Do the Jews Have a God?

[rosends]

Martin Hengel translates: "I have anointed his appearance beyond that of any (other) man, and his form beyond that of the sons of humanity [the human]".

It really doesn't make a big deal to the case, the word is anointed in someway; this is most likely where the 1st century Messianic understanding of Isaiah 53 came from.

This was a very minor detail of questioning, there isn't specification of 'the Messiah' as believed within Rabbinic thinking specified within the Tanakh, and almost agreed until found that reference.

Yet if we dissected the rest of the text, it would be clear why it is quite specific, with multiple references across the book.

So Hengel, writing about Christianity from a Christian perspective, without any explanation or backing (or cross checking with other Hebrew words or textual sources) says that a "possible translation" would be "I have anointed" (mashachti), in a form which appears no where else in the text. He also says that this would refer possibly to the "Priestly messiah of Qumranic eschatological expectation." He also has interesting things to say about the authorship of the Gospel of John, as he says that the author is John the Elder, " this great teacher to whom the church owes a good part of its foundation." and "It seeks to see the ‘history’ of Jesus better… and at the same time in a much deeper christological understanding." Does his scholarship shake your contention that "the Sanhedrin created the Gospel of John to be derogatory towards Yeshua"? Is Hengel an authority that challenges your understanding?

So the reference that Hengel decides, with no textual backing, is there to point to one thing, you decide points to something else (which he would deny) and then you insist that reading the rest of the text, things would continue to point to the meaning you prefer. You have put the cart before the horse.

 

[wizanda]

The fact you've gone on some weird tangent, when explaining before it is only another translation, another opinion confirming a way of looking at it....

Not saying it is 100% right; i prefer my own version.... Lets make it clearer, i don't really concern myself with specific grammar, it is more the items specified within a text.

As saying it has the word 'anointed', rather than 'blemished'; that is enough to make a case it is a Messianic prophecy.

Does his scholarship shake your contention that "the Sanhedrin created the Gospel of John to be derogatory towards Yeshua"? Is Hengel an authority that challenges your understanding?

Not in the slightest, same as when you point out one translation error, it doesn't shake something that has such solid foundations.

Currently as someone unaware of much of the foundations; smashing windows on the house to demolish it, is really quite sad.

 

[Tumah]

Not saying it is 100% right; i prefer my own version.... Lets make it clearer, i don't really concern myself with specific grammar, it is more the items specified within a text.

That's a convenient way to derive whatever you want from a text.

 

[Tumah]

Wait...so now the inclusion in the DSS of a yod at the end of the word "mishchat" makes it "my messiah"? So there is no mention of a 'blemish' because the word is no longer "mishchat"?
Just to clarify -- the Hebrew for "my Messiah" would be m'shichi (check Sam 1, 2:35 or Psalms 132:17). There is no construction in all of tanach "m-sh-ch-t-y". In the Zohar (in Aramaic) the word appears 3 times. If you want to read more about the grammar (problems) behind this construction, check out the Ibn Ezra on Eccl. 5:1.

It doesn't help. It just doesn't help.

 

[wizanda]

That's a convenient way to derive whatever you want from a text.

Unfortunately trying to find fault always; misses out on how that methodology can be very useful....

We have no idea what typos are within the Tanakh overall, if we can show quite a few between the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what we now have... Thus how many have been made since Moses.

So on that understanding, we should recognize not to be overly pedantic on grammar, as we can not be sure it is correct.

Whereas certain words being included in a certain sequence provides a form of code, that can be quantified against other lines of pictures in sequence.

Then when we examine enough of the prophetic texts, we see the matching metaphors, and are aware of the pictures being discussed.

If we try to look at the grammar, and a language that isn't understood properly anymore; that might have had pictographic roots going back to Egyptian hieroglyphics, then simplicity is needed on what we can assess clearly.

It doesn't help. It just doesn't help.

It does help, and i took on board your understanding to help create my own translation.

 

[rosends]

The fact you've gone on some weird tangent, when explaining before it is only another translation, another opinion confirming a way of looking at it....

Not saying it is 100% right; i prefer my own version.... Lets make it clearer, i don't really concern myself with specific grammar, it is more the items specified within a text.

As saying it has the word 'anointed', rather than 'blemished'; that is enough to make a case it is a Messianic prophecy.

Not in the slightest, same as when you point out one translation error, it doesn't shake something that has such solid foundations.

