- This topic has 88 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
The claim of Paul and the New Testament authors is that Jesus fulfilled many prophecies connected to the Hebrew Scriptures (so-called Old Testament) and a true believer will easily be able to see them. The gospel according to Matthew, in particular, attempts to cross-reference the miraculous birth, deeds, and proclamations attributed to Jesus with relevant passages found in Hebrew Bible (Tanach). What are the differences in Christianity vs Judaism?
Closer scrutiny, however, reveals a great conspiracy and tampering of the evidence. Not one verse from Tanach proves the messiahship of Jesus. On the contrary, our Jewish sages, for two millennia have had ample time to analyze and decipher all 22,000+ verses in Tanach, and have concluded that Jesus did not fulfill any of its prophecies, nor are there any passages that unambiguously allude to his life or ministry. On the contrary, we will discover how the New Testament distorts and contorts Tanach to make it “bend” to their a priori agenda to “prove” their beliefs about Jesus. Let’s see!
In a certain way, Fundamentalist missionaries shoot the arrow in the target and then draw the bull’s eye around the arrow. In this fashion, they claim to always be correct, making the evidence conform to their foregone conclusions.
Let’s begin with a verse taken out of context (a verse out of context is a pretext):
“And he arose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt; and remained there until the death of Herod, that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, “Out of Egypt did I call my son.”
Matthew 2:14
This passage is found at the beginning of the gospel of Matthew where we find Joseph, the husband of Mary, fleeing from Herod with his wife and infant son. The writer wants us to identify this event with a verse that seems to refer to a person called “son” – that is, to prove Jesus was called then “son of God.” Matthew also attempts to demonstrate that the passage identifies one detail of the life of Jesus – namely his exile to Egypt and eventual ascendancy from there.Here is the passage in Tanach Matthew was trying to “latch on to” for his “proof:”
Among the major problems with Matthew’s attribution of this verse to Jesus is that in context the entire chapter in Hoshea is clearly speaking about the Jewish people as “My son.” This is a very common metaphor in Tanach, where the collective body of the Jewish people is called “God’s son,” or “firstborn.”
• Note: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.”
Hoshea 11:1
However, despite this subterfuge by the author of Matthew, Fundamentalist Christians have no problem rationalizing this for it follows Paul’s teachings of using deception, as we mentioned earlier.Here is another example:
“Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being translated means, God with us.”
Matthew 1:22-23
What is significant here is not only is this verse being taken out of context, it is also being mistranslated (more examples of this to follow). This verse is the basis for Christian theology concerning the miraculous “Virgin Birth” of Jesus. The manufacture of this myth fits a 1st Century mindset where it was very common amongst pagans to venerate their leaders as being “born of God.” It freed them from the “taint” of being conceived by “sinful” human flesh. It is also one of the main verses that attempt to prove the idea of a corporeal god and the divinity of Jesus from the translation of the name “Immanuel,” as “God with us.”Problems with Matthew’s manipulation of this verse:
• How can the birth of a virgin be a sign for anyone? Only God knows the inner secrets of a person, thus, one’s virginity is ultimately a hidden matter• The word “Immanuel” does not mean “God has become a man and walks among us” nor does it mean “God has become flesh and is with us as a man”. Such assertions contradict the word of God. According to God, he isn’t a man, as we find in (Numbers 23:19) “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
• Matthew in cross-referencing to Tanach identifies Isaiah 7:14 as the source of this prophecy. What is the context of Isaiah’s message? Who is he addressing when he asserts “The Lord will give a sign: “behold the “Virgin” shall conceive?”
To answer these questions, let’s take a look at the passages in question:
“Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, an Almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.”
Isaiah 7:14
Christian translators changed the word Almah המלע, which actually means “young woman” to read “a virgin.” Any student of Tanach knows that when a prophet wishes to identify the word for virgin in Hebrew he will write “Betulah.” Accordingly, elsewhere in Tanach, when the word Almah appears, Christian translators translate it as “young woman.” In fact, the word has a male form, Elam, םלע, and it is perfectly clear from other uses in Tanach that it is impossible to render this word as a virgin. For instance, Proverbs 30:19 speaks of four paths:The way of an eagle in the air
The way of a snake in the rock
The way of a ship in the sea
The way of a man with an Almah
Is there any need to spell out what is “The way of a man with an Almah” in context?
