- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Satan and his demons are mythology. So, I assume in your Bible, the word “Satan” which simply means “opposer/resister” means just that.
And so in Job, an angel who was a resister was the one speaking with God?
Is this what you believe?
Quote Satan and his demons are mythology. So, I assume in your Bible, the word “Satan” which simply means “opposer/resister” means just that.
And so in Job, an angel who was a resister was the one speaking with God?
Is this what you believe?
Quote (david @ Nov. 03 2007,12:56) Quote Show me satan's character from the Tanakh, not the Christian bible. The Christian bible is mixed with mythology so its views on demons and satan are swayed to that idealogy. Therefore please show me that this satan of yours is the bad guy constantly trying to outdo G-d. (See Job for more information.)
David the problem here is that modern Jews have for the most part followed the example of the Saduccees.They don't really believe in angels and spirits and like in the same way as Christians.
However, to pretend that all Jews believe or believed this way in the past is silly.
Jews throughout history have viewed it the same as Christians this is fact.
But, most modern Jews will just say they were misled by mythology or something.
It's not something that evidence will necessarily work to change his mind.
He will have start researching history. “Real History not temple studies with Rabbi modern day”
Pick up any good secular book on ancient hebrew religion.
Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 03 2007,13:01) Quote (david @ Nov. 03 2007,12:56) Quote Show me satan's character from the Tanakh, not the Christian bible. The Christian bible is mixed with mythology so its views on demons and satan are swayed to that idealogy. Therefore please show me that this satan of yours is the bad guy constantly trying to outdo G-d. (See Job for more information.)
David the problem here is that modern Jews have for the most part followed the example of the Saduccees.They don't really believe in angels and spirits and like in the same way as Christians.
However, to pretend that all Jews believe or believed this way in the past is silly.
Jews throughout history have viewed it the same as Christians this is fact.
But, most modern Jews will just say they were misled by mythology or something.
It's not something that evidence will necessarily work to change his mind.
He will have start researching history. “Real History not temple studies with Rabbi modern day”
Pick up any good secular book on ancient hebrew religion.
I want to clarify.Factions of Jews believed different things. And many factions agreed with the Christians view.
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,17:36) Quote One large error here that most Christians make. It is NOT 69 weeks, it is 7 weeks and 62 weeks but NOT compounded. The Masoretic text, with its system of vowel points, was prepared in the latter half of the first millennium C.E. Evidently because of their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Masoretes accented the Hebrew text at Daniel 9:25 with an ’ath·nach′, or “stop,” after “seven weeks,” thereby dividing it off from the “sixty-two weeks”; in this way the 62 weeks of the prophecy, namely, 434 years, appear to apply to the time of rebuilding ancient Jerusalem. The translation by Isaac Leeser reads: “Know therefore and comprehend, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed the prince will be seven weeks: [the stop is represented here by a colon] and during sixty and two weeks will it be again built with streets and ditches (around it), even in the pressure of the times.” The translation of the Jewish Publication Society of America reads similarly: “shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again.” In these two versions the words “during” and “for,” respectively, appear in the English translation, evidently to support the translators’ interpretation.
Professor E. B. Pusey, in a footnote on one of his lectures delivered at the University of Oxford, remarks on the Masoretic accenting: “The Jews put the main stop of the verse under העב? [seven], meaning to separate the two numbers, 7 and 62. This they must have done dishonestly, םינימה ןעמל (as Rashi [a prominent Jewish Rabbi of the 11th and 12th centuries C.E.] says in rejecting literal expositions which favored the Christians) ‘on account of the heretics,’ i.e. Christians. For the latter clause, so divided off, could only mean, ‘and during threescore and two weeks street and wall shall be being restored and builded,’ i.e. that Jerusalem should be 434 years in rebuilding, which would be senseless.”—Daniel the Prophet, 1885, p. 190.
As to Daniel 9:26 (Le), which reads, in part, “And after the sixty and two weeks will an anointed one be cut off without a successor to follow him,” the Jewish commentators apply the 62 weeks to a period up to the Maccabean age, and the term “anointed one” to King Agrippa II, who lived at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction, 70 C.E. Or some say this was a high priest, Onias, who was deposed by Antiochus Epiphanes in 175 B.C.E. Their applications of the prophecy to either of these men would rob it of any real significance or import, and the discrepancy in the dating would make the 62 weeks no accurate time prophecy at all.—See Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Da 9:25, 26), edited by A. Cohen, London, 1951.
