Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, the humble are not despised by the people, just like the cry of dereliction isn't something made by a man who was in good standing with his deity.
-
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!
Jewish Messiah
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
David wasn't at war with Saul.
Neither of these things are true.
I presume John the Baptist was in good standing with God, but he was ridiculed and beheaded. Then there's Jesus...
There was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. And David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul became weaker and weaker.
2 Samuel 3
And Shaul repeatedly tries killing David,
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Samuel 19 - New International Version
Saul Tries to Kill David - Saul told his son Jonathan and all the attendants to kill David. But Jonathan had taken a great liking to David and warned him, “My father Saul is looking for a chance to kill you. Be on your guard tomorrow morning; go into hiding and stay there. I will go out and...
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You obviously can't show that people despise the humble.
John the Baptist is irrelevant because he didn't make the cry of dereliction.
Jesus is relevant, but that's not his Psalm.
| 27 | Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let YHWH be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant. |
| 11 | He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. |
| 12 | Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. |
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
OK, but even with the houses it doesn't support the idea that David was encompassed by anyone.There was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. And David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul became weaker and weaker.
2 Samuel 3
And Shaul repeatedly tries killing David,
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Samuel 19 - New International Version
Saul Tries to Kill David - Saul told his son Jonathan and all the attendants to kill David. But Jonathan had taken a great liking to David and warned him, “My father Saul is looking for a chance to kill you. Be on your guard tomorrow morning; go into hiding and stay there. I will go out and...www.biblegateway.com
I think you are too literal a thinker for this kind of literature.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The doctrine of the crucifixion can be treated as a linguistic problem. Once you've found a match you can apply allegory and check that the context is good.
rosends
Well-Known Member
There was no deity named Gad.
Gadphobe.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Gad (deity, a god)
GAD (DEITY, A GOD) găd (גָּד, H1514; LXX Gen 30:11 τύχη, fortune, troop KJV; Isa 65:11 δαίμων, G1230, fortune RSV, that troop KJV). A god of fortune, or good luck, worshiped by certain Sem. peoples. He is usually mentioned with Meni, “Destiny.” Isaiah proclaimed that the worshipers of Gad and Meni would suffer judgment (Isa 65:11). Some scholars find a reference to this deity in Leah’s naming of her son Gad (Gen 30:11). The popularity of the worship of this god among the Canaanites is manifested by the place names, Baal-gad (Josh 11:17; cf. 12:7; 13:5) and Migdal-gad (Josh 15:37), and the personal names, Gaddi and Gaddiel (Num 13:10, 11). Gad has frequently been equated with the Babylonian god Marduk and with Jupiter.
Gad (deity, a god) - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway
rosends
Well-Known Member
That's a particularly Christian way of looking at Jewish texts. But as I said, there is no deity known as Gad -- just idols (sorry, but I don't confer the title of deity onto non-God objects of false worship). If you wish to call "Lady Luck" a deity, or pray to "Dame Fortune" then that's on you. In Judaism, those aren't Gods. Gad was associated with the planet Jupiter and Meni with a particular star (though some say the zodiac as a whole). Planets and stars aren't deities, at least not in Judaism.Gad (deity, a god)
GAD (DEITY, A GOD) găd (גָּד, H1514; LXX Gen 30:11 τύχη, fortune, troop KJV; Isa 65:11 δαίμων, G1230, fortune RSV, that troop KJV). A god of fortune, or good luck, worshiped by certain Sem. peoples. He is usually mentioned with Meni, “Destiny.” Isaiah proclaimed that the worshipers of Gad and Meni would suffer judgment (Isa 65:11). Some scholars find a reference to this deity in Leah’s naming of her son Gad (Gen 30:11). The popularity of the worship of this god among the Canaanites is manifested by the place names, Baal-gad (Josh 11:17; cf. 12:7; 13:5) and Migdal-gad (Josh 15:37), and the personal names, Gaddi and Gaddiel (Num 13:10, 11). Gad has frequently been equated with the Babylonian god Marduk and with Jupiter.
Gad (deity, a god) - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway
www.biblegateway.com
You brought up the English word "God" in reference to Psalm 110 (""God" is ambiguous. Trying to unwrap Psalm 110 using the language of "God" is like saying "I'm right because words".")
I pointed out that in the Hebrew, the word isn't "God" and isn't ambiguous. For you then to go and insist that the English word "God" that you see in 110 has anything to do with a semitic idol that, when transliterated, sounds the same as the English word is patently ridiculous.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
What would you call it? A ballet?
