Question about the Messiah.

reply to post by WarminIndy

All because you don't want to accept the historicity of facts.

Because they aren't facts but the propaganda spewed out by anti-christian cults that you somehow picked up and are repeating, for whatever reason.
Judaism and Christianity are two different religions.
Like Jesus said, you cannot serve two masters.
Either you support Jesus, or you support the scribes and Pharisees who killed him.
I don't think that people who purport to be Christian need to be repeating a lot of propaganda that is meant to diminish Jesus and the church in favor of a man-made religion that goes under the guise of so-called Judaism.

. . . a group of people that you dislike simply because I disagree with you.

I don't "dislike" a group of people, that is just an assumption that you make to discredit my defense of Christian principles and ideas.

The fact is Isaiah, which you never answered about, was written in Hebrew.

There is a book called Isaiah which there are copies of that seem to be written in a format often called "Hebrew".
That is a fact. What you are doing is making certain suppositions based on that, which are not facts.

And the Book of Isaiah is exactly the same in the Dead Sea Scrolls that is in the King James Bible.

Except for a couple hundred variations.

That kind of blows the theory that everything was written in Koine Greek.

No it doesn't because that copy is not older than when the Septuagint was written.
Also, I never said that the Old Testament was written in "Koine Greek", since it was an earlier form of Hellenistic Greek. The New Testament is what was written in Koine Greek.

Jesus read from the Hebrew book of Isaiah when He said in the synagogue, "Today, this scripture is fulfilled in your ears". And what was that He read?

Based on what?

The Ruach HaKodesh Adonai.

I don't think that there is a verse that says that.

jmdewey60
You can say that if you want but my original explanation said that the "revelation" of Jesus was the manifestation of his reign of power carrying out judgment on those who rejected and killed him.
And I also pointed out that there are two separate statements in the passage that you are citing but never quite get around to actually quoting.

I drew attention to the fact that you had provided two different explanations for the 1 Corinthians passage, one in terms of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other in terms of the end of their individual lives.
Are you now claiming that your two explanations were intended to apply separately to the "two separate statements" in the passage?
If so, I can prove the claim false by re-quoting your earlier post;

Number one, 1 Corinthians 1:7&8,
Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.
He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2011 NIV)
Suppose that the "revelation" is that Jesus is Lord, which would have been made manifest on the day that the Jerusalem temple was destroyed, where the former entity who held that title was shown to be powerless to save His own 'holy house'.
That would have been the "Day of our Lord Jesus Christ", or at least 'a day' of that type, meaning a day of judgement, the anti-type being the hypothetical "last day" when the world is 'no more'.

There you are applying the ONE explanation to the WHOLE of the passage.
You are clearly (and correctly) identifying the "revelation of Jesus" with "the end, the day of the Lord Jesus Christ", and interpreting BOTH statements in the same way.
Therefore when you later interpreted at least part of the passage in terms of "end of life", you were replacing and ignoring the interpretation you had given earlier.
However, if you have not abandoned the "A.D.70" interpretation after all, then my critique of that interpretation still applies.

2 Thessalonians ch1 vv7-9;
What you are trying to do is to assign to it a specific meaning that the writer did not specify.
You are claiming that he means that at the end of the world there will be some people who never quite got the message, when there is nothing in there that shows that he is referring to anyone other than who they were dealing with right then.

The evidence that the author was not talking about first century events lies in the fact that he predicts something which did not happen in the first century.
Of course you could always argue that he made a mistake and predicted something which did not happen, but you've already shut off that escape route by renouncing any intention of saying that New Testament got it wrong.

There is indeed something in the passage which indicates that he was not talking about the first century.
It is the definite article, the word TOIS- "...on those who...".
He says that eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of God will come upon "those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel".
He does NOT say that it will come upon some of them.
"Those who" obviously means the lot of them.

Evidently eternal destruction and exclusion fron the presence of God did NOT, during the first century, come upon ALL those who did not know God, because so many of them survived to be brought into the gospel later.
If this author predicted something which has not happened yet, there are two logical possibilities;
a) He got it wrong
b) He was predicting something which remains in our future.
Your position, if you were more honest with yourself, would be the first.
Mine is the second.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Did you know that John says in Revelation that the redeemed sing the song of Moses? Were you aware of that?

