Jesus vs the New Testament

[blü 2]

Right. For example, the correct Hebrew is that a maiden shall conceive, whereas the gospels quote the error of the Septuagint and say virgin.

Just so.

 

[sooda]

The whole of the NT is written in koine Greek; and the parts based on the Tanakh are in fact from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew version. I've read that the Greek of Mark is rough, suggesting it's a second language, but my Greek isn't sufficient for me to comment on that.

As for John's author being better educated and having a better style, that's not hard to believe, but I have no personal view of it.

John of Patmos is said to be the author of Revelation. He's not the author of the gospel of John.

Thank you. I am trying to understand why the tone of each is so very different... and I can't quite put it into words.

 

[PruePhillip]

A Christian is anyone who says they're a Christian, that is (if I recall aright) 'acknowledges Jesus as his or her savior'.

Christians are as good at crimes, large and small, one or many, as anyone else.
You can't have read the parts of the Tanakh where Yahweh authorizes the destruction of peoples and cities because they follow another god or gods. God is all for forced conversions if the bible's to be believed.
Five wholly distinct Jesuses and six versions of the resurrection each contradicting the other five in major ways? Forensically untenable.

A Christian does not live by the Old Testament.
If five people gave an identical account of Jesus it wouldn't
take the skeptics long to say that's not personal impressions
or eye witness accounts but rather than a priestly redaction.

 

[PruePhillip]

Just so.

No so. Maid also meant virgin. All Jewish maids were meant to
be virgin. Plenty of young women gave birth, in fact just about
ALL of them did. This "young maid" was different, she was a
virgin.
The bible speaks of the virgin wife, so using the strictest
sense of 'virgin' as in chaste would not of itself mean much.
But maid implied one who is chaste.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is why it's most likely that Revelation 7
Is a combination of all the tribes, with Levi, included.

Otherwise, it's some form of judaism mysticism, it seems, that, doesn't seem to correlate with the Epistles, at all.

Hence why the Epistles need to be studied, not skimmed , as it were.

I don't follow, other than that losing Jewish context while studying the NT is akin to replacement theology, anti-semitism, and losing all sound doctrine.

 

[blü 2]

A Christian does not live by the Old Testament.
If five people gave an identical account of Jesus it wouldn't
take the skeptics long to say that's not personal impressions
or eye witness accounts but rather than a priestly redaction.

Was he an ordinary circumcized Jew born of ordinary parents with no special qualities till his baptism? (Mark.) Was he instead born of a virgin following an annunciation and a divine insemination? (Matthew, Luke) Was there nothing special about his birth except his special nature? (John). Was he a sinner who needed baptism? (Mark) Was he just doing JtB a favor? (Matthew) Was it not worth mentioning? (John) Was he abject and frightened at his crucifixion? (Mark) Was he in a bad way but knew what he was about? (Matthew) Did he give up the 'Why have you forsaken me?' for the much cooler 'Into your hands I commend my spirit'? (Luke) Was he the MC at his own crucifixion? (John) Who went to the tomb? What did they find? Were there guards? Were there none, one or more angels? Who first met the risen Jesus? Second met? Did Jesus ascend at Galilee or in Jerusalem? That night, the next day, in a few days, after 40 days of teaching? It's not just fiction, it's five or six fictions.

 

[blü 2]

No so. Maid also meant virgin.

The Hebrew word in Isaiah is 'almah. It means 'young woman' ─ the Hebrew for virgin is bĕthuwlah (says Strong). However, 'almah got translated into the Greek of the Septuagint as 'parthenos' and that does mean 'virgin'.

 

[PruePhillip]

Was he an ordinary circumcized Jew born of ordinary parents with no special qualities till his baptism? (Mark.) Was he instead born of a virgin following an annunciation and a divine insemination? (Matthew, Luke) Was there nothing special about his birth except his special nature? (John). Was he a sinner who needed baptism? (Mark) Was he just doing JtB a favor? (Matthew) Was it not worth mentioning? (John) Was he abject and frightened at his crucifixion? (Mark) Was he in a bad way but knew what he was about? (Matthew) Did he give up the 'Why have you forsaken me?' for the much cooler 'Into your hands I commend my spirit'? (Luke) Was he the MC at his own crucifixion? (John) Who went to the tomb? What did they find? Were there guards? Were there none, one or more angels? Who first met the risen Jesus? Second met? Did Jesus ascend at Galilee or in Jerusalem? That night, the next day, in a few days, after 40 days of teaching? It's not just fiction, it's five or six fictions.

Friedman calls Richard Nixon a great Statesman.
Waldron speaks of Nixon as the Watergate, Mafia and CIA plotter.
Who is right?

Matthew has Jesus as the teacher, the promised Messiah.
John saw him as the elder brother
Mark saw him as a moral man of great deeds
Luke saw him as the perfect man of humanity
Who is right?

 

[PruePhillip]

The Hebrew word in Isaiah is 'almah. It means 'young woman' ─ the Hebrew for virgin is bĕthuwlah (says Strong). However, 'almah got translated into the Greek of the Septuagint as 'parthenos' and that does mean 'virgin'.