Currently as someone unaware of much of the foundations; smashing windows on the house to demolish it, is really quite sad.

So you cite his authority when he says something you agree on, but don't concede his authority when he disagrees with you.
You create your "own version" and don't concern yourself with specific grammar.

OK, whatever works for you. If you want to pick and choose and then make stuff up, feel free.

 

[wizanda]

So you cite his authority when he says something you agree on, but don't concede his authority when he disagrees with you.

OK Lets get some basics out of the way...

Here to me is the Maya (a place of delusion), it is the top floor of Hell (Gehenna)...

People might get odd things right; yet no one is to be trusted completely, as most of us are delusional in someway, including myself....

The only thing not delusional is the God Most High; which is like a CPU, it is entirely logical, we're not.

So i don't have all this authority anxiety; i didn't post it as an authority in the slightest, just another opinion of many to make a case.

Everything is built upon numerous testimonies.

You create your "own version" and don't concern yourself with specific grammar.

Mine was built by numerous translations, i took what Tumah had put to begin; yet looked at all versions on Biblehub, and chose better wording for the first bit.

Then started backwards at the end of the line, as the term 'Son of Man', is a clear reference we find throughout Hebraic texts, and would make sense contextually of someone sent by God.

It isn't perfect, and still need a vast amount of study to know Hebrew better.... Yet seriously who cares, the basic overall meaning is there.

Find this like all you've got left is grammar; no God (Hosea 4:6), no book you understand in context (Isaiah 29:9-12), no inheritance (Zechariah 11:14), no grace (Zechariah 11:10), just grammar (Isaiah 29:21), so you fight to defend the one thing you think you have left.

 

[rosends]

OK Lets get some basics out of the way...

Here to me is the Maya (a place of delusion), it is the top floor of Hell (Gehenna)...

People might get odd things right; yet no one is to be trusted completely, as most of us are delusional in someway, including myself....

The only thing not delusional is the God Most High; which is like a CPU, it is entirely logical, we're not.

So i don't have all this authority anxiety; i didn't post it as an authority in the slightest, just another opinion of many to make a case.

Everything is built upon numerous testimonies.

Mine was built by numerous translations, i took what Tumah had put to begin; yet looked at all versions on Biblehub, and chose better wording for the first bit.

Then started backwards at the end of the line, as the term 'Son of Man', is a clear reference we find throughout Hebraic texts, and would make sense contextually of someone sent by God.

It isn't perfect, and still need a vast amount of study to know Hebrew better.... Yet seriously who cares, the basic overall meaning is there.

Find this like all you've got left is grammar; no God (Hosea 4:6), no book you understand in context (Isaiah 29:9-12), no inheritance (Zechariah 11:14), no grace (Zechariah 11:10), just grammar (Isaiah 29:21), so you fight to defend the one thing you think you have left.

You admit you know little. You admit you pick and choose. You admit you start with your conclusion and work backwards. Then you decide what I don't have based on this fiction you have created. You live in a house of cards and don't want to see that it has already fallen.

 

[wizanda]

You live in a house of cards

Since I'm not the one following a book, and have been told directly; none of what I'm understanding theologically started as written, I'm just trying my hardest in a world of corruption to explain it for others, before what I've been shown will happen...

So really little digs to try and protect ego, rather than learning textnically how the book fits together is only your loss.

Then you decide what I don't have based on this fiction you have created.

The Tanakh wasn't created by me, the prophets are quite clear; personally don't feel it is fiction, as can show numerous physical things that have taken place as they specified.

 

[Akivah]

We have no idea what typos are within the Tanakh overall, if we can show quite a few between the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what we now have... Thus how many have been made since Moses.

So on that understanding, we should recognize not to be overly pedantic on grammar, as we can not be sure it is correct.

{snip}

It does help, and i took on board your understanding to help create my own translation.

Ah, I understand now. You change the G-d's words to force it to fit your own beliefs, ignore the grammar of the language it was written in, and create your own bible. And why should anyone else use your own created bible?

 

[wizanda]

Ah, I understand now.

We should never say we know a subject before we've even looked at it carefully.

You change the G-d's words to force it to fit your own beliefs, ignore the grammar of the language it was written in, and create your own bible. And why should anyone else use your own created bible?

Personally would say use as many copies of the Bible as possible to check translations against each other, and even learn the language if possible...