In an attempt to justify their view, these Jewish scholars say that the “seven weeks” are, not 7 times 7, or 49 years, but 70 years; yet they count the 62 weeks as 7 times 62 years. This, they claim, referred to the period of Babylonian exile. They make Cyrus or Zerubbabel or High Priest Jeshua the “anointed one” in this verse (Da 9:25), with the “anointed one” in Daniel 9:26 being another person.
It may be noted, in this connection, that the Septuagint translation, made by Jewish scholars in the first three centuries B.C.E., reads, at Daniel 9:25, “From the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall.” (LXX, Bagster) Thomson’s Septuagint reads, in part: “seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. They shall indeed return and a street shall be built and a wall.”
Most English translations do not follow the Masoretic punctuation here. They either have a comma after the expression “seven weeks” or in the wording indicate that the 62 weeks follow the 7 as part of the 70, and do not denote that the 62 weeks apply to the period of rebuilding Jerusalem. (Compare Da 9:25 in KJ, AT, Dy, NW, Ro, Yg.) An editorial note by James Strong in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Da 9:25, ftn, p. 198) says: “The only justification of this translation, which separates the two periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, assigning the former as the terminus ad quem of the Anointed Prince, and the latter as the time of rebuilding, lies in the Masoretic interpunction, which places the Athnac [stop] between them. . . . and the rendering in question involves a harsh construction of the second member, being without a preposition. It is better, therefore, and simpler, to adhere to the Authorized Version, which follows all the older translations.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.
Numerous other views, some Messianic and some non-Messianic, have been set forth as to the meaning of the prophecy. Some attempt to change the order of the time periods of the prophecy, while others make them run simultaneously or deny that they have any actual time fulfillment. Also many efforts have been made to fit the events mentioned into the Maccabean period or even into the final time of the end. But those presenting such views become hopelessly entangled, and their attempts to extricate themselves result in absurdity or in an outright denial that the prophecy is inspired or true. Of the latter ideas particularly, which raise more problems than they solve, the aforementioned scholar, E. B. Pusey, remarks: “These were the impossible problems for unbelief to solve; it had to solve them for itself, which was, so far, easier; for nothing is impossible for unbelief to believe, except what God reveals.”—P. 206.
This is all hogwash and Christian rhetoric. Lets look at the LXX version of Daniel 9:25 shall we?Dan 9:25 And you shall know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem, until Christ the Prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.
Now tell me WHY would Daniel say 'seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks'? Why separate the two with no event in between? Why not 'sixty nine weeks'? What is the purpose of separating the seven weeks from the 62 weeks?
The LXX was modified over time. The original Septuagint only had the first five books of the Jewish bible. There is no accurate record of when the remaining books of the LXX was translated. Jewish scribes certainly had not part in the translating the rest of the Tanakh. So I could find as much evidence that the LXX was modified to reflect a Christological bend. The Jewish people abandoned the Greek LXX in favor of the Hebrew texts.
Even so the scenario you presented is wrong. Let's look at your dishonest approach at trying to fit Jesus into this prophecy (and failing miserably). Here is what you said:
Quote Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars generally agree that the “weeks” mentioned here mean weeks of years. The 69 “weeks” (483 years) of Daniel 9:25 began in 455 B.C.E., when Persian King Artaxerxes authorized Nehemiah “to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem.” (Nehemiah 2:1-8) They ended 483 years
later—in 29 C.E., when Jesus was baptized and anointed with holy spirit, thus becoming the Messiah, or Christ.—Matthew 3:13-17.Problem is, your starting year is WRONG! You say 455 BC. Lets look at Neh 2:1
Neh 2:1 And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence.
Artaxerxes reigned from 465 BC to 424 BC. The 20th year of his reign then would be 444 BC. Add 483 years to this and you get 38 CE, not 29, not 30, not 33. According to Matthew or Luke you are wrong. Where ever did you get 455 BC?
At this point david, I see you have to be deceitful to prove your point. I have never seen anyone use 455 BC in relation to Daniel 9. How can you believe this when you must use erroneous assumptions to prove your point? Is your faith that blind?
Please refrain from dishonesty in the future if you wish me to take your seriously.
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,17:40) after the sixty-two weeks Mes·si′ah will be cut off, Ok, towshab, what do you think this means?
It means that an anointed priest will be cut off from his power, from his people. The Sadduccees controlled the Temple when it was destroyed in 70 CE. They were no more after that.Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,17:41) Quote If you still want to hold on to the idea that it is Jesus remember that being 'cut off' means that the person has been wicked in G-d's sight. Are you saying the Messiah has been “wicked in God's sight”?