That seems to be used in a metaphorical way, where a "Song of Moses" is a generic type of song, and also it goes with the theme of that part of Revelation, with the bowls representing plagues on the people who oppose God's people, in this case, the followers of Christ.

reply to post by DISRAELI

If so, I can prove the claim false by re-quoting your earlier post;

Ok, do you have a point?
I don't have a script that I am following that some "authority" handed me, and I have to figure these things out myself.
My point was that you don't have to accept a futurist interpretation that gets passed out by whoever, with some pat explanation for how things are going to play out.

The evidence that the author was not talking about first century events lies in the fact that he predicts something which did not happen in the first century.

That's what you keep saying but it's clear that there is no reason to take it as something that is to happen two thousand years in the future.

Of course you could always argue that he made a mistake and predicted something which did not happen, but you've already shut off that escape route by renouncing any intention of saying that New Testament got it wrong.

You seem to think that I post as a way of playing some sort of rhetorical game. I'm not. I do this out of concern for people who are being led astray by people who present themselves as if they have all the answers and know the future.
Do you think that I just want to replace them?
I don't know what's going to happen but I know that the Bible does not support what amounts to so many theories based on tortured interpretations.

b) He was predicting something which remains in our future.

Why would you think that, really, is this something that you came up with on your own, or did you approach it having a predetermined outcome based on a teaching that you already accepted?
You are taking it as if it is world encompassing, when it seems to have been written to a particular church that was taking an intense sort of persecution at the hands of the Jews.
I think that 2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul, but a later writer who had a particular "truth" that he wanted to convey and saw the way to get it across was to write about an event that already happened, as if it was a former famous Christian leader predicting it ahead of time, knowing that people would keep it and copy it and distribute it as "proof" of how Paul was able to prophesy things.

reply to post by jmdewey60


jmdewey, when you first said I must be Jewish, you couldn't prove it. You assumed it. Now you accuse me of spewing propaganda.

jmdewey, I don't loose and fast with the Bible, I don't use it to justify an agenda. You read my post previously about the origins of religions and yet you still make the claim that I am a propagandist. I don't have an agenda to misquote history or scripture nor will I ever accuse one group of people of perverting the Old Testament just to twist the Gospels to get people to not believe in Jesus. Three times Jesus said to Satan "It is written"... where was it written, jmdewey?

Everything thing in the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi was prophecy about the coming Messiah. The Torah and the Tanahk is the prophetic message of the coming of Christ. It tells us not only about the coming Messiah, it tells us HOW and WHERE. "Oh Bethlehem Ephrata, though thou are small"....

Bethlehem, the HOUSE OF BREAD, was the birthplace of the BREAD OF LIFE which comes down from heaven. Can you make the spiritual connection there? Man should not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of God. And God said....

Jesus, the Bread of Life which comes down from heaven, born in the House of Bread, was God in the beginning, and was with God when God SAID "Let there be light". But the light shone but the darkness has not comprehended it.

Unto US a child is born, unto Us a son is given, And he shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and of His kingdom, there shall be no end.

I don't know how it is propaganda when I believe that all the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi points to Jesus Christ, and just because I said Torah and Tanahk, that I could possibly be spewing anti-Christian rhetoric. Maybe it's because I believe in the mystical experience, that every feast, every holiday, every place, every name and every event in the Bible has both a spiritual and natural meaning.

But not only do the prophets talk about a coming Messiah, they even talk about a returning Messiah. That's incredible to think about, how they not only knew the town He was going to be born in, but that His clothing would be gambled for, that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and then it would be thrown into a junkyard.

That's what I see when I read the prophets.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Did you know that John says in Revelation that the redeemed sing the song of Moses? Were you aware of that?

That seems to be used in a metaphorical way, where a "Song of Moses" is a generic type of song, and also it goes with the theme of that part of Revelation, with the bowls representing plagues on the people who oppose God's people, in this case, the followers of Christ.

Oh you don't know the Song of Moses. Well, it's in the Torah.

