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.

 

Let's talk about it! Psalm 22

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by dashen
 




Also, that was a 'virgin' birth. What really happens is they pluck a spirit straight from the etherical (I think thats the one) realm and plant it straight into an egg. It does the same thing as sperm, as far as I can tell sperm carries the spirit. Which is why self-pleasure for males is against religious law...and spiritual law as far as I can tell.
This is also how they manipulated our genetics. Evolved us.


edit on 22-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)


???
A sperm cell carries either an X or a Y chromasome. Jesus like 99% of males had at leas one Y Chromasome.
If you had a blood sample of his, you could easily tell who the male genetic donor is. Spirit sperm? Never heard of it. Did G-d deposit it with some sort of spirit penis? In a married woman no less.

You beleive in evolution?




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Completely agreed.

Even Edgar Cayce says Jesus was the greatest psychic that ever lived. Through him all works of magick can be achieved. All must be done unselfishly though because severe consequences await those who do so for personal gain.
edit on 22-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ManOfGod267
 


Are you saying that the source I provided is not giving a different interpretation of Isaiah 53 than the one you proposed to me?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ManOfGod267
 
Hmmm. For anyone interested in a good counterpoint, there actually appears to be a fairly thorough rebuttal to this post in this article here, with some good points on why the lion translation from the masoretes doesn't make a whole lot of sense (requiring additional words not in the text to be read into the text for it to make any sense) as well as clarifying why the scholars who translated the septuagint translated the verse to include 'pierced' instead of 'like a lion'.

Here's a snip from their conclusion:

Such strong language only serves to stir the emotions of the reader, and attempts to give the argument an authoritative tone. One should observe that Rabbi Singer, in his website, gives no actual evidence that "Christian bible translations were meticulously altered" the Bible - other than the allegation that it was the word ka'ari, not ka'aru, that the translators were attempting to translate and a theological motive for "painting Jesus into the Tanakh," because of the importance of this psalm in Christian tradition. The argument that, "this stunning mistranslation in the 22nd Psalm did not occur because Christian translators were unaware of the correct meaning of [ka'ari]," is already null, because it implies that Christian translators are a.) attempting to translate the word ka'ari, and not ka'aru, as we just stated, b.) provide a translation solely from a controversial Masoretic text, all the while not taking into account the witness of the other ancient versions. It is also important to understand that the Masoretic text itself is not one monolithic text, but a family of texts, of which, a very small amount of have the vav, instead of a yud, at the end of this controversial word, thus agreeing with "pierced". It would be a stretch for anyone to say that it was a "stunning, deliberate, mistranslation", due to the problematic nature of the verse, and the fact that the difference between a "vav" and a "yud" is a centimeter of ink.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls also gave us a major contribution to textual scholarship, providing some of the most ancient Biblical texts known in history. The Scrolls, which could not have been influenced by an apologetic or defensive theology on either side of the debate, have ka'aru, instead of ka'ari! This seriously damages the anti-missionary allegation of a "mistranslation", and provides significant textual weight for the translation "pierced".

Overall, we have seen that: Anti-missionary accusations of deliberate mistranslation against believers in the messiahship of Yeshua of Nazareth are without merit. Anti-missionaries add to the text of Psalm 22 to "make it fit", because the reading, "like a lion are my hands and feet" makes no sense. An ancient Jewish work, Pesikta Rabbati, applies Psalm 22 to the suffering of the Messiah ben Yosef, who is described in remarkably similar terms to that of Yeshua ben Yosef. 4.) The Masoretic text has a minority witness for the "pierced" reading, along with other translations like the Septuagint and Pe#ta, and most powerfully, 5.) the Dead Sea Scrolls favor the "pierced reading".


Take care.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


I have already gone over this before with another user. Detailing why we would have different bibles. This was about a week ago where I discussed this claim. Again this is a Q&A by Rabbi Tovia Singer. Discussing the Septuagint and the verse Isiah 7:14


the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian one. The original Septuagint, created 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish translators, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone. It therefore did not contain prophetic Books of the Bible such as Isaiah, which you asserted that Matthew quoted from. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint. Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) had an enormous impact on creating and shaping the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the church throughout the centuries as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish scriptures.



The fact that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was only of the Pentateuch and not of prophetic books of the Bible such as Isaiah is confirmed by countless sources including the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.1 Moreover, Jerome, a church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus' statement regarding the authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.2 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, "The word 'Septuagint,' (from Lat septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books."3



