How and why did you reject christ?

[IndigoChild5559]

David was in Saul's palace as a youth, then had mighty men, then the kingdom. For Gentiles to surround him completely then remove and divide his clothing would be shame and derision for his bodyguards. The Tanakh records no instance where David fulfilled that Psalm metaphorically or literally. Have you ever read the rest of the Psalm? Most of the verses never happened to David and are Messianic.

Yes, there is a context to lions and animals in the Psalm. No, the other 15 uses of the word are DUG, PIERCED.

There's no shame in the Septuagint, for it was in near-universal use among our people in the diaspora, in Greco-Roman lands. Our leaders don't like that it usually leans towards Messianic readings/renderings, but there's nothing wrong with it, especially since it gave all those prophecies over two centuries before Messiah was born!

Next, you're going to tell me Isaiah 53 is about Israel!

Psalm 22 itself is a historical record of what happened to David. You don't need a second record to back it up.

I refer you to what Harel13 said about the lions/pierced thing in Hebrew. As a native Hebrew speaker, we should both defer to him. He thoroughly thrashes your argument.

Any translation is going to be inferior to the original language. Context will be lost, and mistakes will be made. The Septuagint in particular is not a very good translation (with the exception of the first five books).

Are you saying I need to remind you that Isaiah 53 is about Israel?

 

[firedragon]

Psalm 22 itself is a historical record of what happened to David. You don't need a second record to back it up.

I refer you to what Harel13 said about the lions/pierced thing in Hebrew. As a native Hebrew speaker, we should both defer to him. He thoroughly thrashes your argument.

Any translation is going to be inferior to the original language. Context will be lost, and mistakes will be made. The Septuagint in particular is not a very good translation (with the exception of the first five books).

Are you saying I need to remind you that Isaiah 53 is about Israel?

I am interested to understand why the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch is superior to the rest of the OT. Is it by principle or the text and translation itself?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't read Rabbi Singer. I can't remember the last time I heard one of his classes. I'm intelligent enough to figure these debate points on my own.

I take it you either didn't read my post or decided to ignore it, seeing as I already addressed this point. The word Ka'aru doesn't appear in the Tanach, ever (just to humor you, I rechecked in the concordance). Why? Because it's a made-up word. The words you're seeing are either Ka'ari (like a lion) or Karu, which means "[they] dug". Not Ka'aru.
Let's simplify things:

כִּי סְבָבוּנִי כְּלָבִים עֲדַת מְרֵעִים הִקִּיפוּנִי כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי.

This is the verse in Hebrew. I emphasized the word in question. As you can see, it is indeed כארי.

קֶשֶׁר נְבִיאֶיהָ בְּתוֹכָהּ כַּאֲרִי שׁוֹאֵג טֹרֵף טָרֶף נֶפֶשׁ אָכָלוּ חֹסֶן וִיקָר יִקָּחוּ אַלְמְנוֹתֶיהָ הִרְבּוּ בְתוֹכָהּ.

Here's another verse with the same word. The next word, שואג, means "roaring". That simply doesn't fit with digging or "piercing", as you prefer. "Roaring piercing"? Is that it?

Now, for Karu:

רֶשֶׁת הֵכִינוּ לִפְעָמַי כָּפַף נַפְשִׁי כָּרוּ לְפָנַי שִׁיחָה נָפְלוּ בְתוֹכָהּ סֶלָה.

And another:

כָּרוּ לִי זֵדִים שִׁיחוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא כְתוֹרָתֶךָ.

Try, just try looking for the word כארו in the Bible. You won't find it. It simply doesn't exist.

You really don't have to take my word for it. It's all on Wikipedia, all the Christian views, everything:
They have pierced my hands and my feet - Wikipedia

We're talking likely about the difference between our Masoretic Bibles and the Septuagint. The Septuagint was in near-universal use in Jesus's day, when Jews lived in a Greco-Roman world in the diaspora.

Yes, I know we Jews move away from Septuagint because of its Messianic renderings--however, it was established and in use in worship centuries before Christ, affirming His fulfillment of the prophecies.

I have trouble with "like a lion at my hands and feet", since lions go for the torso and head. And there are hundreds of other Messianic prophecies, besides, encouraging us to come to the knowledge of Yeshua!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Psalm 22 itself is a historical record of what happened to David. You don't need a second record to back it up.

I refer you to what Harel13 said about the lions/pierced thing in Hebrew. As a native Hebrew speaker, we should both defer to him. He thoroughly thrashes your argument.

Any translation is going to be inferior to the original language. Context will be lost, and mistakes will be made. The Septuagint in particular is not a very good translation (with the exception of the first five books).

Are you saying I need to remind you that Isaiah 53 is about Israel?