Another mistranslation that stands out in this verse, deals with who is giving the name Immanuel to the baby. In the actual verse in Isaiah, it clearly states that the mother will give his name, while Matthew distorts the text by saying “They shall call his name.” Why the deviation? It is obvious when we consider how Matthew is attempting to rip these verses out of context. It would support his contention that the child born is divine, for it is not his mother who identifies him as being “of the flesh of God,” rather some group (e.g. “they”) also proclaim this phenomenon.However, the most egregious problem here is with context.
Let’s take a look at what is really happening in chapter 7 of Isaiah:
“And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz, king of Judah, …that, Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah, king of Israel, son of Remaliah, went up to attack Jerusalem, but they were not able to conquer it. When word came to the house of David that Aram was encamped in Ephraim, the heart of the king and heart of the people trembled, as the trees of the forest tremble in the wind. Then the LORD said to Isaiah: Go out to meet Ahaz…, say to him: Take care, remain tranquil and do not fear; let not your courage fail before these two stumps of smoldering brands…who are saying, “Let us go up and tear Judah asunder, make it our own by force.”
Thus says the LORD: This shall not stand, it shall not be! …Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz: Ask for a sign from the LORD, your God; let it be deep as the depths below, or high as the sky! But Ahaz answered, “I will not ask! I will not tempt the LORD!” Then he said: “Listen, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary men, must you also weary God? Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the young woman is with child, and will bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall be living on butter and honey until the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good. Before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread shall be deserted.”
Isaiah 7 1-16
In context, we understand that the King of Judah, Ahaz, is in mortal fear of two armies – Aram and the Kingdom of Israel, who are about to attack. In order to placate his fears, God through His prophet Isaiah reassures him that he and his kingdom will be safe. The sign of this will be that a woman (obviously known to Ahaz) will bear a child. The essence of this sign was that within a few years (the time the child will be able to discern between good and evil), Ahaz would experience salvation from Above and be spared. If this passage was predicting the birth of Jesus, who lived 700 years after Ahaz, it makes little sense for God to comfort the poor King with tidings of his birth.Quoting Paul the Apostle:
Romans 10:18 (Psalm 19:4): Paul’s exposition of the universal availability of salvation pivots on his fa-mous declaration that “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9). Since salvation depends on confession and belief, Paul voices an obvious worry: “How are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?” (Rom 10:14). Paul responds in 10:18 by asking and answering a question: Hosea, 13–16.3;
“But I ask, have they not heard?
Indeed they have: for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth;
and their words to the ends of the world.”
Paul here quotes Ps 19:4 to make the exaggerated assertion that the whole world has heard the good news of salvation. In the context Paul creates, “their voice” and “their words” refer to the preaching of Christian missionaries (chief among them, of course, being Paul himself ). We know even before checking that a biblical psalm will not be about Christian missionaries, but Ps 19:4 is not about any words spoken by anyone. In its own context, 19:4 celebrates a stirring paradox: the heavens, especially the night skies, proclaim the glory of the creator’s handiwork. The skies are silent, and yet who has not been moved by the magnificence of their testimony?
“There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard,
Yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.” (Ps 19:3–4)
The psalmist reflects on the mute eloquence of the starry sky. Paul removes those words from their context and puts them into his own, thereby making them refer to the preaching of those who spread the Christian message.
Romans 10:20–21 (Isaiah 65:1–2)20: Isaiah is so bold as to say,
“I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”21
But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” (Rom 10:20–21, quoting Isa 65:1–2)
These two quotations from the Book of Isaiah are part of a string of four scriptural quotations in Rom 10:18–21. Verse 18, as we just saw in the last example, quotes Psalm 19 to assert that the whole world has heard the good news about Christ. Verses 19–21 quote three scriptures to assess the contrasting responses to the Christian message. In verse 19 Paul uses a quote from Deuteronomy to predict that Israel will be provoked to jealous anger by the responses of gentiles to the gospel of Christ. Then verses 20 and 21 juxtapose the gentiles’ acceptance of God’s offer of salvation (v. 20) with Israel’s rejection of it (v. 21). Paul’s introduction to verse 21 (“But of Israel he says”) makes it plain that he understands verse 20 to refer to gentiles. What Paul construes as two discrete statements contrasting gentiles and Jews are, in their own context in the Book of Isaiah, part of one continuous divine complaint about intransigent Israel.
