So everyone agrees that marks were added and codified around the 7th century, but no one knows which ones existed prior to that point?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not quite. Prior to that point they were not written in the scrolls, period. The pronunciations, emphases etc. were transmitted orally.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: "Despite the Jews' marvelous skill and meticulousness in preserving the Old Testament, there are signs they altered the reading of one or more texts to weaken Christian messianic interpretations of some texts."
Those wiley Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I think that after more than 50 years of extensive and serious study of the sanctuary system, I know a whole lot more than you do about its particulars, and certainly about its significance.
I think everyone reading this is already aware that you think that, Ron. You're mistaken, however. Gee, that must suck. Fifty years wasted like that...
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sinners were required to confess their sins over the head of their personal sin offerings, before the animals were slain. This was in addition to the morning and evening sacrifices, which were corporate sin offerings for the whole nation.
Fooey. Numbers 28:1-8 says:
quote:And HaShem spoke unto Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season. And thou shalt say unto them: This is the offering made by fire which ye shall bring unto HaShem: he-lambs of the first year without blemish, two day by day, for a continual burnt-offering. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at dusk; and the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering, mingled with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil. It is a continual burnt-offering, which was offered in mount Sinai, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto HaShem. And the drink-offering thereof shall be the fourth part of a hin for the one lamb; in the holy place shalt thou pour out a drink-offering of strong drink unto HaShem. And the other lamb shalt thou present at dusk; as the meal-offering of the morning, and as the drink-offering thereof, thou shalt present it, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto HaShem.
These were not sin offerings, Ron.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And finally Lisa, I have to comment on your repeated insistence on calling the Christian faith "blasphemy." Because you keep on doing this, it is only fair that I tell you what blasphemy really is.
You don't have to tell me. You've shown me. I wish you'd stop.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Melchizedek was Shem? Wow. That's not in the wiki article I looked up!
Really? When I look at the Wikipedia article on Melchizedek, there's a section called Shem and Melchizedek that covers it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops, sorry for leaving a word out in my earlier post.
I want to add that it's not like these vowels were completely unknown or known to just a small group of people. It was read publicly, often, and by a diverse group of people. And there are other writings surrounding it that make clear what the vowels would have been.
Ron, if you are insisting the text must have been changed, do you acknowledge the text as written doesn't support your claim?
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, you're all wrong about blasphemy; blasphemy is the assertion that the gostak does not distim the doshes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*laugh* I don't know if that was intentional or not, Kate, but it's quite clever nonetheless.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blasphemy was for the rulers of the Jewish nation to go contrary to the will of the majority of the people and have the Roman authorities crucify the Incarnate Word of God on the Cross.
Blasphemy was for Jewish scribes in the seventh century A.D., entrusted with the faithful preservation of Scripture, to crucify the written Word of God by tampering with the text, knowingly adding to it vowel pointings and punctuation that were incorrect, in order to try to downplay those Bible texts that most directly prove that Judaism is wrong to reject Jesus Christ.
Blasphemy is anyone repeating the contrived arguments manufactured by those unfaithful scribes, thus crucifying the Word of God afresh.
Liel's Third Law: Push an overinsistent Christian too hard about his beliefs and you'll get socked with "Christkiller".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I want to add that it's not like these vowels were completely unknown or known to just a small group of people. It was read publicly, often, and by a diverse group of people. And there are other writings surrounding it that make clear what the vowels would have been.
Good point. I apologize if I accidentally implied otherwise (I see now that I rather did).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I have never in my life called Jews "Christkillers." The Jews did not kill Christ. And I don't just mean that it was Roman soldiers who crucified Him, either. I mean that crucifixion is not what killed Him.
First of all, it was our sins--the sins of all humanity--that brought about His death, because that was the only way justice could be satisfied--for our sinful humanity to be executed. Jesus did this in Himself. As Paul said, "We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin." (Romans 6:6; NRSV) And: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21; NKJV)
Secondly, Christ could not be killed. He was and is divine. Immortal. Not subject to death. There was no power on earth that could kill Him, who healed leprosy with a touch, and raised the dead by a word. In Him was life, the life of the Creator of life, unborrowed and underived. This is why Jesus told His disciples beforehand: "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:17, 18; NKJV)
It was not the scourging and crucifixion that killed Him. The witnesses testified: "And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit.' And having said this, He breathed His last." (Luke 23:46; NASB) The Romans were surprised that He died so quickly; crucifixion was designed to produce lingering hours and even days of torment. That is why the centurian drove a sword through His side, to confirm that He was dead.