I responded to Harel re: Masoretic and Septuagint texts.

Isaiah 53 cannot logically be about Israel, since Israel revived and didn't RESURRECT:

That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

... His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death ...

But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.

 

[Harel13]

Yes, I know we Jews move away from Septuagint because of its Messianic renderings--however, it was established and in use in worship centuries before Christ, affirming His fulfillment of the prophecies.

No. The current Torah LXX is probably the original. The Prophets and Writings LXX was lost. The current version is a later Christian translation. What we're discussing here is Psalms, which is part of Writings and therefore, the LXX translation is a Christian one.

I have trouble with "like a lion at my hands and feet", since lions go for the torso and head.

I'm sure you do. I have no idea where lions go for, but have you considered that now-extinct Judean lions may have been different from modern lions? Anyway, that's not a reason to twist the meaning of the word Ka'ari. It just means we have to think harder about what the verse means and why it was written in a complicated way.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

Did you have a conversation with him (if you had a genuine relationship with christ before) and told me hey, see ya? or had a deep talk of departure?

If you had a genuine relationship with the christian god directly, the same questions.

Many people reject christianity, but I'm wondering if they had a relationship with christ, how did they reject christ and/or his god. There is a difference.

For me, I never had a relationship with christ's father. Never believed he existed. Christ, I can kinda understand, because he was a human flesh and blood. That, and I do believe in spirits (say of my loved ones), so this wasn't too hard to "get." The more I worshiped, the less I worshiped. It was an intense feeling of "this isn't right for you." Then I say and thought about what my priest said to me before I went to RCIA. "Maybe you should wait." Now, if Churches want you to come to church and be saved, what priest would ask you to wait first?

So, however you define it, I said in so many words "hey, jesus. I know you're important to people. I can't believe in human sacrifice. (I feel its wrong to worship 'you' as a person/flesh/however defined). This is my last actual Mass.

That's it.

I'm more open than most since I really have nothing to hide about my spiritual life. I did read a native american quote (I posted it somewhere). The author of this book asked her chief if she can use his words in her book. He says, "Of course you can use them. They are not my words, but of god". (Context please)

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

If my profile picture doesn't give you a real quick answer....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If my profile picture doesn't give you a real quick answer....

Feelings mutual

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have trouble with "like a lion at my hands and feet", since lions go for the torso and head. And there are hundreds of other Messianic prophecies, besides, encouraging us to come to the knowledge of Yeshua!

Do you have the linguistic support for this? Harel presented a very convincing case, and you have not been able to match what he has provided as far as support and evidence goes.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Feelings mutual

lol.

A serious answer though is still tied to it. I was very very Christian and felt very strongly that my relationship was real. As much as anyone does I imagine. However when I realized coming to terms with who I was put me in opposition to the teachings it caused me great pain. Eventually due to other reasons my faith was broken and it never really recovered. I sorted through a few other religions and now I guess I'm technically an atheist. I am spiritual though and that has to do with other discoveries in my life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

lol.

A serious answer though is still tied to it. I was very very Christian and felt very strongly that my relationship was real. As much as anyone does I imagine. However when I realized coming to terms with who I was put me in opposition to the teachings it caused me great pain. Eventually due to other reasons my faith was broken and it never really recovered. I sorted through a few other religions and now I guess I'm technically an atheist. I am spiritual though and that has to do with other discoveries in my life.

Couldn't say my feelings are mutual with that I jumped into Christianity, what, near seven years ago or so. Practiced for four years. Then it really rubbed on me that they may accept "LGBTQ" people on the outside, they redefine us on the inside. I started looking it up and found the Catholic Church has conversion programs. I can't remember what it's called, but it shocked me. Of course other reasons I left, but that was a big one.

It's better to follow a spiritual life that doesn't redefine you. Work in progress.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. The current Torah LXX is probably the original. The Prophets and Writings LXX was lost. The current version is a later Christian translation. What we're discussing here is Psalms, which is part of Writings and therefore, the LXX translation is a Christian one.

I'm sure you do. I have no idea where lions go for, but have you considered that now-extinct Judean lions may have been different from modern lions? Anyway, that's not a reason to twist the meaning of the word Ka'ari. It just means we have to think harder about what the verse means and why it was written in a complicated way.

Modern Christian (and Messianic!) translators look at the Masoretic text and also the Septuagint in its earliest extant version, not some Christian re-written version. And they often the other rendering in the margin.

Clearly all of Psalm 22 is about Yeshua, who gave a hint when he quoted the first verse on the cross.

You have no idea how lions take down prey? Which large carnivores attack extremities rather than go for the torso of prey?

What did David mean, "they are like a lion at my hands and feet"? Did David have enemies who bit his hands and feet? Did they scratch his hands and feet with their claws/hands and nails?