1 I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask,
to be found by those who did not seek me.
I said, “Here I am, here I am,”to a nation that did not call my name.
2 I held out my hand all day long
to a rebellious people,
who walk in a way that is not good. (Isa 65:1–2)In Isa 65:1
God accuses Israel of refusing to do what it is obliged to do by the covenant (“ask [me]” . . . “seek me” . . . “call my name”), a refusal made all the more blameworthy by God’s solicitous desire to remain in covenant relationship with his people. However, Paul, using the Septuagint wording of 65:1, transforms the prophet’s accusation of Israel into a non-accusatory description of gentiles as those who neither sought God nor asked him to show himself to them. Paul’s reliance on the Septuagint version enables him to take advantage of its subtle difference from the Hebrew text. What the latter expresses as Yahweh’s willingness (“I was ready”) to be sought and found becomes in the Septuagint an expression of an accomplished fact (“I have been found” and “I have shown myself ”—see the wording in Rom 10:20). This shade of meaning nicely suits Paul’s argument inasmuch as gentiles have already found God through their acceptance of the good news about Christ. Paul’s re-signification of Isa 65:1 thus enables this prophecy to be fulfilled in his lifetime.
Adam…. We need to remember and keep in mind, to Paul the known world in his day, only consisted of a small part of this whole world. He may have believed that in his day.
The Apostle Paul to me had a very great understanding of things, as Peter even said, some things hard to understand . I have also found that later trinitarian translators have used the definite article “the” where Paul said “a man is not justified before God by works of “the” law. That definite article make it appear as if Paul is speaking about the Ten Commandments, Like we shouldn’t try to obey the commandments of God, but in fact Paul was not even taking about the Ten Commandments at all. He was talking about the word law itself, and the way law works, which is through force compliance by extracting a penalties for breaking them, another words, by the way “law”, (forced compliance ) works no one can be justified before God by keeping the commandments of God that ‘WAY”. WHY? because obeying God’s Commandments by the “working” of Law, never can make the heart right. But by God “changing” our hard hearts to hearts of flesh ( soft hearts) by his own Spirit, we become a new Creation, we can then keep the Commandments of God, naturally, with out the works of law, “forced compliance ” .
Adam….You see how just a simple word (the) added by trinitarian translators to the text changes the whole context to what Paul was saying? My point is we need to be care what book writers say, because it might have been the translators that changed things in scriptures and not the authors themselves.
peace and love to you and yours…….gene
Berean……It was God the father who saves his world and us to. Not Jesus .
It was God the Father who so loved the world the “HE” gave his only begotten Son. It was not Jesus who did that, why do you people continue try to rob God the Father, Jesus never did that. If you truly believed in Jesus and what he said you understand that. IMOPeace and love to you and yours…….gene
Adam….You see how just a simple word (the) added by trinitarian translators to the text changes the whole context to what Paul was saying? My point is we need to be care what book writers say, because it might have been the translators that changed things in scriptures and not the authors themselves.
Hello brother Gene, thanks for commenting on my new topic which is the need of the hour for coming out of the unending debates on Preexistence, Trinity etc. In fact I too felt that the NT writers like Paul was following the original religion of Hebrew Bible but unfortunately we are not able to find the same from his writings available to us. You can blame the translators for this cause but we can find the sum (concept) of the Christology of Paul from his authorised wrtings even if you have removed the so called biased translations. Paul is the first writer who had created ambiguity of Jesus’ role in God’s creation and salvation process. He is the one who changed the religion of Jesus to religion about Jesus. The following are some of the examples.