Exodus 15:1 Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and spoke, saying: “I will sing to the Lord, For He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea! 2 The Lord is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation; He is my God, and I will praise Him; My father’s God, and I will exalt Him.

11 “Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like You, glorious in holiness, Fearful in praises, doing wonders? 12 You stretched out Your right hand; The earth swallowed them. 13 You in Your mercy have led forth The people whom You have redeemed; You have guided them in Your strength To Your holy habitation.

16 Fear and dread will fall on them; By the greatness of Your arm They will be as still as a stone, Till Your people pass over, O Lord, Till the people pass over Whom You have purchased. 17 You will bring them in and plant them In the mountain of Your inheritance, In the place, O Lord, which You have made For Your own dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established. 18 “The Lord shall reign forever and ever.”

(it was so long, I had to cut a few verses out)

It's not generic. The same words are said in Revelation. And if there's no rapture and no end at which Christ comes back, then jmdewey, the redeemed must be metaphorical as well. There's no real salvation, there's no real heaven, there's no real anything, then Christ is a metaphor, God is a metaphor and His people are a metaphor.

Are you a metaphor believing in a metaphorical Christ? You can't apply Christ as real in one place and when it suits you to associate everything about Him as a metaphor in another place.

reply to post by WarminIndy

It's not generic. The same words are said in Revelation.

I think that it is.
Were you reading the Greek in Revelation 15?
"Moses" is not given the article, and is in the genitive case.

The song in Revelation does not match up with the one in Deuteronomy.
Probably the closer match is to the song described in Isaiah 12.

There's no real salvation . . .

There is, it's the church. That was what Jesus came to create, and what he works at now.
That is the great revelation of Jesus Christ.
If you are not satisfied with God's grace, then I suggest that you pray to God that He sends His spirit to you so that you can have a spirit of gratitude in you.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

It's not generic. The same words are said in Revelation.

I think that it is.
Were you reading the Greek in Revelation 15?
"Moses" is not given the article, and is in the genitive case.

The song in Revelation does not match up with the one in Deuteronomy.
Probably the closer match is to the song described in Isaiah 12.

There's no real salvation . . .

There is, it's the church. That was what Jesus came to create, and what he works at now.
That is the great revelation of Jesus Christ.
If you are not satisfied with God's grace, then I suggest that you pray to God that He sends His spirit to you so that you can have a spirit of gratitude in you.

edit on 8-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

The CHURCH is not salvation, only Jesus Christ is. Jesus didn't come to CREATE a church, He came to preach repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus didn't bring a NEW thing, He brought righteousness. The New Testament isn't a NEW thing, it's the SUMMATION of everything that was spoken before.

What is the New Testament anyway? Testament means witness, so the Old Testament means they were witnesses. What you mean is the New Covenant. And what do you suppose the New Covenant means? It means that no longer will we have to sacrifice lambs or bulls, because the ultimate sacrifice has now been made.

Don't you find it interesting that everything about the life of Christ occurs on a major Jewish holiday? And everything about Him is found in the natural part of Judaism?

He was born during the Atonement, He died at the Passover, the Church was born...ON THE DAY OF SHEVUOT, the Feast of Weeks known as FIRST FRUITS. Then Peter even states "This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel". Who was Joel and why would Peter directly make the connection between the old and the new?

Don't you think it is interesting that the Bread of Life was born in the House of Bread? Bethlehem Ephrata. Which, by the way, is only 6 miles from Jerusalem. The number 6 is so important, it means the day man was created. It is the day of incompleteness. The man born in Bethlehem was 6 miles from His death. That ended the curse upon humanity that came about from Adam, it was because of Adam that death came to the world.

He went from the House of Bread to the City of Peace because He was the Passover lamb, and lambs were brought to Jerusalem to be slain for Passover.

And why is it important to understand just what the Passover means?

John the Baptist said "Behold the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world. His broom is in His hand and He will thoroughly sweep His floor." Had you know about Judaism, you would have known this is a direct reference to the fact that the week before Passover, the Jews clean their house by sweeping, to remove any yeast (leaven). So Jesus thoroughly sweeping His floor to remove sin, John was speaking as a Jew. Had you known Judaism, then you might have picked up on that.