In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, the preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles."4 Regarding your assertion that Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint, nowhere in the Book of Matthew does the word Septuagint appear, or, for that matter, is there any reference to a Greek translation of the Bible ever mentioned in all of the New Testament; and there is good reason for this. The first century church was well aware that a Jewish audience would be thoroughly unimpressed by a claim that Jesus' virgin birth could only be supported by a Greek translation of the Bible. They understood that if Jews were to find their Christian message convincing, they would need to assert that it was the actual words of the prophet Isaiah that clearly foretold Mary's virgin conception, not from the words of a Greek translation. Therefore, in Matthew 1:22-23, the author of the first Gospel insists that it was "spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child . . . .' " Matthew loudly makes the point that it was specifically the prophet's own words that proclaimed the virgin birth, not the words of any translator. Isaiah, of course, did not preach or write in Greek, and therefore the word parthenos never left the lips of the prophet throughout his life. All 66 chapters of the Book of Isaiah were spoken and then recorded in the Hebrew language alone. Matthew, however, was attempting to place in the mind of his intended Jewish reader that it was the words of prophet Isaiah himself which declared that the messiah would be born of a virgin. Nothing of course could be further from the truth.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


I've read they weren't married when she conceived. Joseph was furious when Gabriel told him this and refused to marry her. Gabriel warned him that any mention of him would be stricken from the Book of Life...and Joseph feared Gabriel and his senses returned and he married her in front of the community, as was the practice back then.

I believe we were created by Aliens. The old testament says it. Genesis 1:26. Book of Enoch....many more texts.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManOfGod267
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Like I mention it's how you view it. I wouldn't doubt Jesus was the only person crucified at the time and nailed. If you believe the NT view of Jesus. You could be Muslim or something else and believe Jesus never died or was crucified.


Jesus WAS the only one to be nailed to the cross. The Romans did not practice nailing people to crosses, they tied them. The Pharisees had Jesus nailed to the cross because they feared he would escape or that his disciples would rescue him. Nailing him to the cross ensured that he wasn't going to go anywhere. I have read several documents from Pilate himself telling about how his own people had him nailed to the cross. My chosen field of study is archeology and particular the Ancient Romans. I can tell you anything you want to know about Romans and the muslims can believe anything they want, when you have a letter from Pilate himself talking about how an innocent man called Yeshua was nailed to a cross, it can only mean one person, JESUS.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


No, it's your source. I just see it differently then you do. Since I already posted verses clearly identifying Israel as the Suffering Servant. That's how I see it. Trust me I have been linked to many Christian sites that try to discuss how these verses relate to Jesus in some way or another. It's just all played out!



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by ManOfGod267
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Like I mention it's how you view it. I wouldn't doubt Jesus was the only person crucified at the time and nailed. If you believe the NT view of Jesus. You could be Muslim or something else and believe Jesus never died or was crucified.


Jesus WAS the only one to be nailed to the cross. The Romans did not practice nailing people to crosses, they tied them. The Pharisees had Jesus nailed to the cross because they feared he would escape or that his disciples would rescue him. Nailing him to the cross ensured that he wasn't going to go anywhere. I have read several documents from Pilate himself telling about how his own people had him nailed to the cross. My chosen field of study is archeology and particular the Ancient Romans. I can tell you anything you want to know about Romans and the muslims can believe anything they want, when you have a letter from Pilate himself talking about how an innocent man called Yeshua was nailed to a cross, it can only mean one person, JESUS.


That's incorrect. As seen in this link. Others were crucified by being nailed. I'm not here to rain on your parade. Just show you what you are missing here and there.

Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refers to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus. This was discovered in Jerusalem in 1968. It is not necessarily surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial. The remains were found accidentally in an ossuary with the crucified man’s name on it, 'Yehohanan, the son of Hagakol'. Nicu Haas, an anthropologist at the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem, examined the ossuary and discovered that it contained a heel bone with a nail driven through its side, indicating that the man had been crucified. The position of the nail relative to the bone indicates that the feet had been nailed to the cross from their side, not from their front; various opinions have been proposed as to whether they were both nailed together to the front of the cross or one on the left side, one on the right side. The point of the nail had olive wood fragments on it indicating that he was crucified on a cross made of olive wood or on an olive tree. Since olive trees are not very tall, this would suggest that the condemned was crucified at eye level.



Additionally, a piece of acacia wood was located between the bones and the head of the nail, presumably to keep the condemned from freeing his foot by sliding it over the nail. His legs were found broken, possibly to hasten his death as described in John 19:31-35. It is thought that because in Roman times iron was rare, the nails were removed from the dead body to conserve costs. According to Haas, this fact could help to explain why only one nail has been found, as the tip of the nail in question was bent in such a way that it could not be removed. Haas had also identified a scratch on the inner surface of the right radius bone of the forearm, close to the wrist. He deduced from the form of the scratch, as well as from the intact wrist bones, that a nail had been driven into the forearm at that position. However, much of Haas' findings have been challenged. The scratches in the wrist area were determined to be non-traumatic and, therefore, not evidence of crucifixion. A later reexamination of the heel bone revealed that the two heels were not nailed together, but nailed separately to either side of the upright post of the cross.

Source



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ManOfGod267
 
Hmmm. The rabbi mentioned here has an obvious horse in this race, but I'm not sure Encyclopædia Britannica does, and it agrees with Wikipedia that the rest of the LXX's translation of the tanach was completed prior to 100 BCE?:


Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century bc and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century bc.