Galatians 3:16 (Genesis 15:5
The promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of many; but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ. (Gal 3:16)Here Paul claims that God’s covenant promise to Abraham’s progeny was not intended for his numerous descendants (i.e., the people of Israel), but for only one of them: Jesus. Paul supports this extraordinarily implausible assertion by making two interpretive moves, one explicit and one covert. The explicit move is to draw attention to a point of grammar: the noun “offspring” (literally, “seed,” sperma in Greek) is singular in form, not plural. Despite the fact that “seed” is a collective noun in Greek (as well as in English), Paul here insinuates that God had hidden a secret meaning in plain sight by using the grammatically singular form of the word in his promise to Abraham. Paul’s grammatical argument, though disingenuous (see below), is out in the open. His other interpretive tactic, however, is hidden from his audience: he has lifted the phrase “to his seed” out of its context. He had to do that because in its context(s) “to his seed” means the exact opposite of what Paul says it does. Let’s have a look.
There are three scenes in Genesis in which Yahweh makes promises about Abraham’s seed: Gen 15:5, 17:4–8, and 22:17–18. Each scene uses the singular collective noun “seed” (zera’ in Hebrew, sperma in the Septuagint), and the content of each promise is that Abraham will have innumerable descendants.
• Gen 15:5. Yahweh instructs Abraham to count the stars if he can. Yahweh then tells him, “So shall your seed be.”
• Gen 17:4–8. “This is my covenant with you: you shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations” (17:4).“I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your seed after you throughout their generations”
(17:7).
• Gen 22:17–18. “I will make your seed as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand of the seashore” (22:17).Out of those three scenes Paul extracts, with surgical precision, only the words “your seed,” and on that basis argues that the promises to Abraham’s offspring were meant for only one man. We can see why Paul does not quote or describe what God promised Abraham, because Paul’s interpretation contradicts the plain sense of what God said in each scene. Paul belabors the point that the word “seed” is singular in form, but he is perfectly aware that the word is plural in meaning, for that is how he himself uses it a few
paragraphs later:“If you belong to Christ, then you (plural) are Abraham’s seed (singular), heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).
Galatians 4:29
Just as it was at that time, the child who was born according to
the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the
spirit, so it is now also. (Gal 4:29)Paul often uses scripture without quoting it. He can discuss the fulfillment of an unquoted scripture by referring or alluding to a passage or a story, and 210 part 2—the fulfillment of prophecy in the new testament then applying it to some present reality. In the above example of Gal 3:16 in which Paul quotes a phrase from Genesis, he also alludes to the larger narrative in which that phrase occurs. To round out our cursory examination of Paul’s use of the fulfillment of prophecy, we should study one example that does not actually quote a text. Galatians 4:29 shows Paul (mis)using scripture in a highly creative way. Our verse occurs within Paul’s allegorical interpretation of the Genesis narrative about Sarah, wife of Abraham, and Hagar, her slave by whom Abraham fathered Ishmael, his firstborn son (Genesis 16–17). Paul spins this story into an imaginative prediction of the spiritual contrast between
Jews (whom Paul symbolizes as Ishmael), who are “enslaved” to Torah, and gentile Christians (whom Paul symbolizes as Isaac), who are “free” from that Law. Galatians 4:29 refers to Ishmael and Isaac, not by their names, but as “the one born according to the flesh” (Ishmael) and “the one born according to the spirit” (Isaac)—even though both were physically fathered by Abraham. Paul alludes to some violence in the brothers’ relationship, which he sees fulfilled in the persecution of gentile Christians by Jews:“Just as at that time the one born according to the flesh persecuted the one born according to the spirit, so it is now also” (Gal 4:29).
Although we do not know what experience is indicated by “it is now also,” we have to assume that Paul’s Galatian audience did. However, we should not assume that the Galatians would have understood which scriptural passage Paul alludes to, because there is no part of the Genesis story in which Ishmael persecutes Isaac. In fact, if we see any persecution in the story, it should be in the shameful manner in which Sarah, with Abraham’s (and God’s) acquiescence, literally “oppresses” the pregnant Hagar (Gen 16:1–6) and later drives her and Ishmael out into the desert (Gen 21:8–14). Genesis 21:9 tells us that Sarah decided to cast out Hagar and Ishmael when she saw the boy “playing (or, literally, “laughing”) with her son.”