There's a reason the rabbis who wrote the LXX made it "dug/engraved/pierced my hands and feet." They made a rather reasonable decision between an aleph and a yood.

Being Jewish, I see how it is uncomfortable for us to uphold a translation that points clearly to Yeshua.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you have the linguistic support for this? Harel presented a very convincing case, and you have not been able to match what he has provided as far as support and evidence goes.

The support for this includes the following:

1) The LXX, a Jewish translation given hundreds of years before Christ, used "dug/pierced".

2) The choice was made to put a vowel in, either aleph or yood, to choose "lion" or "pierced". We should be unsurprised that Christians chose "pierced" but equally unsurprised when Jewish translators avoid a Messianic choice of translation/interpretation.

3) What does David mean, "like a lion at my hands and feet"? After all, lions go for the torsos of prey. Did King David have people who bit his hands and feet? Rather, the Bible describes the Christ having His wrists and feet pierced/incised and the OT says, "I've engraved my love for you, says God".

 

[Harel13]

Modern Christian (and Messianic!) translators look at the Masoretic text and also the Septuagint in its earliest extant version, not some Christian re-written version. And they often the other rendering in the margin.

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/104119/20472

"The original Septuagint, translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago, was of the Pentateuch alone, and not the Books of the Prophets, such as Isaiah.

The Talmud states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a).

Josephus as well, in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews, affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses.

This is also indicated in the "Letter of Aristeas", which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint.

In his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least THREE VARIANT Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.

Another red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint, is the fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, not reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere, but are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint.

Is the Septuagint used today by the Greek Orthodox Church considered a reliable translation?

If parts are not reliable (an accurate translation from a Jewish perspective), what parts and why?

We have no idea exactly when the remaining texts of the Bible were translated into Greek, and who were the translators, and were they reliable? Most importantly, we have no proof that the text of LXX promulgated today is precisely the same as when it was produced.

Given the above, that today's version of the Septuagint seems to have been tampered with, then there's nothing in it that can be considered reliable. It is recognized as a CORRUPT text. Its integrity has been impugned, making it largely irrelevant in Jewish circles."
​

Hmmmm...

You have no idea how lions take down prey? Which large carnivores attack

Do lions not nip people at their hands and feet? Besides, I see you ignored my suggestion that Judean lions were different from modern lions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The support for this includes the following:

1) The LXX, a Jewish translation given hundreds of years before Christ, used "dug/pierced".

2) The choice was made to put a vowel in, either aleph or yood, to choose "lion" or "pierced". We should be unsurprised that Christians chose "pierced" but equally unsurprised when Jewish translators avoid a Messianic choice of translation/interpretation.

3) What does David mean, "like a lion at my hands and feet"? After all, lions go for the torsos of prey. Did King David have people who bit his hands and feet? Rather, the Bible describes the Christ having His wrists and feet pierced/incised and the OT says, "I've engraved my love for you, says God".

Thats the sort of argument and evidence I wpuld expect of a post-modern, literary critical theory sort or thing. You ask what he meant amd provide speculation. That isnt the hard linguistic evidence provieed by Harel. You dont even bring up other instances where the same word appears, or the fact we are talking about what may be an extinct animal (similar to the auroch bull found in Hebrew lore/unicorn found in the Bible).
And, no, it is not surprising Jews reject Christian beliefs, interpretations, and opinions regarding the Jewish religion. Christianity is, after all, radically different in many ways, blasphemously different in some places, and because it is possible for me to learn (of this I am sure) of many more Hebrew words still that Christian Bibles got wrong.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.

Your reply to Harel13 did not refute him.

Here is a better quote of Isaiah 53:10
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:

 

[columbus]

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

Every now and then I consider starting a thread titled "Would the real Jesus Christ please stand up?"

Just here on RF the huge variety of Jesus Christs is staggering. In the real world, without the filters of rules and moderation RF has, it's far worse.

Sticking to RF, who's Jesus Christ is the real one? Sojourner's, Good Old Rebel's, Brickjectivity's, Katzpur's, BilliardsBall's, the list of Christians on RF is enormous.

And that's just here. Real life includes everyone from the Pope to Trump to Fred Phelps to Clinton to my dear departed friend Pat. None of these people have much in common except that they believe in Jesus.

Some of these various Christ images I consider quite immoral, others inspire some truly beautiful behavior. My friend Pat was a devout believer in the Jesus Christ who preached stuff like "Love your neighbor as yourself", "What you do for the Least you do for Me", and "Judge not, or you will be judged as harshly". She was a passionate advocate and tireless worker for Peace and Prosperity for ALL. Her Christ was very different from the one I hear about most commonly. I might still believe that Jesus was real and Christ a legend, but I certainly wouldn't reject her Christ.
Tom

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am interested to understand why the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch is superior to the rest of the OT. Is it by principle or the text and translation itself?