There is no definite article for moshiach in 9:26 so no reason to translate this as 'THE Messiah'. The moshiach of 9:26 is just an anointed one, likely a priest. Many priests and kings did wicked things in the Jewish scriptures.Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 03 2007,13:09) Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,17:36) Quote One large error here that most Christians make. It is NOT 69 weeks, it is 7 weeks and 62 weeks but NOT compounded. The Masoretic text, with its system of vowel points, was prepared in the latter half of the first millennium C.E. Evidently because of their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Masoretes accented the Hebrew text at Daniel 9:25 with an ’ath·nach′, or “stop,” after “seven weeks,” thereby dividing it off from the “sixty-two weeks”; in this way the 62 weeks of the prophecy, namely, 434 years, appear to apply to the time of rebuilding ancient Jerusalem. The translation by Isaac Leeser reads: “Know therefore and comprehend, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed the prince will be seven weeks: [the stop is represented here by a colon] and during sixty and two weeks will it be again built with streets and ditches (around it), even in the pressure of the times.” The translation of the Jewish Publication Society of America reads similarly: “shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again.” In these two versions the words “during” and “for,” respectively, appear in the English translation, evidently to support the translators’ interpretation.
Professor E. B. Pusey, in a footnote on one of his lectures delivered at the University of Oxford, remarks on the Masoretic accenting: “The Jews put the main stop of the verse under העב? [seven], meaning to separate the two numbers, 7 and 62. This they must have done dishonestly, םינימה ןעמל (as Rashi [a prominent Jewish Rabbi of the 11th and 12th centuries C.E.] says in rejecting literal expositions which favored the Christians) ‘on account of the heretics,’ i.e. Christians. For the latter clause, so divided off, could only mean, ‘and during threescore and two weeks street and wall shall be being restored and builded,’ i.e. that Jerusalem should be 434 years in rebuilding, which would be senseless.”—Daniel the Prophet, 1885, p. 190.
As to Daniel 9:26 (Le), which reads, in part, “And after the sixty and two weeks will an anointed one be cut off without a successor to follow him,” the Jewish commentators apply the 62 weeks to a period up to the Maccabean age, and the term “anointed one” to King Agrippa II, who lived at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction, 70 C.E. Or some say this was a high priest, Onias, who was deposed by Antiochus Epiphanes in 175 B.C.E. Their applications of the prophecy to either of these men would rob it of any real significance or import, and the discrepancy in the dating would make the 62 weeks no accurate time prophecy at all.—See Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Da 9:25, 26), edited by A. Cohen, London, 1951.
In an attempt to justify their view, these Jewish scholars say that the “seven weeks” are, not 7 times 7, or 49 years, but 70 years; yet they count the 62 weeks as 7 times 62 years. This, they claim, referred to the period of Babylonian exile. They make Cyrus or Zerubbabel or High Priest Jeshua the “anointed one” in this verse (Da 9:25), with the “anointed one” in Daniel 9:26 being another person.
It may be noted, in this connection, that the Septuagint translation, made by Jewish scholars in the first three centuries B.C.E., reads, at Daniel 9:25, “From the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall.” (LXX, Bagster) Thomson’s Septuagint reads, in part: “seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. They shall indeed return and a street shall be built and a wall.”
Most English translations do not follow the Masoretic punctuation here. They either have a comma after the expression “seven weeks” or in the wording indicate that the 62 weeks follow the 7 as part of the 70, and do not denote that the 62 weeks apply to the period of rebuilding Jerusalem. (Compare Da 9:25 in KJ, AT, Dy, NW, Ro, Yg.) An editorial note by James Strong in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Da 9:25, ftn, p. 198) says: “The only justification of this translation, which separates the two periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, assigning the former as the terminus ad quem of the Anointed Prince, and the latter as the time of rebuilding, lies in the Masoretic interpunction, which places the Athnac [stop] between them. . . . and the rendering in question involves a harsh construction of the second member, being without a preposition. It is better, therefore, and simpler, to adhere to the Authorized Version, which follows all the older translations.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.
Numerous other views, some Messianic and some non-Messianic, have been set forth as to the meaning of the prophecy. Some attempt to change the order of the time periods of the prophecy, while others make them run simultaneously or deny that they have any actual time fulfillment. Also many efforts have been made to fit the events mentioned into the Maccabean period or even into the final time of the end. But those presenting such views become hopelessly entangled, and their attempts to extricate themselves result in absurdity or in an outright denial that the prophecy is inspired or true. Of the latter ideas particularly, which raise more problems than they solve, the aforementioned scholar, E. B. Pusey, remarks: “These were the impossible problems for unbelief to solve; it had to solve them for itself, which was, so far, easier; for nothing is impossible for unbelief to believe, except what God reveals.”—P. 206.