The Old Testament means the natural, the New Testament means the spiritual. The Jews are the natural sons of Abraham, the Christians are the spiritual sons. God has never cast His people away. Don't boast yourself against them, because it would be just as easy for God to cut you out as well. But not all of them have been cut away, so don't boast yourself against them.

reply to post by WarminIndy

The CHURCH is not salvation, only Jesus Christ is.

I think that if you read the Bible while forgetting all your cult dogma, you would be able to see that it teaches that being in the church is salvation.

He brought righteousness.

He brought about a way to our righteousness, which comes about through our being in the church.

John the Baptist said "Behold the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world.

Which had nothing to do with Passover. Did you read it in Greek? It was a reference to Isaiah 53.

But not all of them have been cut away . . .

The ones who became Christians.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I think that if you read the Bible while forgetting all your cult dogma,

And again, which cult would that be, jmdewey? Are you still saying I am Jewish?

you would be able to see that it teaches that being in the church is salvation.

And which church would that be, jmdewey?

He brought about a way to our righteousness, which comes about through our being in the church.

Then why did He say even the scribes and Pharisees were righteous? And why does the Bible also include Lot as righteous?

Did you read it in Greek? It was a reference to Isaiah 53.

In the Masoretic or the Septuagint? Jerome wrote it in Latin.

The ones who became Christians.

That's not what Paul said.

And what about St. Jerome translating from the Hebrew and not the Greek? There obviously were Hebrew Scriptures of the OT and the NT, not in Greek.

And what your basis is about the Romans does not come from the Bible, but from Augustine in his book The City of God Augustine was a Neo-Platonist and incorporated Greek philosophy into his translation, that had nothing to do with Hebrew or Latin thought. You are believing Plato's Allegory of the Cave It doesn't matter that Augustine wrote in Koine Greek, ALL of what he translated was for the purpose of expounding the philosophy of Plato. That is proven, historically.

Jerome, on the other hand, translated the Hebrew into Latin, from the original Hebraic sources. Not the Greek ones. And the Latin Vulgate is older than The City of God, which you reference every time without saying so. I don't know if you were even aware of that.

A letter from Augustine to Jerome....

In this letter I have further to say, that I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places. I would have put down here an extract or two in illustration of this criticism; but at present I have not access to the manuscript of the translation from the Hebrew. Since, however, your quick discernment anticipates and goes beyond not only what I have said, but also what I meant to say, you already understand, I think, enough to be able, by giving the reason for the plan which you have adopted, to explain what perplexes me.

Excuse me, what were you saying again about the Greek? Even Augustine admits the OT was originally in Hebrew, not Greek.

Here is Jerome's response...

You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

Oh, the Septuagint has more in it, placed there by whom? Oh snap, Augustine had not even read the Septuagint, how interesting. What were you saying again about it being originally in Koine Greek?

reply to post by WarminIndy

And again, which cult would that be, jmdewey? Are you still saying I am Jewish?

Some sort of "Judeo/christian" cult, where you practice subverting normal Christianity by inserting doctrines from the enemy religion.

And which church would that be, jmdewey?

If you were a normal Christian, you would know the answer to that, instead you are probably sitting around thinking about how great Israel is.

Then why did He say even the scribes and Pharisees were righteous? And why does the Bible also include Lot as righteous?

Jesus said that your righteousness has to exceed that of the Pharisees, which means that you have to be righteous on the inside, and not just on the outside.

The City of God, which you reference every time without saying so. I don't know if you were even aware of that.

By saying that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the church is the Kingdom of God?

What were you saying again about it being originally in Koine Greek?

I wasn't, you were.
Hellenistic Greek, which was from the Macedonians and Greeks going out to the wider world spreading their culture and language.
Koine was the common language in the Roman Empire.
The New Testament was written in Koine and the old testament was written probably in Hellenistic Greek, and then put into Hebrew in order to make it seem older than it really was.

Oh, the Septuagint has more in it, placed there by whom?

These guys did not have the benefit of modern science and worked in virtual isolation, so Jerome was only stating an opinion based on an assumption in turn based on a myth.

jmdewey60
"[DISRAELI] If so, I can prove the claim false by re-quoting your earlier posts"
Ok, do you have a point?