In claiming that Ishmael persecuted Isaac, Paul is probably alluding to an imaginative Jewish interpretation of Ishmael’s play/laughter as something nefarious. The text of Genesis, however, provides no basis for this biased attempt to excuse Sarah’s cruelty. Nowhere does Genesis say, or even imply, that Ishmael persecuted Isaac, or treated him badly in any way.Gene
It was God the father who saves his world and us to. Not Jesus .
It was God the Father who so loved the world the “HE” gave his only begotten Son. It was not Jesus who did that, why do you people continue try to rob God the Father, Jesus never did that. If you truly believed in Jesus and what he said you understand that.Me
John.14
[1] Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
John 4
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on HIM for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
[40] So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
[41] And many more believed because of his own word;
[42] And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD.1 JOHN 5:12
Whoever has THE SON has life, whoever does not have THE Son of God does not have life.
Gene….Do you really have THE SON OF GOD
Gadam
Nowhere does Genesis say, or even imply, that Ishmael persecuted Isaac, or treated him badly in any way.
Me
Paul don’t speak specificaly of Ishmael as a person but of His posterity as a people.
So WE must beleive Paul’s writings AND DO NOT WALL.
Berean: You don’t believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world do you?
How does it mater when God alone is the savior of this world?
Berean :
Paul don’t speak specificaly of Ishmael as a person but of His posterity as a people.
So WE must beleive Paul’s writings AND DO NOT WALL.
But Paul clearly compared Jewish people of his time with Ishmael and Christian believers with Isaac.
Epistle to Hebrews:
In Hebrews we see a sophisticated attempt to correlate the revelation God gave in the past with God’s final revelation in Christ. Since the same God has spoken through both Christ and the prophets, the author of Hebrews can look to the prophets for clues to understand Christ and equally to Christ for clues to understand the prophets. As one commentator puts it, “Hebrews interprets Christ in light of the Old Testament and the Old Testament in light of Christ.” The affinity between those two forms of divine revelation is so close in the mind of the author that he can attribute passages from the Hebrew Bible(OT) to Jesus himself, as if a verse from a psalm, for example, were a saying of Jesus (see Heb 2:12–13 and 10:5–7). What is perhaps even more unusual, from our perspective at least, is that the author can take the words of psalms that were originally spoken by worshipers to God and represent them as words spoken by God to Jesus, as for example,
“In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands” (Heb 1:10, quoting Ps 102:25).
Because the author of Hebrews proceeds from this interpretive stand-point, he does not set out to persuade outsiders to believe in Jesus and then marshal prophecies as evidence. Whatever the gospels were trying to prove by using prophecy, Hebrews simply assumes. The author’s belief about Jesus, as expressed in the eloquent language of 1:2–3, is not something the author seeks to demonstrate; it is rather the starting point for the epistle’s theological reflections. Hebrews thus assumes that faith in Jesus comes first; then, with that faith firmly in place, the believer can recognize Jesus in the OT. We can see this interpretive process unfold as the author explains the symbolic meaning of a certain arrangement in Israelite worship. The author gives a detailed description of the sanctuary (literally “tent”) the Israelites wandering in the desert constructed as their first place to worship Yahweh (Heb 9:1–5). The author explains in particular that this sanctuary tent housed a second, inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies. The priests used the outer sanctuary on a daily basis, whereas the Holy of Holies was entered only once a year by the high priest (Heb 9:6–7) on the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16:29–34). The author then gives a symbolic interpretation of the distinction between the two sanctuaries, an interpretation he attributes to the Holy Spirit. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing. This is a symbol [literally, “parable”] of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right. (Heb 9:8–10). The author sees in this symbolic interpretation the key to the meaning of Christ’s death: Jesus acted as a high priest entering the Holy of Holies and offering himself as a sacrifice to atone for human sin (Heb 9:11–14)
For our purposes it is sufficient to examine one example of Hebrews’ textual manipulation: the use of Psalm 8 in Heb 2:5–9. Psalm 8 is a master-piece of poetic reflection, using the immensity and beauty of the night sky to emphasize the paradoxical status of human beings.
3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;
4 what are human beings that you are mindful of them,mortals that you care for them?
