defile the hands' (i.e. holy scripture for them) was open season for construing into a Messianic prophecy to suit their own agendas through a process called MIDRASH.

If you do NOT know what a Hagaddic Midrash is, or how it was used by the earliest Nazorean Christianities of the 1st Century CE, do yourself a BIG Favour and Google it and come back when you know what you are talking about..






[edit on 16-12-2009 by Sigismundus]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
What I don't get about Jesus is why people believed him when he said he was the son of God. Let's say for a minute that he did heal the sick, walk on water, and come back from the dead. In today's world, someone like that would most likely be called a demon. What proof do we have, besides his own word, that he is the son of God?

This, of course, assumes the whole thing isn't a story made up by some Jewish guys trying to undermine the authority of the Roman Empire. I'm really at a loss here. Why do so many people take this at face value without any proof whatsoever?



I PROMISE that this was NOT made up of the Jewish People. We do not believe these things and given the blatant propaganda AGAINST the Jews in the NT, to what purpose would it really serve us??? Hell, unless you look closely enough, the Romans come off smelling MUCH better in the gospel accounts than do the Jewish People ... who never would have done what it is they are being accused of by Christians. We (well, the Jews even at that time) were fighting AGAINST the hellenism that the Greeks were bringing into Judaism ... then, does that help you to clue you in a bit more of where these accounts came from?

You know why the Jewish People have so long stayed away from the accounts of the NT (and even many of the pious Jews will spit on the ground at the mention of Jesus)? Because 1) to a Jew, knowing our Laws and way of Life, the Greek influence is OBVIOUS, and 2) the Jews have been slaughtered for this faith that belongs to another.

As for Jesus being the Son of God ... well, any Jew knows that the Son of God is not one man (again, that is the hellenistic influence).. Exodus 4:22



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Kargun
 


Actually, the virgin birth is not a sign at all. How can it be a sign when nobody can see it?

A stop sign isn't a stop sign if nobody can see the sign. Signs are there for people to see. A sign unseen is not a sign at all.

Jesus is born of a virgin, but Mary is not that virgin. The virgin is the father.



John 3

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


There is no equal to the father, thus nobody the father can "mate" with. The birth of all souls comes from the father, who was a virgin then and is a virgin now. All those who are born of spirit are born of that virgin.

At one point, Jesus even denies Mary as his mother.

The birth of flesh for Jesus = Mary and Joesph, thus the lines through both.
The virgin birth of Jesus = birth of spirit, birth of the soul, which is the father within.

Personally I think it was changed around to keep people from realizing their true father too, as Jesus had. That, or changed by people who didn't understand the 2 births and molded things to their understanding.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join