This is all hogwash and Christian rhetoric. Lets look at the LXX version of Daniel 9:25 shall we?Dan 9:25 And you shall know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem, until Christ the Prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.
Now tell me WHY would Daniel say 'seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks'? Why separate the two with no event in between? Why not 'sixty nine weeks'? What is the purpose of separating the seven weeks from the 62 weeks?
The LXX was modified over time. The original Septuagint only had the first five books of the Jewish bible. There is no accurate record of when the remaining books of the LXX was translated. Jewish scribes certainly had not part in the translating the rest of the Tanakh. So I could find as much evidence that the LXX was modified to reflect a Christological bend. The Jewish people abandoned the Greek LXX in favor of the Hebrew texts.
Even so the scenario you presented is wrong. Let's look at your dishonest approach at trying to fit Jesus into this prophecy (and failing miserably). Here is what you said:
Quote Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars generally agree that the “weeks” mentioned he
re mean weeks of years. The 69 “weeks” (483 years) of Daniel 9:25 began in 455 B.C.E., when Persian King Artaxerxes authorized Nehemiah “to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem.” (Nehemiah 2:1-8) They ended 483 years later—in 29 C.E., when Jesus was baptized and anointed with holy spirit, thus becoming the Messiah, or Christ.—Matthew 3:13-17.Problem is, your starting year is WRONG! You say 455 BC. Lets look at Neh 2:1
Neh 2:1 And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence.
Artaxerxes reigned from 465 BC to 424 BC. The 20th year of his reign then would be 444 BC. Add 483 years to this and you get 38 CE, not 29, not 30, not 33. According to Matthew or Luke you are wrong. Where ever did you get 455 BC?
At this point david, I see you have to be deceitful to prove your point. I have never seen anyone use 455 BC in relation to Daniel 9. How can you believe this when you must use erroneous assumptions to prove your point? Is your faith that blind?
Please refrain from dishonesty in the future if you wish me to take your seriously.
what if you have it both wrong.David has the date wrong and you are calculating the years wrong not using 360 day years of the ancient calendar.
The Greatest Time Prophecy in the Bible
If you have an interest in the Bible, be sure to take a look at the prophecy included here. It has been called the “greatest time prophecy in the Bible.”What did Daniel predict in the Bible about the coming of the Messiah?
In 538 B.C. Daniel wrote, “So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks of years and sixty-two weeks of years” (Daniel 9:25).
The time period between these two events would be 69 weeks of years. This was predicted 538 years before Christ.
When was the “decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” issued?
Artaxerxes, a Persian king, ascended to the throne in 464 B.C. Therefore, his twentieth year would be 444 B.C.
Nehemiah, the Jewish cupbearer to King Artaxerxes, was deeply concerned with the reports about the ruined condition of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 1:1-4) and thus petitioned the king: “Send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' tombs, that I may rebuild it. So it pleased the king to send me” (Nehemiah 2:5,6). The exact date of this decree to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem is given: “in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king” (Nehemiah 2:1).
The Jewish calendar month was Nisan, and since no day is given, it is reasonable to assume that the date would be understood as the first, the Jewish New Year's Day. Hence, in the Julian calendar, the corresponding date would be March 5, 444 B.C.
This was the day on which the decree was issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.
When did the “Messiah the Prince” appear?
Jesus had previously, on numerous occasions, forbidden his followers to make him known as “the Messiah”. He would frequently do miracles and tell the disciples not to tell anyone who had done the miracles because his “hour has not yet come” (John 2:4, 7:6).
However, on March 30, 33 A.D., when he entered Jerusalem on a donkey, he rebuked the Pharisees' protest and encouraged the whole multitude of his disciples as they shouted, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord”. And Jesus said, “If these become silent, the stones will cry out” (Luke 19:38-40).
This was the day on which Jesus was publicly declared the Messiah.
How are the dates calculated in Daniel?
Since Daniel states 69 weeks of seven years each, and each year has 360 days, the equation is as follows: 69 x 7 x 360 = 173,880 days.