I expressed my point in an earlier post and have been defending it since;
"If you can switch so casually from one interpretation to another, that rather gives away how you're choosing them for tactical reasons, rather than because you've thought the passages through properly."

"[DISRAELI] The evidence that the author was not talking about first century events lies in the fact that he predicts something which did not happen in the first century."
That's what you keep saying but it's clear that there is no reason to take it as something that is to happen two thousand years in the future.

The logical possibilities are
1) He was predicting something which has already happened in the past.
2) He was predicting something which remains in our future.
3) He was predicting something which will never happen at all.
I "keep saying" the statement you quote because it tends to rule out option 1.
I don't need to argue against option 3 (="he got it wrong") because you show no signs of interest in that line of thought.
By the process of elimination, that leaves option 2.

I do this out of concern for people who are being led astray by people who present themselves as if they have all the answers and know the future.

Yes, you are reacting against the rapture theorists and the date calculators and all the other "must be happening in our own generation" obsessives. In that, I'm entirely in sympathy with you.
However, I think your reaction goes too far.
As I've said before, you're in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
It is possible to reject date-calculating futurism without throwing out futurism altogether.

DISRAELI

jmdewey60

I do this out of concern for people who are being led astray by people who present themselves as if they have all the answers and know the future.

Yes, you are reacting against the rapture theorists and the date calculators and all the other "must be happening in our own generation" obsessives. In that, I'm entirely in sympathy with you.
However, I think your reaction goes too far.
As I've said before, you're in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
It is possible to reject date-calculating futurism without throwing out futurism altogether.



Thank you Disraeli.

And of course he is basing this on Augustine's book The City of God. He doesn't realize it was Augustine who proposed it all. And he isn't aware that the Sadducees also didn't believe in the resurrection or the end. He's promoting a theory first found among a Jewish sect that he then goes on to say I am part of a "Jewish cult".

I am not one of those with a date calculator, but I do accept there is going to be a rapture, which by the way comes from Latin, rapturus, which means "carried away" or "caught up". jmdewey is anti-Latin and anti-Hebrew, sticking only to the theory that all of it was in Koine Greek, when obviously it is not the case and we know differently.



Why didn't Augustine write in Koine himself, preferring to use Hellenistic Greek?

reply to post by DISRAELI

I expressed my point in an earlier post and have been defending it since;

I would hardly call it "defending" when you were just repeating it while disparaging my personal integrity.

. . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Seems the New Testament writers had little stomach for theorizing.

reply to post by WarminIndy

. . . sticking only to the theory that all of it was in Koine Greek

Hello!
I never said that.
You have a style that I noticed in your posts on my 911 thread of trying to discredit me by stating things that I supposedly said, that I never did.
Your arguments are not even arguments because you can never actually deal with the question at hand and just throw out large quantities of irrelevant material.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

. . . sticking only to the theory that all of it was in Koine Greek

Hello!
I never said that.
You have a style that I noticed in your posts on my 911 thread of trying to discredit me by stating things that I supposedly said, that I never did.
Your arguments are not even arguments because you can never actually deal with the question at hand and just throw out large quantities of irrelevant material.

jmdewey,

Your defense of Koine Greek, telling me that I need to read it in the Koine Greek, that you won't take my argument seriously because I don't read Koine Greek, that I am in a cult because I said Hebrew, so what are you postulating now?

Were there or were there not Hebrew scripture BEFORE Koine Greek?

And it is very relevant to the discussion, every word that is typed, every thought, every paragraph, everything is relevant. And you have dealt with me before that thread.

The purpose of ATS is to present ideas and theories, of which we are supposed to present facts in our discussions and then expect those facts and theories to be accountable to other facts. So when you present something as "this is the way it is" then you should expect others to say "that's not the way it is" and then what we say, we are held accountable to. No matter how little relevant you think a word or a sentence is, expect it to be rebutted. That's the purpose of ATS.

I am rebutted all the time, does that mean I should mean something in what I say and expect it to not be read a certain way? If I say it, then I mean it. But I don't say to others "Don't read the meaning of what I say, just believe the words I type". There is meaning in everything jmdewey, no matter how irrelevant you think something is, it is very relevant to someone else.



