Very poor biased unreasonable interpretation of what was the 'whole world' to the HEbrews at the time what Jacob said. What is the exact quote,
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians and Jews Mostly: Messiah
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Very poor biased unreasonable interpretation of what was the 'whole world' to the HEbrews at the time what Jacob said. What is the exact quote,
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Which quote? I mentioned the one in Genesis.
There are many, but one I like is Isaiah 42
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my elect, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth justice to the Gentiles."
God's servant, so gentle that 'A bruised reed he will not break, and a
smoldering wick he will not snuff out.'
And this is the Covenant given to the Gentiles. We today call it the
New Testament.
“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
Nothing here referring to the 'whole world' in the Tanakh.
You said; "Jacob said the Messiah would belong to the whole world, which
would have amazed the Hebrews."
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
There was no concept of the 'world' in the bible, not in Noah's day, in Sumer
times or Jesus' day (ie 'the whole world was taxed.')
The 'Gentiles' is a proxy for the whole world, ie all those 'out there' who are
not Jews.
In Biblehub
the obedience of the nations shall be his.
the one whom all nations will honor.
to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
he is the expectation of nations.
The 1917 Tanakh is interesting
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
As long as men come to Shiloh; And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.
This is the same as the Interlinear.
For me the key word is UNTIL
meaning of course there will be a Hebrew nation UNTIL the Messiah comes. Should
there be obedience of the Jewish nation then naturally this Hebrew nation would have
had God's blessing. But as Moses, David, Isaiah, Zechariah and others pointed out,
the Messiah would be despised, rejected and outcast.
Last edited:
Then there is no reason to believe that the Hebrew scripture refers to the 'whole world.'
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
It's interesting isn't it. TO ME, 'the Gentiles' refers to the whole world
because it's saying, 'anyone out there not a Hebrew.'
'Gentile' is not a Hebrew word though.
In the Hebrew world at the time gentiles were non-Hebrews in the their tribal world. They did not know about the 'whole world.'
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
They didn't have to know about the whole world, they just had to
speak of whatever lay outside of Judaism and Israel, this nicely
encapsulated the rest of the world.
Jesus outrage his own fellow citizens by reminding them that in
the days of the Elijan drought that God saved only two people -
a Syrian and a Lebanese. And though Jesus said he only came
to the lost sheep of Israel it seemed that many Gentiles had a
deeper respect for him. And Jerusalem would remain in Gentile
hands until the Gentiles were finished. I suggest that the 'islands'
of Ezekiel 38,39 refer to America.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
And Jesus is not in the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue.
And I suppose the word 'God' isnt in the Tanakh either.
As long as we know what we are talking about.
Actually, there's the word/name (depending on the context) גד which could be transliterated either as gad or god depending on how you think it should be pronounced.
Being good or bad is not the issue.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
If your reference is Judaeo Christrianity then behavior is everything.
Both religions have a reputation of bad behavior.
You totally misunderstood Harel's post.
You missed the sarcasm.
Being good ot bad is a universal very human thing regardless of religious belief.
I think you misread what I wrote. I wrote that the Hebrew word גד might be transliterated as "god" or "gad" depending on how one thought it should be pronounced. Nothing about "bad" or "good", although I can see why one would misread that as such. There are similarities in the spelling. Anyway, I wrote that humorously.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
As someone who lives under the tenants of the New Testament
(I am not Jewish) can you tell me what this 'bad behavior' is?
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Greetings Rival,
The problem you have with this question is the starting point. First, the minute that you use the English word "messiah" as a translation for the Hebrew word (משיח) when in reality your question is about a Davidic king you essentially have made it impossible for you to get answers that really address your question.
As you know, the closest thing in the Hebrew language to what the word "messiah" often means to English speakers, due to the Christian influence on the English language, would be (מושיע) or (גואל) neither of which still don't mean what most English assign to the word "messiah;" again due to the Christian influence on these type of English words.
Second, the minute you use the english word "messiah" with a capital "M" the question you have will go completely off the rails right into a question that is, "What do Christians mean by messiah, according to the Greek inspired, Christian bible, using the New Testament as the "Oral LXX" for said text."
I know this is not what you were asking, humor me a bit, but that is exactly where the question leads, as it is written. One of the reasons I state this is, if you have noticed, every Christian answer that you have been given is from the NT thus far in this thread, and others most likely.