I'm not trying to say I've got a clear picture here one way or the other, but apparently the criticism of the common reading in christian bibles is not quite as cut-and-dried as suggested here.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Well since you and the other member asked me to visit there link I should. Both of you should see the links I posted. Judge for yourself.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Well you have to see what they're saying and evaluate it how you see it. It's alien to each other. You probably see Jesus and I see Hashem. The best we can is pray and respect one another.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ManOfGod267
 


A popular myth is that Isaiah 53 was never considered messianic by rabbis and Jewish sages. Judaism teaches that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel.

Response

Isaiah 53 (more precisely, 52:13 to 53:12) has been interpreted in messianic terms by a wide variety of Jewish commentators over a long period of time. Other interpretations have certainly been offered, including the view first popularized by Rashi in medieval times that the prophet speaks of the nation of Israel. Neverthless the messianic interpretation has a long history in Jewish Bible exegesis, as shown by the quotations below.

Here is just a snippet from my source. It confirms what I have been saying all along. The one thing that I have been saying is that not all Jews see it the same way. If you continue to deny this it can only be that you refuse to read the alternative interpretations or you just refuse to accept that they exist. Which is it?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


Well visit the link that discusses how the Jews see the Messiah concept. The reasons the links you source I dislike is because they take many things out of context. Imagine being a Muslim and seeing anti-Islamic websites which mainly post lies of your faith.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
But I would like to post something later. If you can wait. It's from a book. That discusses how Israel will be returned to the Holy land and people will be in shock.
edit on 22-8-2011 by ManOfGod267 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Wow, I read this too.


Ah, it was a hateful lot that day, children of Earth. It was custom to bind a person onto the cross with strapping but not so for this lamb of God. They forced him down on the cross, stretching his limbs and beating him, and they nailed his hands and his feet onto the wood. They placed nails also through his wrist tendons whereby the nails would not pull away through the flesh.


The above is from the Angel Gabriel being spoken in first person.
edit on 22-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ManOfGod267
 


Please understand that I respect your view. I just have a different view. I in no way want to disrespect your beliefs. As far as I am concerned, the roots of my religion lie in Judaism. And you are correct- the best we can do is pray and respect each other.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
It always seems that these threads end up in the same relentless tail chasing everytime. Everyone trying to convince everyone else how it really is. We'll just all say praise God, wether your christian, muslim or jew and be done with it.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 



Originally posted by dashen
King of the Jews? In the Jewish tradition the kingship is ONLY inherited from the father, and only if his father is descended directly from David, oh but wait who's JC's dad? oops not king.


Do you know who King Davids father and son was? If so I can give you a lineage supposedly researched by Judas Iscarioth.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


Isaiah 52:15-53:1
So shall he cast down many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told to them they shall see; and that which they had not heard they shall consider. Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the L-rd reviled?




Kings of nations are speaking gere in the numbered astonishment; for what they will witness in the messianic agre contradicts everything they had ever heard or consider. "who would have believed our report?," the astonished and contrite world leaders wonder aloud in their dazed bewilderment (53:1). The humbled kings of nations (52:15) will finally grasp and confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of our iniquity," (53:5) i.e., depraver, reckless Jew-hatred, rather than, as they previously thought, the stubborn blidness of the Jews.





They are utterly astounded that the Jewish people, whom all their nations have together despised and molested, are finally vindicated to enjoy the promised salvation of G-d. The palpable shock that the Israel's neighbors will express at the end of day's is a common theme in the Hebrew scriptures.





Bear in mind that there is not a single instance in the Tanach where prophets foretell that in the messianic age the Jewish people will be surprised or astonished, and never will they seek out the gentiles for spirtual guidence. On the contray, the bible clearly testifies that in the End of Days then gentiles of different languages will grasp the shirt of a Jew and say, "let us go with you, for we have heard G-d is with you." Zec (8:23)


See also Micah 7:15-16

Does this help to explain my answer to your question?

book by Rabbi Tovia Singer.
Let's get biblical by Tovia Singer.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ManOfGod267
 

Well you have to see what they're saying and evaluate it how you see it. It's alien to each other. You probably see Jesus and I see Hashem. The best we can is pray and respect one another.

Indeed, friend, and I don't intend any argument or discord here, just discussion.

Apologies in advance for not reading all of this in-depth as yet, I'm short on sleep and having a hard time following at the moment so I believe I'll likely part ways with ATS for the evening after I post this, but I will follow up on your thread here in the next few days.

And if I missed it I'm sorry, I take it you are jewish? While I can't square well with the modern state of Israel itself, I do have a great deal of respect for judaism, as well as a healthy dose of issues with 'modern' christianity for drifting so far from its hebraic roots - arguments as to the validity of christianity itself aside. So, in closing, I'd like to thank you for your reasoned responses (way to be a mensch *grin*) and bid you a good evening, friend.

Will get back to you in a day or two, likely.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join