It had always been Jesus' purpose to come to this world, set an example, develope an experience He could share to succor sinners against temptation, and ultimately voluntarily give up His life, bearing responsibility for the sins of all humanity. The scourging, the reviling, the humiliation, the crucifixion, all were extraneous and gratuitous--things that were heaped upon him by Satan working through individuals he could control, in an effort to discourage Jesus from going through with His mission to redeem humanity.
But the Son of God felt it was worth it to endure the worst that devils and men could do, so that a way could be provided for the family of Adam to be restored to free and open fellowship with God.
The Jews did not kill Christ, because Christ is God, and God cannot be killed. Jesus rested in an unconscious state in the tomb, until an angel was sent to call Him to wake up and take up His life again.
Those Christians who through the ages have foolishly called Jews "Christ-killers," were unsound in their theology, and inconsistent with the true faith of Christianity. To say that Jesus was killed by anyone is to deny the divinity of Christ, and contradicts His own words quoted above, from John 10:17, 18.
[ March 24, 2009, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's one I've never heard before. It's wrong to call Jews "Christkillers" because it's not sound theology...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This may be an argument that cannot be made by Jehovah's Witnesses and some others who do not affirm the full and eternal divinity of Christ. But this is an argument that can and must be made by all mainstream, "orthodox" Christian faiths.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This may be an argument that cannot be made by Jehovah's Witnesses and some others who do not affirm the full and eternal divinity of Christ. But this is an argument that can and must be made by all mainstream, "orthodox" Christian faiths.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: That's one I've never heard before. It's wrong to call Jews "Christkillers" because it's not sound theology...
That doesn't mean it's wrong, that calling Jews "Christkillers" is unsound theology.
Because Jews tend to slap we with the "Anti-Semite" label whenever I ask about their beliefs just as much as a Christian supposedly slaps a Jew with the "Christkiller" label, I'm a bit uninformed as to what you learn in Hebrew school, but as far as I know Christians that seriously think the Jews are responsible for killing the Messiah are a slim minority.
Just a general comment on this thread: This is very interesting when responses to posts aren't things like "<snicker>" or name-calling. Having been unable to have a reasonable conversation about theology with a Jew for a long time (I do remember having some enjoyable discussions with a Jewish friend who has since moved away), it's interesting for me to learn the Jewish perspective on issues such as Jesus's status as the Messiah.
I'd consider joining the discussion on Ron's side, as I believe in the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, but unlike Jesus, I'm reluctant to account for the sins and mistakes of others with my suffering. Maybe we could agree to respond to scholarly posts with scholarly posts instead of mocking?
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
when ron decides to use scholarly posts instead of self righteous posts that only thinly attempt to hide their condescending nature "I am christian and accepted christ so I am a better Jew then you" which in of itself is a massive anti semetic slap in the face of several years of persecution and genocide...
I think it should become fairly obviously fairly fast that Ron doesnt intend to join in scholarly debate, Tom has said it best, NOTHING can convince him he is wrong because the center piece of this discussion is the very BACKBONE of his world view which he can never admit to be wrong about without seeing his life as a lie and admitting he has been a fool all along.
Seriously, half of his posts become nonsensical conspiracy theories.
IP: Logged |
posted
In all fairness, that is what Christianity asserts - that anyone who accepts Christ is entitled to the inheritance of Abraham. I don't see what that has to do with the Nazis and the Holocaust. As far as I know, Ron has no responsibility for the crimes that have been committed against Jews.
I'd say there's been legitimate arguments on both sides, when they actually cite the document that is being examined and its background.
However, I do think both sides have also shown their unnecessary pride. What's being discussed is the "BACKBONE" of both sides. It would be just as humiliating for Lisa to admit that Jesus is the Messiah as it would be for Ron to admit he isn't. Which is probably why they're being so irritable.
