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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nonsense.I would think he should have known better.
There seems to be many more convenient mistranslations.
CMike said:I think a bigger question is whether Matthew truely knew that almah is a young woman and intentionally mistranslated the word?
Jayhawker Soule said:I assume he relied upon the LXX. To assume intentional deception strikes me as little more than petty ad hominem.
Isaiah 7:15-17 said:15 He [Immanuel] shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child [Immanuel] knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
Very good point to bring up.CMike said:There seems to be a tendency to insert Jesus into numerous Torah passages that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
Do you believe that those who made reference to Solomon's Shamir knew better?It's hard for me to believe that the people who originally did it, didn't know better.
Do you believe that those who made reference to Solomon's Shamir knew better?
Your right. I was far too vague. Permit me another example ...By "those", who do you mean?
And by "knew better", I assume you mean to the claims "those" made... Which claims are you referring to?Knew better about what?
Who is they?
Chodesh Tov to you to!Your right. I was far too vague. Permit me another example ...
Chodesh tov.
You are no doubt aware that this is Rosh Chodesh Av, and that we will be commemorating Tisha B'Av soon. You are probably also aware that the first disaster associated to this date in the Mishna is the scouting report addressed in Numbers 13-14 -- a report and response that punished an entire generation.
But how did the Mishna come to 'know' that this disaster occurred on the 9th of Av? Is this an example of midrashic inference or pious fraud?
I suggest that it was the former. I suggest that the author of Ta'anit 4:16 simply interpreted early text through the lens of strong conviction. I have no reason to believe that the author of gMt was being any less honest. If you do, I'm open to hearing them.
How the rabbis came up with the 9 of av for the fasting due the disaster with the spies is much different than trying to insert a foreign god into the Torah.Your right. I was far too vague. Permit me another example ...
Chodesh tov.
You are no doubt aware that this is Rosh Chodesh Av, and that we will be commemorating Tisha B'Av soon. You are probably also aware that the first disaster associated to this date in the Mishna is the scouting report addressed in Numbers 13-14 -- a report and response that punished an entire generation.
But how did the Mishna come to 'know' that this disaster occurred on the 9th of Av? Is this an example of midrashic inference or pious fraud?
I suggest that it was the former. I suggest that the author of Ta'anit 4:16 simply interpreted early text through the lens of strong conviction. I have no reason to believe that the author of gMt was being any less honest. If you do, I'm open to hearing them.
BUT STILL...I think that Matthew had taken the verse out-of-context, to have twisted the verse to mean the parthenos to mean "Mary" and Immanuel to mean "Jesus", and for the sign to be a "virgin birth".
james2ko said:Or perhaps Christ explained to Matthew the meaning of Isaiah's prophecy:
Luk 24:27 Then Jesus took them [His disciples] through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
But was it deceit or inference?How the rabbis came up with the 9 of av for the fasting due the disaster with the spies is much different ...
katzpur said:As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether the word in question is translated as "virgin" or "young woman." Mary specifically told the Angel Gabriel that she had not been with a man. If you believe her, then you'll believe she was a virgin. If you don't, you won't.
But was it deceit or inference?