In nothing more than a simple mathematical demonstration, the number of days in the period from March 5, 444 B.C. (the twentieth year of Artaxerxes) to March 30, 33 A.D. (the day Jesus entered Jerusalem on the donkey) will be determined at this point. 444 B.C. to 33 A.D. is 476 years (1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is only one year). 476 x 365.2421879 (corrected for leap years) = 173,855 days. March 5 to March 30 = 25 days. Total = 173,880 days.
Why does Daniel use “years” of 360 days each?
There is conclusive evidence to show that the prophetic year of the Bible is composed of 360 days, or twelve months of 30 days.
Daniel 9:27 mentions a period of Jewish persecution at the hands of the coming prince who will make a covenant with that people. Since this persecution begins in the “midst” of the seventieth week of years and continues to the “end” of the week of years, the period is obviously three and one-half years.
Revelation 13:4-7 speaks of the same great political ruler and his persecution of the Jewish “saints” lasting “forty two months”. And this period is further defined in Revelation 12:6 as “a thousand two hundred and three score days”, or 1,260 days. If 1,260 days is divided by 42 months or 3-1/2 years, the result is a 30-day month and a 360-day year.
Therefore, it is clear that the length of the year in prophecy is fixed by the Bible itself as exactly 360 days.
Why does Daniel use the phrase “weeks of years”?
In Daniel's writings in Chapter 9 he used the Hebrew word shabua, which means literally a “seven”, but is usually translated into English as “week of years”. To the English ear a week always means a seven of days, but to the Jews shabua alone always meant a seven of years. Thus Daniel was literally referring to weeks of years here.
Daniel used the Hebrew word shabua alone when referring to the well-known “week” of years, a customary usage which every Jew would understand; but in Chapter 10, when he speaks of the “three weeks” of fasting, he specifies them as “weeks of days” in order to distinguish them from the “weeks” of years in Chapter 9.
What is the significance of this prophecy?
The exact fulfillment of this prophecy is sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of Daniel and also by implication the inspiration of the Bible and the truth of Christianity, because only God can “declare the end from the beginning” and forecast to the very day “things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:10).
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Who determined its measurements? Who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Who laid its cornerstone?” (Job 38:1-6)
And suddenly a great storm arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep. Then His disciples came to Him and awoke Him, saying, “Lord, save us! We are perishing!” But He said to them, “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?” Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. So the men marveled, saying, “Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?” (Matthew 9:24-27)
Quote WERE THE HEBREW BIBLE WRITERS WRONG TO INCLUDE GOD'S NAME THOUSANDS OF TIMES? Please answer this question. No why do you ask? Really what is you beef? Are you trying to divert my attention from showing the errors of the Christian bible?
“No, why do you ask?” Because you state that it is wrong to write God's name. But those who actually wrote the Bible and were God's servants wrote God's name thousands of times. One group is wrong here. I'm going to put my money on you.
(It's just that I don't often get to discuss these things with people of Jewish belief. I get to discuss the Bible, supposes contradictions, etc from different groups, but there are certain things that only you can answer for me.)
So, if these writers weren't wrong to do so, why do you think it would be wrong for you to do so?Quote Where do I admit that? I said 'there is no single shred of evidence that what you present is valid'. Doesn't look like I'm admitting that. Do you always misinterpret written words like this? No wonder you have been duped by the Christian bible.
You had stated that I was able to make the stories “not conflict.” I did this simply by not jumbling up the events and trying to make them conflict.[[Sorry, that last quote was from another post.]]
Quote Show me where I said it was wrong. Good luck finding it. Just like your refusal to see contradictions you read your own interpretation into me saying I do it out of respect.
It's not wrong to do it, but you do it out of respect. Those first servants of God, the prophets, etc must have been a very dis-respectful bunch.Quote Quote
Maybe he does only list two women but he doesn't state that there are “only two women.” Matthew apparently leaves some people out, whereas Mark, for example lists them all, or more at least. We don't know, he might have left some out too.Or none of them were eyewitnesses and they are merely working off of heresay and oral traditions if that. That is the most likely explanation.
Yes, in your biased mind. But a possible explanation is what I stated as well, isn't it. I mean, it doesn't conflict with anything, does it? There could have been scads of people there, but they only each mentioned who they thought needed to be mentioned. Hence, no contradiction in the slightest.
but that doesn't fit with your beliefs, for you started out here: “they are merely working off of heresay and oral traditions if that.” And you are trying desparately, against logic and reason to make that belief fit.Quote So now you are equating the Christian bible with a tabloid. I'd agree with that analogy. Hey you said it. Would the Christian bible be the Enquirer or the Sun?
since you refused to acknowledge what I actually said, let's look at it again:You see showtab, when there is a group of people and some of them are more prominent than others, when telling the story, we will often only leave what we consider to be the most important information in.