Esword Bible software is great, as without a concordance, Strongs referencing and KJV+, HOT+, lots of things are not that clear.

We can't really see how a tapestry interlinks, when we only look from the front.

 

[Akivah]

Personally would say use as many copies of the Bible as possible to check translations against each other, and even learn the language if possible...

Learn the language?? Didn't you just say that you ignore the grammar of the language?

 

[wizanda]

Learn the language?? Didn't you just say that you ignore the grammar of the language?

Again unless like a child, we will not see the kingdom of God...A simple grasp of the language, and good analysis skills, is better than the other way around.

I don't ignore anything that I'm aware of.

 

[Tumah]

Unfortunately trying to find fault always; misses out on how that methodology can be very useful....

What do you mean? I pointed out exactly how its useful. Its useful for finding a source to say whatever you want.

We have no idea what typos are within the Tanakh overall, if we can show quite a few between the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what we now have... Thus how many have been made since Moses.

On the basis of that claim anything can be a typo. Without an internal (to the text, not to your delusion) reason to asume a typo, there is no reason to fabricate one.

So on that understanding, we should recognize not to be overly pedantic on grammar, as we can not be sure it is correct.

You're crazy to think this is a good idea.

And don't be overly pedantic on my grammar because the words "you", "think" and "good" are in there. Clearly establishing my appreciation of your wonderful ideas.

Whereas certain words being included in a certain sequence provides a form of code, that can be quantified against other lines of pictures in sequence.

Sure.
And maybe those words are typos too.

Then when we examine enough of the prophetic texts, we see the matching metaphors, and are aware of the pictures being discussed.

That's not what you're doing as fancy as you try to make that sound. Because you are using internal (to your delusions, not to the text) reasoning to determine where the typos and other assorted grammatical issues are, your using yourself to validate your poor eisegetic reading of the text.

You aren't pulling out the meaning of the text. You're restructuring the text to read your own meaning into it.

If we try to look at the grammar, and a language that isn't understood properly anymore; that might have had pictographic roots going back to Egyptian hieroglyphics, then simplicity is needed on what we can assess clearly.

The language and grammar is understood just fine. Many books have been written on the subject. There's a handful of words that aren't clear, but they don't detract from the rest of the text.

It does help, and i took on board your understanding to help create my own translation.

No you didn't. You reiterated to rosends the same issues you had in that thread.

 

[wizanda]

No you didn't. You reiterated to rosends the same issues you had in that thread.

Didn't have an issue in the thread, was looking for a clearer understanding, you offered yours, and thus adjusted slightly. Thanks.

Because you are using internal (to your delusions, not to the text) reasoning to determine where the typos and other assorted grammatical issues are

We can only establish a typo by two or more sources of information to cross examine.

We can only determine grammar, by knowing the language fluently; which i openly admit i don't even know the alphabet properly yet.

You aren't pulling out the meaning of the text. You're restructuring the text to read your own meaning into it.

OK explain my understanding on a specific text, where it is totally out of alignment?

 

[Tumah]

Didn't have an issue in the thread, was looking for a clearer understanding, you offered yours, and thus adjusted slightly. Thanks.

We can only establish a typo by two or more sources of information to cross examine.

We can only determine grammar, by knowing the language fluently; which i openly admit i don't even know the alphabet properly yet.

We know Hebrew grammar. You don't need to know what every noun means in order to know correct grammar. There are plenty of English grammarians that don't know every single English word.

OK explain my understanding on a specific text, where it is totally out of alignment?

Like your "Yeshuat Elokim" is Jesus ridiculousness?

 

[wizanda]

Like your "Yeshuat Elokim" is Jesus ridiculousness?

Do you understand the fulfillment of the Messiah to be an act of God, and that within it, the Messiah shall bring Salvation to our people?

 

[Tumah]

Do you understand the fulfillment of the Messiah to be an act of God, and that within it, the Messiah shall bring Salvation to our people?

"The fulfillment of the Messiah" does not make sense. The messiah is not fulfilled. Messianic prophecies are. The messiah doesn't bring salvation to the Jews whatsoever. G-d does.

 

[wizanda]

"The fulfillment of the Messiah" does not make sense.

12. I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah; and even though he may tarry, nonetheless, I wait every day for his coming.

 

[Tumah]

12. I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah; and even though he may tarry, nonetheless, I wait every day for his coming.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.