It's a good translation - because the MEANING of this 'young woman'(also a translation)
means someone expected to be chaste, ie a maiden.
As it was, Mary was not a 'maiden' in our sense of the word. She was a woman come of
age, about to be married. She was a 'maiden' in the sense of being chaste.
And a true 'virgin' in the Hebrew vernacular could be a married woman with children.
But we divine the INTENT of the verse, that a woman who "knows no man" conceives.

 

[blü 2]

Friedman calls Richard Nixon a great Statesman.
Waldron speaks of Nixon as the Watergate, Mafia and CIA plotter.
Who is right?

Matthew has Jesus as the teacher, the promised Messiah.
John saw him as the elder brother
Mark saw him as a moral man of great deeds
Luke saw him as the perfect man of humanity
Who is right?

Whichever you like, take your pick, it doesn't matter ─ as I keep saying, it's not biography, it's fiction, or rather, multiple fictions.

 

[blü 2]

It's a good translation - because the MEANING of this 'young woman'(also a translation)
means someone expected to be chaste, ie a maiden.
As it was, Mary was not a 'maiden' in our sense of the word. She was a woman come of
age, about to be married. She was a 'maiden' in the sense of being chaste.
And a true 'virgin' in the Hebrew vernacular could be a married woman with children.
But we divine the INTENT of the verse, that a woman who "knows no man" conceives.

There is NO such intent to be found in the wording of Isaiah 7:14. 'almah is simply the feminine of elem, 'young man'. The young woman could as easily be a young wife or any other young woman.

It's only when the translators for the Septuagint fumble the ball that the author of Matthew reads their error as a messianic prophecy and so sets out to 'correct' Mark by specifying that Mary is a literal virgin, and his story reads accordingly.

 

[PruePhillip]

Whichever you like, take your pick, it doesn't matter ─ as I keep saying, it's not biography, it's fiction, or rather, multiple fictions.

Same with Nixon I suppose. I mean, did he really exist?

 

[PruePhillip]

There is NO such intent to be found in the wording of Isaiah 7:14. 'almah is simply the feminine of elem, 'young man'. The young woman could as easily be a young wife or any other young woman.

It's only when the translators for the Septuagint fumble the ball that the author of Matthew reads their error as a messianic prophecy and so sets out to 'correct' Mark by specifying that Mary is a literal virgin, and his story reads accordingly.

Yeah, strange that Isaiah said there would be a 'sign' of the Messiah
and it would be a YOUNG WOMAN giving birth to a son.
Think about this honestly - is that really a 'sign'? I mean, every young
woman in Israel could give birth to a son.
And nearly every newly married woman was 'young' back then, some
even prepubescent.
Was Isaiah that stupid?
Why didn't he say 'virgin' and be done with it? Because virgin didn't
mean to them what it means to us today. Proof - a 'virgin' could be
a married mother in Hebrew language.
No, the context to the sign of Isaiah was that something strange
would appear to Israel in the birth of this Emmanuel. And yes, it
turned out to be Jesus and not Emmanuel, but that's another
story.
I won't convince you, but I have learned something from this.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, strange that Isaiah said there would be a 'sign' of the Messiah
and it would be a YOUNG WOMAN giving birth to a son.
Think about this honestly - is that really a 'sign'? I mean, every young
woman in Israel could give birth to a son.
And nearly every newly married woman was 'young' back then, some
even prepubescent.
Was Isaiah that stupid?

Why didn't you just read on for a chapter or two? You're making the same error the author of Matthew made. What do you think happens at Isaiah 8:3?

And just how many young women were intended to conceive as a result of Isaiah 7:14 and bear special children? More than one, you think? Twenty, perhaps? Twenty thousand?

 

[PruePhillip]

Why didn't you just read on for a chapter or two? You're making the same error the author of Matthew made. What do you think happens at Isaiah 8:3?

And just how many young women were intended to conceive as a result of Isaiah 7:14 and bear special children? More than one, you think? Twenty, perhaps? Twenty thousand?

I'll do that tomorrow. It's good to challenge your own thinking on things.
Cheers.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't follow, other than that losing Jewish context while studying the NT is akin to replacement theology, anti-semitism, and losing all sound doctrine.

If you believe that a revised tribal listing is 'Jewish context', or read anti- semitism into the direct inference in the Epistles, which never mentions an idea like that, than that is your problem, and it isn't Christian, or even Jewish, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't follow, other than that losing Jewish context while studying the NT is akin to replacement theology, anti-semitism, and losing all sound doctrine.

The slur of 'replacament theology', shows that you understand neither traditional Jewish belief, or Christian belief, as the texts do not present your interpretation, if you knew more about Judaism you wouldn't even make that association.
So you're a dabbler, just going with whatever theories are presented to you.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't follow, other than that losing Jewish context while studying the NT is akin to replacement theology, anti-semitism, and losing all sound doctrine.

Ahhh...

Not Jewish Xian, or a Messianic Xian who's Jewish, what your group is something else, so you have sort of a hodge podge of ideas that may not make sense, contextually.

 

[Desert Snake]

You might want to tell your priest that

'Jewish messianic Christianity',

And

Anti'"replacement theology" musings don't really go together.

 

[sooda]

You might want to tell your priest that

'Jewish messianic Christianity',

And

Anti'"replacement theology" musings don't really go together.

Did you know that 5/6th’s of the bible is about Israel? That is over 83% of our bible. That is an awful lot of the bible to not have a good understanding.