If Brittany spears and her mom go to the mall, the headlines read: “Brittany spears goes to the mall.” Sure, maybe some of the papers might read: “Brittany and mom go to mall.” But most, would focus on what is considered more important. [[Not that any of that is important in the least.]]
Get it?
And it's not a contradiction in the least if one paper says: Brittany goes to the mall and another says Brittany and mom go to the mall. Obviously, they both went, but one only included what it thought was most important.
People do this all the time. Yet, here, you WANT it to be a contradiction. It isn't. If the one paper said “only Brittany” or “Brittany by herself” or “brittany alone” etc. Then, it would contradict the other statements.
In normal life common sense, this wouldn't be a contradiction. We don't go around saying things like: “John, henry, frank and that's it went to the party.”
If we know these people, we might say: “John and frank went to the party.”
This doesn't mean frank couldn't have gone. It means the person writing has more attachment to or thinks John and frank are more worth mentioning, more relavent.I know you understand what I'm saying.
Yet, you continue to claim this is a contradiction. It is not.
Quote There is no definite article for moshiach in 9:26 so no reason to translate this as 'THE Messiah'. The moshiach of 9:26 is just an anointed one, likely a priest. Many priests and kings did wicked things in the Jewish scriptures. Which priest? This seems to be a pretty significant prophecy. The Jews used to believe it referred to “The” messiah. What happened? Were they wrong for thousands of years?
Quote It means that an anointed priest will be cut off from his power, from his people. The Sadduccees controlled the Temple when it was destroyed in 70 CE. They were no more after that. In Israel, when “cutting off” was used regarding a punishment for violation of the Law, it meant a cutting off in death. Some rabbinic scholars believe that it merely constituted expulsion from the congregation of Israel, though they differ widely in opinion.
By examining the Scripture texts naming the offenses for which this punishment is prescribed, it can be determined that it has reference to the death penalty, executed either by the authorities in Israel or by God himself. The crimes for which cutting off are prescribed are those of a most serious nature. They include disrespect of Jehovah (Israel’s God and King), idolatry, child sacrifice, spiritism, desecration of sacred things, and such disgusting practices as incest, bestiality, and sodomy. In some instances the death penalty is specifically mentioned in connection with the offense for which ‘cutting off’ is decreed as the sanction.—Ex 31:14; Le 7:27; 18:6, 22, 23, 29; 20:3-6; 22:3, 4, 9; 23:28-30; Nu 4:15, 18, 20; 15:30, 31; see also Ex 30:31-33, 38
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,19:56) Quote Show me satan's character from the Tanakh, not the Christian bible. The Christian bible is mixed with mythology so its views on demons and satan are swayed to that idealogy. Therefore please show me that this satan of yours is the bad guy constantly trying to outdo G-d. (See Job for more information.)
This is from G-d in His WordDeu 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Maybe your mythology wants to believe in some 'fallen angel' but all is in the control of YHVH.
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,19:59) Quote Satan and his demons are mythology. So, I assume in your Bible, the word “Satan” which simply means “opposer/resister” means just that.
And so in Job, an angel who was a resister was the one speaking with God?
Is this what you believe?
See a previous post. G-d created all, good and evil. It is part of our free will.The book of Job was a lesson in depending on G-d. G-d allows His children to be tested and tried so that they will turn to Him. As you can see Job did just that. Here is another example.
1Ki 22:20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
1Ki 22:21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
1Ki 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.Quote You have to assume much to make up for the obvious contradictions. Here's a story:
1. John went into the house.
2. John drove away.Look at that crazy story. It is filled with contradictions. How could John drive away if he's in the house?
Well, I guess the writer could have left that part out.
Obvoiosly, there is no contradiction here. I correctly assume that he left the house in between doing #1 and doing #2.
You can call this making a bunch of assumptions to correct the “contradiction” of him driving away while he's in the house, but this is all very ridiculous.
common sense tells us that this isn't a contradiction. You are trying to make it one.
Right, Mark lists more people. Matthew doesn't list them all. A contradiction? Nope. Just one person including more information.
Quote I didn't jumble a thing. I am not the one who had to insert assertions and assumptions. I just worked with the written account and inserted or rearranged nothing.
TELL ME ABOUT IT. In our little analogy you didn't assume that he left the house and therefore you saw a contradiction.