5 Yet you have made them a little lower than gods, and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;you have put all things under their feet. (Ps 8:3–6)
Compared to the glories of the heavens human beings are so insignificant that the psalmist wonders why God takes any notice of us. Nevertheless, God has bestowed great dignity on our species, making us “little lower than gods” and entrusting us with “dominion” over all the other creatures of the earth (see Gen 1:26). The author of Hebrews exploits one particular poetic feature of Psalm 8: its use of singular nouns and pronouns to refer to the human race, just as English speakers use the singular “humanity” (or, in noninclusive language, “man”). Translated literally, with the singular forms italicized, Ps 8:4–6 reads:
4 What is man that you are mindful of him,the son of man that you care for him?
5 Yet you have made him a little lower than gods,and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet.
The author of Hebrews takes advantage of the ambiguity in the singular form of the words that refer to humanity, and uses that ambiguity to draw an interesting distinction. He starts by making a simple observation about the way things are: it is not yet true that everything in the world is under human control (Heb 2:8). So, the author reasons, the last bit of verse 6 in the psalm (“putting all things under his feet”) cannot be true if “his” means “humanity’s.” Therefore, the author proposes in Heb 2:9 that “his” refers to one extraordinary individual: Jesus (of course). Here is the author’s argument in his own words, which come immediately after his quotation of Ps 8:4–6; the ambiguous pronouns are translated here both ways in order to highlight their double meanings:
8b Now in subjecting all things to him/them, God left nothing outside his/their control. As it is, however, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him/them,
9 but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor. (Heb 2:8b–9a)
The argument is rather ingenious, and it shows how thoughtfully the author engages the OT. Naturally, no one reading Psalm 8 on its own would imagine that it is about a single individual, much less about the messiah. But the author, scrutinizing the psalm from the perspective of belief in the risen and exalted Jesus, can find Jesus in it. However, the synonymous parallelism in the psalm—not the parallelism between “man” and “son of man” in Ps 8:4 (Heb 2:6), but the parallelism between the two halves of Ps 8:5 (Heb 2:7)—works against the author’s interpretation. The author of Hebrews has handled the psalm with skill. He snipped out the first half of verse 6, and ended his quotation before the psalm gets to verses 7–8, where it alludes to Genesis. Those adjustments make the psalm’s references to the creation story disappear. With those elements of the psalm missing, the author can transform the half of verse 6 that he does quote (“subjecting all things under his feet”) from a description of what God had already done for humanity on the sixth day of creation into a prediction of what God will do for Jesus.
Gadam
Ishmael’s persecution against Isaac began in Genesis 21:8-9)
This persecution took the form of Ishmael, likely a teenager at the time, laughing at or mocking baby Isaac on the day of a feast in celebration of his being weaned (Genesis 21:8–9).
Another verse Hebrews 1:10-12 (NRSV)
10 And,
“In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing[a] they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.”What does Hebrews 1:10 mean?
The writer of Hebrews is collecting Old Testament quotations in order to prove a point about Jesus. The idea is that Jesus is not a created entity or on the same level as angels. Rather, Jesus is equal to God and has an authority far above all other spiritual beings. In order to show this, prior verses have quoted Old Testament Scriptures which show that the Messiah is given qualities angels do not possess.Verses 10 through 12 quote from Psalm 102:25–27. This is connected to the quotation of Psalm 45:6–7 which ended in Hebrews 1:9. Both passages were merged and quoted by the Hebrews writers to show that Jesus, as God, and as Messiah, has a regal, unchanging, eternal nature. On the other hand, angels were shown in Hebrews 1:7 to be shifting, created, servant beings.
Psalm 102 is a cry to God Yahweh over persecution. The psalmist feels overrun and overtaken by his enemies. And yet, because of his trust in an unchanging and eternal God, he is able to find comfort. Verses 25 through 27 explicitly point out the creative work of God and His timeless nature.
This, coming from the writer of Hebrews, is a clear statement of showing Jesus’ divinity by misquoting Hebrew scriptures to suit his agenda on Jesus.
Berean:
Ishmael’s persecution against Isaac began in Genesis 21:8-9)
This persecution took the form of Ishmael, likely a teenager at the time, laughing at or mocking baby Isaac on the day of a feast in celebration of his being weaned (Genesis 21:8–9).