Why the atheists here care, I can only guess.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
*waves* I don't think that Jesus being the messiah that the Jews expected is the backbone of Christianity. It may be for some; it certainly was for first century Jews; it isn't for me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I'd consider joining the discussion on Ron's side, as I believe in the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, but unlike Jesus, I'm reluctant to account for the sins and mistakes of others with my suffering. Maybe we could agree to respond to scholarly posts with scholarly posts instead of mocking?
Sure, if there were any scholarly posts. Look, I respond to Ron on this subject in a very different way than I do, for example, to BlackBlade. That's because BlackBlade, for all that I disagree with him theologically, is a mensch. Ron isn't. His misplaced arrogance rubs me the wrong way, so I permit myself to lose some restraint with him. I apologize to other Christians reading this thread who may feel hurt by the things I've said (though I've been honest about my positions). I wouldn't be going after Ron with all barrels if I didn't think it was the only language he would understand.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: ... Why the atheists here care, I can only guess.
Well, imagine that you've read the Lord of the Rings and you find it pretty interesting but maybe you have some questions about specific plot points.
Then you go online and find some people that really think that they're Hobbits, Elves, and Orcs. They're debating the finer points of Middle Earth economics and Middle Earth politics, whether a Ent cutting approach or whether building a road to Mordor is better for the economy, and whether Middle Earth is ready for a Hobbit overlord. Even more interestingly, you find its all relatively consistent with the books and hey, it even answers some of your questions.
Well, you may as well pull up a chair and listen. Maybe you might keep some distance ... but its still pretty fascinating stuff.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *waves* I don't think that Jesus being the messiah that the Jews expected is the backbone of Christianity. It may be for some; it certainly was for first century Christians; it isn't for me.
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: ... Why the atheists here care, I can only guess.
Well, imagine that you've read the Lord of the Rings and you find it pretty interesting but maybe you have some questions about specific plot points.
Then you go online and find some people that really think that they're Hobbits, Elves, and Orcs. They're debating the finer points of Middle Earth economics and Middle Earth politics, whether a Ent cutting approach or whether building a road to Mordor is better for the economy, and whether Middle Earth is ready for a Hobbit overlord. Even more interestingly, you find its all relatively consistent with the books and hey, it even answers some of your questions.
Well, you may as well pull up a chair and listen. Maybe you might keep some distance ... but its still pretty fascinating stuff.
<grin> We love you too, Mucus.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *waves* I don't think that Jesus being the messiah that the Jews expected is the backbone of Christianity. It may be for some; it certainly was for first century Christians; it isn't for me.
Fixed that for you.
Only if those first century Jews settled the question in a certain way. If they decided not, they probably remained good Jews - or at least as good as they were before. And, if I understand correctly, Jews that decided in the affirmative remained Jewish, just "bad" Jews. Yes?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have any idea how many Jews chose to become Christians? It seems to me so at odd with Jewish teachings, that I cannot picture many making the switch. However, maybe it was less extremely different back then (for example, Jesus as a deity).
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First-century Christianity was really very different from what we have now. It was more in the direction of a mystery cult.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *waves* I don't think that Jesus being the messiah that the Jews expected is the backbone of Christianity. It may be for some; it certainly was for first century Christians; it isn't for me.
Fixed that for you.
Only if those first century Jews settled the question in a certain way. If they decided not, they probably remained good Jews - or at least as good as they were before. And, if I understand correctly, Jews that decided in the affirmative remained Jewish, just "bad" Jews. Yes?
I'm not sure when they started taking in Gentiles. But even so, it was a minority of Jews, so it would have been incorrect to state that "it certainly was for first century Jews". At best, you could have said "it certainly was for some first century Jews", but even that is kind of awkward.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: That's one I've never heard before. It's wrong to call Jews "Christkillers" because it's not sound theology...
That doesn't mean it's wrong, that calling Jews "Christkillers" is unsound theology.