I on the other hand filled in the obvious blanks. Not every detail of this event is covered. it would take pages to do that. We don't need to know every detail. We are told all we need to know. That is not good enough for you. You want to be told that he left the house, or it hurts your head. But to the rest, it is obvious he left the house. To the writer it is obvious he left the house. To common sense, it is obvious. To you, it is contradiction.david.
Quote The book of Job was a lesson in depending on G-d. G-d allows His children to be tested and tried so that they will turn to Him. As you can see Job did just that. Right, and in the first or second chapter (can't remember) we have “Satan” speaking to God.
What do you make of this?
Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 02 2007,20:01) Quote (david @ Nov. 03 2007,12:56) Quote Show me satan's character from the Tanakh, not the Christian bible. The Christian bible is mixed with mythology so its views on demons and satan are swayed to that idealogy. Therefore please show me that this satan of yours is the bad guy constantly trying to outdo G-d. (See Job for more information.)
David the problem here is that modern Jews have for the most part followed the example of the Saduccees.They don't really believe in angels and spirits and like in the same way as Christians.
The 'modern' Jews DO believe in angels. You obviously are ignorant of what the Saduccees believed. They did not believe in after life and the oral Torah. But they were cut off.
But you are right in saying modern Jewish people do not believe in demons. They are not steeped in mythology like Christians. demons, Satan, and the lake of fire is a ploy of Christianity that plays on fear and superstition.
Quote However, to pretend that all Jews believe or believed this way in the past is silly. Jews throughout history have viewed it the same as Christians this is fact.
Those Jews who embraced hellenism. They are human after all.Quote But, most modern Jews will just say they were misled by mythology or something. Quite accurate and very true. Pick your poison: there were many mythologies running rampant at the time of Jesus and the remnant lives on in Christianity.
Quote It's not something that evidence will necessarily work to change his mind. He will have start researching history. “Real History not temple studies with Rabbi modern day”
Pick up any good secular book on ancient hebrew religion.
Who cares about you 'secular history'? Are you secular? They have their own goals and I doubt that those goals are yours. Are you agnostic or atheist?Quote Deu 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; The choices are: good–life
or evil–death.Those are the two choices.
And rightly, Jehovah brought evil or calamity upon Adam for his disobedience. Hence, in the Scriptures, Jehovah is referred to as the Creator of evil or calamity. (Isa 45:7)
His enforcing of the penalty for sin, namely, death, has proved to be an evil, or a calamity, for mankind.
But you make it seem like God is going around doing evil things, doing badness.
That hardly makes sense. There are many other Hebrew scriptures which say the opposite. A God of righteousness and justice, etc…Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,20:15) Quote WERE THE HEBREW BIBLE WRITERS WRONG TO INCLUDE GOD'S NAME THOUSANDS OF TIMES? Please answer this question. No why do you ask? Really what is you beef? Are you trying to divert my attention from showing the errors of the Christian bible?
“No, why do you ask?” Because you state that it is wrong to write God's name.
Wrong wrong wrong. Please show where I said that. I may have quoted another source that said it but i never said it. Again you interpret using your preconception. I am seeing more and more why you accept the erroneous Christian bible: because you just want to.Quote But those who actually wrote the Bible and were God's servants wrote God's name thousands of times. One group is wrong here. I'm going to put my money on you.
Yes Mr. Jehovah. Are you a Jehovah's Witness? The same JWs that write Jehovah into the Christian bible where it never appeared in the original Greek text? Now who is 'rewriting' the bible?!?Quote (It's just that I don't often get to discuss these things with people of Jewish belief. I get to discuss the Bible, supposes contradictions, etc from different groups, but there are certain things that only you can answer for me.)
So, if these writers weren't wrong to do so, why do you think it would be wrong for you to do so?
You are still working off a false assumption. You do that alot.Quote Quote Where do I admit that? I said 'there is no single shred of evidence that what you present is valid'. Doesn't look like I'm admitting that. Do you always misinterpret written words like this? No wonder you have been duped by the Christian bible.
You had stated that I was able to make the stories “not conflict.” I did this simply by not jumbling up the events and trying to make them conflict.
Hahahahahaha, I didn't jumble a thing. I presented them in the order they appeared. You on the other hand had to 'suppose' and 'speculate' to reconcile the accounts.Quote [[Sorry, that last quote was from another post.]] Quote Show me where I said it was wrong. Good luck finding it. Just like your refusal to see contradictions you read your own interpretation into me saying I do it out of respect.