Please see the intention of Paul on comparing Ishmael to Jewish people at his time and Christians to Isaac. That is the paradox here.
Hi Gadam,
You believe the New Testament was corrupted?
Are you saying that God was not able to protect His Word?
Well then you have a very weak God.
My God was able to protect His Word Old and New Testament.God bless,
Danny
Hi Danny,
You: You believe the New Testament was corrupted?
Are you saying that God was not able to protect His Word?
Well then you have a very weak God.
My God was able to protect His Word Old and New Testament.Me: I am sorry I never meant that NT was corrupted. I am only arguing here on the NT writers how they had quoted Hebrew scriptures in their narrations. Please go through the arguments I have posted and comment. This is not a believers place. It is under Skepticism please note.
The NT writers had based their theology rather Christology on the scriptures of Hebrew Bible available to them. Here we are debating on the validity of these writing in the light of Hebrew scriptures.
Please share your views.
Thank you…..Adam
For brother Gene on Hebrews 2:5-9 quoting Psalms 8:3-6
3When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;
4what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals that you care for them?
5Yet you have made them a little lower than gods,
and crowned them with glory and honor.
6You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under their feet. (Ps 8:3–6)(The Hebrew word ’adam means a human being of either gender. I translate adam in verse 4 with the inexact “man” only in order to match the masculine gender of the Hebrew singular pronouns [“him”] and to underline the parallelism with “son of man” [ben ’adam]).
{Verse 5, the NRSV translates this phrase “a little lower than God” and includes a note indicating that it can also be translated “than the divine beings or angels.” The Hebrew word in question here is the curious noun elohim, which is plural in form, but in the Bible it usually refers to the god of Israel. Whether it means “God” or “gods” must be determined from context. Furthermore, the Hebrew alphabet has no capital letters, and so translators must decide when to capitalize a noun: should it be “Gods” or “gods”?}
The author of Hebrews exploits one particular poetic feature of Psalm 8: its use of singular nouns and pronouns to refer to the human race, just as English speakers use the singular “humanity” (or, in noninclusive language, “man”).
The two lines of verse 4 are arranged in a poetic format called synonymous parallelism, a literary device common in biblical poetry, in which two lines express the same thought in different words. The terms “man” and “son of man” thus both refer to human beings in general, or, in this specific context, to insignificant human creatures. The author of Hebrews takes advantage of the ambiguity in the singular form of the words that refer to humanity, and uses that ambiguity to draw an interesting distinction. He starts by making a simple observation about the way things are: it is not yet true that everything in the world is under human control (Heb 2:8). So, the author reasons, the last bit of verse 6 in the psalm (“putting all things under his feet”) cannot be true if “his” means “humanity’s.”
Therefore, the author proposes in Heb 2:9 that “his” refers to one extraordinary individual: Jesus
(of course). Here is the author’s argument in his own words, which come immediately after his quotation of Ps 8:4–6; the ambiguous pronouns are translated here both ways in order to highlight their double meanings:8b Now in subjecting all things to him/them, God left nothing outside his/their control. As it is, however, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him/them,
9 but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned
with glory and honor. (Heb 2:8b–9a)The argument is rather ingenious, and it shows how thoughtfully the author engages the OT. Naturally, no one reading Psalm 8 on its own would imagine that it is about a single individual, much less about the messiah.
Hope you could follow the arguments. The Psalm 8 was only talking about human beings in general but not about any specific individual.
For brother Gene on Hebrews 2:5-9 quoting Psalms 8:3-6
3When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;
4what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals that you care for them?
5Yet you have made them a little lower than gods,
and crowned them with glory and honor.
6You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under their feet. (Ps 8:3–6)(The Hebrew word ’adam means a human being of either gender. I translate adam in verse 4 with the inexact “man” only in order to match the masculine gender of the Hebrew singular pronouns [“him”] and to underline the parallelism with “son of man” [ben ’adam]).