All your arguments on here has led me to believe that you think the only language that the Bible was in and the only language we should be reading it in is Koine Greek.

It's really a simple question, were there Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew before Koine Greek?

reply to post by WarminIndy

. . . telling me that I need to read it in the Koine Greek . . .

You were the first person to use the word "Koine" in a post on this thread.
I used that word in my posts in order to say that I didn't say it, and to try to counter your disinformation and malicious misquoting.

. . . that I am in a cult because I said Hebrew . . .

I never said that, this is just another example of how your mode of "argument" is nothing but character assassination.

Were there or were there not Hebrew scripture BEFORE Koine Greek?

Here you are again throwing in irrelevant information to deflect away from what I actually said.
All you are doing is making false claims of what I said.
The answer would reveal itself if you reread my earlier posts in a calm state.

All your arguments on here has led me to believe that you think the only language that the Bible was in and the only language we should be reading it in is Koine Greek.

You may think that but it is not based on what I wrote in my posts on this thread.
I think that you cannot argue with what I really said, so you create a straw-man that you can refute.
Either that or you are just delusional and can't separate your imaginary thoughts from reality.

jmdewey60

Simple question. Were there Hebrew scriptures before Koine Greek?

You said that scholars believe Jesus spoke in Koine Greek when preaching. You said that you could not take my argument seriously because I never read the Greek. Those are what you said in this thread. Then you accused me of being "either Jewish or in a Judeo/Christian cult" because I am taking you at task for promoting Greek above Hebrew when it comes to scripture. It is highly relevant to the discussion.

Were the scriptures in Hebrew or Greek first? Simple, easy question and highly relevant.

reply to post by WarminIndy

You said that you could not take my argument seriously because I never read the Greek.

Here's the link to the post that you are referring to.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I did not use the word "Koine".
You did, in your post that was made in reply to the one I just posted the link to.

You said that scholars believe Jesus spoke in Koine Greek when preaching.

Here is the link to the post where you said that "Jesus never spoke in Koine . . ."
www.abovetopsecret.com...
What I said was. "Jesus preached to the multitudes in the Greek language."
I did not use the word "Koine" as you keep claiming in order to support your straw-man.
That post can be found here,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you accused me of being "either Jewish or in a Judeo/Christian cult" because I am taking you at task for promoting Greek above Hebrew when it comes to scripture. It is highly relevant to the discussion.

You may imagine that was the reason but it is not based on what I actually said.
My assumption is based on your interest in Jewish festivals and your use of Jewish terminology created to oppose Christian terms.
So, like I was saying, it seems that you are only interested in personality destruction in view of your not having any real counter to my claims that I made earlier in the thread, and your methodology is to continuously misquote me and make up my motives for what I write, then pretend that it was something I actually at some point admitted to.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

You said that you could not take my argument seriously because I never read the Greek.

Here's the link to the post that you are referring to.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I did not use the word "Koine".
You did, in your post that was made in reply to the one I just posted the link to.

You said that scholars believe Jesus spoke in Koine Greek when preaching.

Here is the link to the post where you said that "Jesus never spoke in Koine . . ."
www.abovetopsecret.com...
What I said was. "Jesus preached to the multitudes in the Greek language."
I did not use the word "Koine" as you keep claiming in order to support your straw-man.
That post can be found here,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you accused me of being "either Jewish or in a Judeo/Christian cult" because I am taking you at task for promoting Greek above Hebrew when it comes to scripture. It is highly relevant to the discussion.

You may imagine that was the reason but it is not based on what I actually said.
My assumption is based on your interest in Jewish festivals and your use of Jewish terminology created to oppose Christian terms.
So, like I was saying, it seems that you are only interested in personality destruction in view of your not having any real counter to my claims that I made earlier in the thread, and your methodology is to continuously misquote me and make up my motives for what I write, then pretend that it was something I actually at some point admitted to.

edit on 11-10-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

jmdewey

I asked you a simple question...were there Hebrew scriptures before Greek?

Is it possible for you to answer that?

So let's take it down to this level. No more Koine.

Were there Hebrew Scriptures before the Greek New Testament?