It's not wrong to do it, but you do it out of respect. Those first servants of God, the prophets, etc must have been a very dis-respectful bunch.Quote Quote
Maybe he does only list two women but he doesn't state that there are “only two women.” Matthew apparently leaves some people out, whereas Mark, for example lists them all, or more at least. We don't know, he might have left some out too.Or none of them were eyewitnesses and they are merely working off of heresay and oral traditions if that. That is the most likely explanation.
Yes, in your biased mind. But a possible explanation is what I stated as well, isn't it. I mean, it doesn't conflict with anything, does it? There could have been scads of people there, but they only each mentioned who they thought needed to be mentioned.
Yes, I would think 'the other Mary' was pertinent information. Please.Quote Hence, no contradiction in the slightest.
but that doesn't fit with your beliefs, for you started out here: “they are merely working off of heresay and oral traditions if that.” And you are trying desparately, against logic and reason to make that belief fit.Quote So now you are equating the Christian bible with a tabloid. I'd agree with that analogy. Hey you said it. Would the Christian bible be the Enquirer or the Sun?
since you refused to acknowledge what I actually said, let's look at it again:You see showtab, when there is a group of people and some of them are more prominent than others, when telling the story, we will often only leave what we consider to be the most important information in.
Yes, I would agree that 'the other Mary' must have been a prominent person. Perhaps it was the mother of Jesus and all she really deserved was to be called the 'other Mary'.Quote If Brittany spears and her mom go to the mall, the headlines read: “Brittany spears goes to the mall.” Sure, maybe some of the papers might read: “Brittany and mom go to mall.” But most, would focus on what is considered more important. [[Not that any of that is important in the least.]] Get it?
And it's not a contradiction in the least if one paper says: Brittany goes to the mall and another says Brittany and mom go to the mall. Obviously, they both went, but one only included what it thought was most important.
People do this all the time. Yet, here, you WANT it to be a contradiction. It isn't. If the one paper said “only Brittany” or “Brittany by herself” or “brittany alone” etc. Then, it would contradict the other statements.
In normal life common sense, this wouldn't be a contradiction. We don't go around saying things like: “John, henry, frank and that's it went to the party.”
If we know these people, we might say: “John and frank went to the party.”
This doesn't mean frank couldn't have gone. It means the person writing has more attachment to or thinks John and frank are more worth mentioning, more relavent.I know you understand what I'm saying.
Yet, you continue to claim this is a contradiction. It is not.
It is but you simple refuse to see it because that house of cards is a-shakin.You remind me of Christians who DO know the falsities of the Christian bible but still believe. These people just want some form of religion in their life and Christianity works for them.
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,20:17) Quote There is no definite article for moshiach in 9:26 so no reason to translate this as 'THE Messiah'. The moshiach of 9:26 is just an anointed one, likely a priest. Many priests and kings did wicked things in the Jewish scriptures. Which priest? This seems to be a pretty significant prophecy. The Jews used to believe it referred to “The” messiah. What happened? Were they wrong for thousands of years?
Maybe they did because of the Roman oppression they were under. What of it? When I was a Christian I often heard people say from the pulpit that Jesus was coming back any day and that started 15 years ago. People have been looking for Jesus since the 1st century.If Jesus had fulfilled the end days messianic prophecies we could believe but he didn't. End of story.
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,20:20) Quote It means that an anointed priest will be cut off from his power, from his people. The Sadduccees controlled the Temple when it was destroyed in 70 CE. They were no more after that. In Israel, when “cutting off” was used regarding a punishment for violation of the Law, it meant a cutting off in death. Some rabbinic scholars believe that it merely constituted expulsion from the congregation of Israel, though they differ widely in opinion.
So are you saying Jesus was wicked? He did ask people to drink his blood and did dishonor his parents. Who knows what other wicked things he did.Quote By examining the Scripture texts naming the offenses for which this punishment is prescribed, it can be determined that it has reference to the death penalty, executed either by the authorities in Israel or by God himself. The crimes for which cutting off are prescribed are those of a most serious nature. They include disrespect of Jehovah (Israel’s God and King), idolatry, child sacrifice, spiritism, desecration of sacred things, and such disgusting practices as incest, bestiality, and sodomy. In some instances the death penalty is specifically mentioned in connection with the offense for which ‘cutting off’ is decreed as the sanction.—Ex 31:14; Le 7:27; 18:6, 22, 23, 29; 20:3-6; 22:3, 4, 9; 23:28-30; Nu 4:15, 18, 20; 15:30, 31; see also Ex 30:31-33, 38
So you've just admitted that he violated one of these and was wicked. Interesting to say the least.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