When it comes to the five Books of Law, the Torah, there is a legend that there were six Torah scholars from each tribe that worked independently on the translation, of 72 in all (hence the name Septuagint), and they all produced the same result according to this legend. At any rate, the Torah was translated by the best scholars. This is not true with the rest of the translation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Every now and then I consider starting a thread titled "Would the real Jesus Christ please stand up?"

Just here on RF the huge variety of Jesus Christs is staggering. In the real world, without the filters of rules and moderation RF has, it's far worse.

Sticking to RF, who's Jesus Christ is the real one? Sojourner's, Good Old Rebel's, Brickjectivity's, Katzpur's, BilliardsBall's, the list of Christians on RF is enormous.

And that's just here. Real life includes everyone from the Pope to Trump to Fred Phelps to Clinton to my dear departed friend Pat. None of these people have much in common except that they believe in Jesus.

Some of these various Christ images I consider quite immoral, others inspire some truly beautiful behavior. My friend Pat was a devout believer in the Jesus Christ who preached stuff like "Love your neighbor as yourself", "What you do for the Least you do for Me", and "Judge not, or you will be judged as harshly". She was a passionate advocate and tireless worker for Peace and Prosperity for ALL. Her Christ was very different from the one I hear about most commonly. I might still believe that Jesus was real and Christ a legend, but I certainly wouldn't reject her Christ.
Tom

Thank you. Do you/did you have a idea of christ for yourself to which you used to have a personal relationship with?

I personally had, what others would call an unorthodox view of christ and his passion. No one really agreed and/or talked to me about it because they use the same words, mindset, and literal quotes that to think of another way to express their belief would be foreign. Yet, it made sense to me when I practiced. So, that's what I based why I rejected christ on-how I see and defined him personally rather than specific to other people and in my case the church.

How about you?

 

[firedragon]

When it comes to the five Books of Law, the Torah, there is a legend that there were six Torah scholars from each tribe that worked independently on the translation, of 72 in all (hence the name Septuagint), and they all produced the same result according to this legend. At any rate, the Torah was translated by the best scholars. This is not true with the rest of the translation.

A legend is a "legend", and thats what it is.

Anyway, the Septuagint was therised to be originally only the Torah and it was later the rest of the OT was translated into Greek. But a translation being better or worse has to be judged by the translation itself.

Peace.

 

[BilliardsBall]

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/104119/20472

"The original Septuagint, translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago, was of the Pentateuch alone, and not the Books of the Prophets, such as Isaiah.

The Talmud states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a).

Josephus as well, in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews, affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses.

This is also indicated in the "Letter of Aristeas", which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint.

In his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least THREE VARIANT Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.

Another red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint, is the fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, not reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere, but are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint.

Is the Septuagint used today by the Greek Orthodox Church considered a reliable translation?

If parts are not reliable (an accurate translation from a Jewish perspective), what parts and why?

We have no idea exactly when the remaining texts of the Bible were translated into Greek, and who were the translators, and were they reliable? Most importantly, we have no proof that the text of LXX promulgated today is precisely the same as when it was produced.

Given the above, that today's version of the Septuagint seems to have been tampered with, then there's nothing in it that can be considered reliable. It is recognized as a CORRUPT text. Its integrity has been impugned, making it largely irrelevant in Jewish circles."
​

Hmmmm...

Do lions not nip people at their hands and feet? Besides, I see you ignored my suggestion that Judean lions were different from modern lions.

Very good--I will avoid LXX outside the Penteteuch.

But we still have issues with lions--they, like all large carnivores (or football defenders) go for the torso/big parts of the body. Even if extinct Judean lions were different from modern lions, who bit KING DAVID's hands and feet? Why would we recognize something so inherently nonsensical, even as metaphor?

The Septuagint recognizes a vowel choice, a logical choice--"dug/pierced/engraved".

I'm not ignoring your Judean lions--I felt it was extraneous to point out the above--now I have to do so. Why are you ignoring my statement that without a verse fragment of Psalm 22, most of the whole Psalm is Messianic, and was hinted at by Yeshua, who declared verse 1 on the cross? The Pharisees could have considered the Psalm and seen it fulfilled in real time. Why ignore my statement that hundreds, even thousands, of other Tanakh verses point to Yeshua as Messiah/King/G_d?

You are well read and highly intelligent, I encourage you to pursue the logos/mind of Yeshua, who is G_d, and added to the principle to love God with heart and strength . . . to love God with all our mind!