As you already know, for Tanakh (in Hebrew) based Jews, there are no capital letters. So, there is no a real difference between the title of a (משיח) who is a Kohen a (משיח) who is a ANY king of Israel who had oil poured them like Shaul, like David, etc, or a (משיח) future Davidic king. Capitalizing the first letter in English, when Hebrew has no capitals, and even using a word that is foreign to the question, like "messiah" is, skews the discussion right into New Testament terroritory.
That being said, a better question for Torah based Jews would be, "What does the Hebrew Tanakh, w/o English translation, state about the future Davidic king? Feel free to use native ancient Jewish nuances, words, definitions, concepts, etc. to explain it."
This is the next issue. The reality is that Jews and Christians don't see the Tanakh the same way. Most Christians don't even possess what can be defined by Jews as a Tanakh, a term that for the most part they [Christians] don't even use to define the Christian bible either historically or modernly. I.e. For Jews, in reality, a Tanakh is something that looks like the below:
You find a a Tanakh in Hebrew in way more Jewish homes than you will Christian homes. For Christians, the above books in Heberw don't really mean anything and only have importance for a small minotority of their scholars. For them, what has value is mostly the English translations of their own Christian bible, and only when it relates back to something from the New Testament.
In terms of your question, "how their understandings became so radically different while adhering to the same scriptures."
That is an easy one to answer, w/o a lot explaination needed. The early Jewish Christians had an agenda, no different than the Ebionites, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Northern Israel king Ahhav and his wife Izevel, the Giv'onim, Korach, the Mixed Multitude who were led by former advisors to Pharoah who led the building of the golden calf, and Lot - the nephew of Avraham. Thus, they had to create different understandings to try and convince themselves, and at times others, that they were right, even when it flew in the face of reality.
These are a few examples of those who had agendas and decided to take a path that seperated themselves from Am Yisrael and the mitzvoth that Hashem gave. In each situation their movements eventually died out as "identifiable Torah based leaders/scholars/etc.," and thus the proof that their concepts did not come from Hashem. This includes the original Jewish Christians, even though most of them were not leaders or scholars in the Jewish community. This is one of about three reasons the Jewish Christians died out about 2 generations after their start, something even alluded to by the NT author of jude 1:4. i.e. the author of that text seems to point out that between the 1st and 2nd generation the original Jewish Christians were having "membershp" issues. Further, if the NT authors can be believed about something, which is a stretch, it is most likely true that the early Christians did leave their families behind and not start new ones. Probably out of the beleif that the end was near and thus they sealed their own historical and theological fate.
The non-Jewish Christians, who took what was left when the Jewish Christians disappeared off the historical map, tried to come up with something "new" and "different" thus they HAD to seperate themselves conceptially even further from anything that was Jewish. Quoting one or two lines, in Greek, out of context, while ignoring everthing else in the original text, etc. is a non-Torah based method of making a "definative claim" about the text and it this is the path that early Christianity took. Thus, making the lack of connection complete. Further, the idea of rank and file Christians reading the Christian bible for themselves is a bit of a new idea/new reality - most average Christians weren't reading the NT for themselves prior to about 600 years ago; let alone reading it in Greek. One of the consequences has been some of them leaving and in some situations converting to Judaism.
Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years By Bernard Starr, Contributor College Professor (Emeritus, City University of N.Y),psychologist, journalist.
In reality, Jews and Christians don't adhere to the same "scriptures." Even that word, doesn't mean the same thing for Jews as it does for Christians. Note: Just consider what Jewish sources say the purpose of the nach writings are, and what will be done with them when a Torah based nation is re-established. Thus, Jews and Christians don't carry the same background with how one determines what is accurate, aunthentic, and authoratitive.
Here is a way to test what I am saying. Have a Jew read from the below section of Yeshayahu (in Hebrew) that was found in the dead sea area. Then have a Christian read from it and ask them to point out how they determined where to start and stop quoting for their ideas. You will literally know the answer to your question within seconds.
Last edited:
The very human bad behavior of believers in all religions and belief systems.
As far as the Bible goes it is ancient tribal guidance of what is good and bad. In recent history it lacks guidance for what is good and bad for issues like slavery, women's social and legal rights. Also ancient scripture lacks the quidance of how to deal with those of different beliefs, such as the historic tribal conflict between Christianity, Judaism and Islam still apparent today.