Because Jews tend to slap we with the "Anti-Semite" label whenever I ask about their beliefs just as much as a Christian supposedly slaps a Jew with the "Christkiller" label, I'm a bit uninformed as to what you learn in Hebrew school, but as far as I know Christians that seriously think the Jews are responsible for killing the Messiah are a slim minority.
Just a general comment on this thread: This is very interesting when responses to posts aren't things like "<snicker>" or name-calling. Having been unable to have a reasonable conversation about theology with a Jew for a long time (I do remember having some enjoyable discussions with a Jewish friend who has since moved away), it's interesting for me to learn the Jewish perspective on issues such as Jesus's status as the Messiah.
I'd consider joining the discussion on Ron's side, as I believe in the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, but unlike Jesus, I'm reluctant to account for the sins and mistakes of others with my suffering. Maybe we could agree to respond to scholarly posts with scholarly posts instead of mocking?
1) Hebrew school. I hate this word. Orthodox Jews do not attend Hebrew school. They attend Yeshiva. I apologize in advance to any Jews here who attended Hebrew school, but to me, the difference is huge. I feel like Hebrew school is like remedial classes in Judaism that secular Jews take to make sure they get their weekly dose of Judaism in. Yeshiva is all about your Judaism. Modern Orthodox Yeshiva teaches both secular and Jewish subjects together - but under a Jewish umbrella.
2) At YESHIVA, i was not told that most Christians believe we are christkillers. We know that SOME Christians believe that. Usually they are unexposed to Jews in their daily life. But no, I grew up in NY, I know plenty of Christians and we are not poisoned to hate them. I'll not deny there are many ignorant Jews who would love to believe that, but they are ignorant, and a minority. Sort of like the Christians who ask me if I have horns...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly only a minority decided that Jesus was the messiah. It is an important question even if answered in the negative. More people than Jesus claimed to be the messiah. Even if those claims are easily dismissed, it is an important question.
Even so, what would make "some first century Jews" awkward?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it leaves out the fact that they were Christians. It's incomplete, and consequently misleading. At least potentially.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd take a closer look at that plate I gave you awhile ago.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And, again, only the ones who decided Jesus was the messiah became Christian.
And to the others, the question was hardly the "backbone" of anything. Any more than some of the odd beliefs of the Shomronim (Samaritans) were.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't the question of "messiahhood" have been the "backbone" of whether or not they became followers of Christ? No one is claiming it became a backbone of Judaism.
Nor was the question necessarily an important one for the Gentiles*, so saying it was the "backbone" for Christians would be inaccurate once they started letting Gentiles in.
My assertion is that the only people for whom the question was important enough to be a "backbone" would have been those expecting a messiah. Not that all (or even most) of them answered it in the affirmative or even paid much attention to it.
I think it is odd that contemporary Christians (Ron for example) are so caught up in it. As far as I am concerned**, Jesus would have been Jesus even if he had been born Greek.
*I imagine. I am not a particular scholar of the ere but I don't see why someone who wasn't a Jew and didn't want to convert to Judaism would become a follower of Christ just because he fulfilled Jewish prophecy.
**Not claiming to speak for other Christians.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Because it leaves out the fact that they were Christians. It's incomplete, and consequently misleading. At least potentially.
But the early followers of Jesus were Jews, and they viewed their faith as Jewish. What became Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: But the early followers of Jesus were Jews, and they viewed their faith as Jewish. What became Christianity was originally a Jewish movement.
I have always wondered how many of them actually were Jewish. The New Testament is the only historical source I am aware of. Do 10 - 50 people trying to convert gentiles constitute a Jewish movement?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Around the first century, there were many Jewish "movements." Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, etc. Probably around 20-25 in total. Christianity would have been just one among many. It wasn't like most Jews were presented with just two options: Judaism and Christianity, and then had to make a choice.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and there have also been several Jews who have been considered to be the messiah by large numbers of their contemporaries. My guess is they had more contemporary Jewish followers than Jesus.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Around the first century, there were many Jewish "movements." Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, etc. Probably around 20-25 in total. Christianity would have been just one among many. It wasn't like most Jews were presented with just two options: Judaism and Christianity, and then had to make a choice.
Yep. Lots of interesting stuff going on then in terms of religious movements.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