{Verse 5, the NRSV translates this phrase “a little lower than God” and includes a note indicating that it can also be translated “than the divine beings or angels.” The Hebrew word in question here is the curious noun elohim, which is plural in form, but in the Bible it usually refers to the god of Israel. Whether it means “God” or “gods” must be determined from context. Furthermore, the Hebrew alphabet has no capital letters, and so translators must decide when to capitalize a noun: should it be “Gods” or “gods”?}
The author of Hebrews exploits one particular poetic feature of Psalm 8: its use of singular nouns and pronouns to refer to the human race, just as English speakers use the singular “humanity” (or, in noninclusive language, “man”).
The two lines of verse 4 are arranged in a poetic format called synonymous parallelism, a literary device common in biblical poetry, in which two lines express the same thought in different words. The terms “man” and “son of man” thus both refer to human beings in general, or, in this specific context, to insignificant human creatures. The author of Hebrews takes advantage of the ambiguity in the singular form of the words that refer to humanity, and uses that ambiguity to draw an interesting distinction. He starts by making a simple observation about the way things are: it is not yet true that everything in the world is under human control (Heb 2:8). So, the author reasons, the last bit of verse 6 in the psalm (“putting all things under his feet”) cannot be true if “his” means “humanity’s.”
Therefore, the author proposes in Heb 2:9 that “his” refers to one extraordinary individual: Jesus
(of course). Here is the author’s argument in his own words, which come immediately after his quotation of Ps 8:4–6; the ambiguous pronouns are translated here both ways in order to highlight their double meanings:8b Now in subjecting all things to him/them, God left nothing outside his/their control. As it is, however, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him/them,
9 but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned
with glory and honor. (Heb 2:8b–9a)The argument is rather ingenious, and it shows how thoughtfully the author engages the OT. Naturally, no one reading Psalm 8 on its own would imagine that it is about a single individual, much less about the messiah.
Hope you could follow the arguments. The Psalm 8 was only talking about human beings in general but not about any specific individual.
Thank you…..Adam
For brother Gene on Hebrews 2:5-9 quoting Psalms 8:3-6
3When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;
4what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals that you care for them?
5Yet you have made them a little lower than gods,
and crowned them with glory and honor.
6You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under their feet. (Ps 8:3–6)(The Hebrew word ’adam means a human being of either gender. I translate adam in verse 4 with the inexact “man” only in order to match the masculine gender of the Hebrew singular pronouns [“him”] and to underline the parallelism with “son of man” [ben ’adam]).
{Verse 5, the NRSV translates this phrase “a little lower than God” and includes a note indicating that it can also be translated “than the divine beings or angels.” The Hebrew word in question here is the curious noun elohim, which is plural in form, but in the Bible it usually refers to the god of Israel. Whether it means “God” or “gods” must be determined from context. Furthermore, the Hebrew alphabet has no capital letters, and so translators must decide when to capitalize a noun: should it be “Gods” or “gods”?}
The author of Hebrews exploits one particular poetic feature of Psalm 8: its use of singular nouns and pronouns to refer to the human race, just as English speakers use the singular “humanity” (or, in noninclusive language, “man”).
The two lines of verse 4 are arranged in a poetic format called synonymous parallelism, a literary device common in biblical poetry, in which two lines express the same thought in different words. The terms “man” and “son of man” thus both refer to human beings in general, or, in this specific context, to insignificant human creatures. The author of Hebrews takes advantage of the ambiguity in the singular form of the words that refer to humanity, and uses that ambiguity to draw an interesting distinction. He starts by making a simple observation about the way things are: it is not yet true that everything in the world is under human control (Heb 2:8). So, the author reasons, the last bit of verse 6 in the psalm (“putting all things under his feet”) cannot be true if “his” means “humanity’s.”
Therefore, the author proposes in Heb 2:9 that “his” refers to one extraordinary individual: Jesus
(of course). Here is the author’s argument in his own words, which come immediately after his quotation of Ps 8:4–6; the ambiguous pronouns are translated here both ways in order to highlight their double meanings:8b Now in subjecting all things to him/them, God left nothing outside his/their control. As it is, however, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him/them,
9 but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned
with glory and honor. (Heb 2:8b–9a)The argument is rather ingenious, and it shows how thoughtfully the author engages the OT. Naturally, no one reading Psalm 8 on its own would imagine that it is about a single individual, much less about the messiah.
Hope you could follow the arguments. The Psalm 8 was only talking about human beings in general but not about any specific individual.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