POST ONE OF TWO
Hello @rosends
1) Regarding names used anciently:
Rosends said : “Alexander” is not Jewish by any stretch yet many Jews have the name”
I agree that Alexander is not Jewish by any stretch, but we are not talking about relatively modern times are we.
We are talking about Judea and babylon, etc. 2500 years ago. How many Jews in Judea named their children “alexander” in 600 b.c.?
HISTORICAL usage is the point.
While you (and I) have little training in such linguistic history, there are those who are trained in this field and understand the concept. For example
Tero Astola says “Basia and Marduka both had Babylonian names, but Amuse’s name points to his non-Babylonian origin. A-mu-se-e is the Babylonian spelling of Hws (Hosea or Hoshea), a name which is attested several times in the Hebrew Bible. The significant differences in the spelling result from the Characteristics of Babylonian, in which the West Semetic h could not be accurately presented and w was customarily written as m or left completely out”.
He points out in his book regarding other spellings which indicate Babylonian versions of the same name.
In discussing the Ebabbar temple Marduk-Remanni archive he correctly uses the term “Judean family” in discussing the remnants of the archive. In using this term he cannot tell if the individuals are “Jews”, merely that they were “Judeans”. One could not tell what religion a Judean was.
For example, the descendants of Ari (with an “h” - arih) a Judean take on Babylonian names that are theophoric (indicate a God) of the Babylonian Gods. So Arih ( (a Judean name” has descendants with names that indicate honor of other Gods such as Bel (Marduk), Nabu, and Samas and so one descendents name is “Bel-iddi”.
He points out that one could often tell by the name where one was from but one could not tell what God they worshipped. Perhaps Ari (a Judean) worshipped Marduk and Ahu-Yama (a Judean name) worshipped Jehovah. One could not know BECAUSE “Judean” did not indicate a religion, but a place. (01)
2) Regarding the innovation of “Matrilineality” in Rabbinic Judaism
Rosends said : “… the matrilineality of Judaism still determined religious identity.”
Again you are referencing the Religion now called “rabbinic Judaism” or “rabbinate Judaism” and applying it’s innovations to ancient Jahwism.
If you have read his history book, you will remember that one of Rabbi Shaye Cohen points is that “matrilineality” was an innovation of the Rabbis and rabbinic religion and was not part of the prophetic religion of ancient Israel.
These are not the same religions on this point. For example, Grabe, in reviewing Cohens point that matrilineality" was not part of ancient Israelite religion also agrees, point out :
Other Historians have made the same observations as Cohen and Grabe, Edwards, etc.
One problem is that individuals often view their religion as being the same as the ancient religion. Rabbinic Jews, and Christians and Muslims all tend to do this.
Modern Jews make the same mistake Christians make in assuming their modern religion is the same as the prophetic religions anciently. This is why historians distinguish the two in specific historical discussion.
The emergence of rabbinic Judaism is full of innovations created by their leadership as they attempted to define what doctrines and practices they were going to adopt and adhere to. As Rabbinic Judaism emerged, so did their creation of rules and traditions created (often) by their interpretation of earlier prophetic religion.
3) REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF GENTILES IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH
Rosends said : “I said that there were commentators that said they converted fully and some that said they didn't convert fully” (post #199)
Clear replied : “So, if they started out as non-Jews among Jews and did not convert, then they remained non-Jews among Jews.”
Rosends replied : “Yes, and were not called Jews, Judeans, Israelites etc.”
OK, so there is a tacit admission by both of us that there WERE non-Jews among the Jews.
That is progress.
You say they were not called “Judeans”, the historians say they were and that the term “a Judean”, historically , simply meant “someone living in Judeah” regardless of religion just as “a Texan” simply means “someone from or living in Texas”.
It was a geographic term in early usage and still is today. We refer to "The Judean desert", "The judean texts", etc.
For examples :
From Edwards as he speaks of Cohens claim that "Judean" was a geographic term:
From Grabe as he speaks of Cohens claim that "Judean" was a geographic term:
From Gruen as he speaks of Cohens claim that "Judean" was a geographic term:
4) REGARDING WHETHER COHENS WORDS IN HIS BOOK REFLECTED HIS OPINION OR SOMEONE ELSES
Rosends said : “ I explained (had you read, you would have seen) that R. Cohen was reflecting one specific classic commentator about this one situation.” (post #199)
Clear replied : OK. Give readers evidence that R. Cohen did not mean what he said and that he was reflecting “one specific classic commentator”.
Tell readers what commentator he was speaking of?
Tell readers what specific situation he was referring to?
Rosends replied : I don’t think I ever said he didn’t mean what he wrote so I would request that you not impute statements to me that are not mine. What I said was “What he is doing is referencing specific commentators who connect the word “mityahadim” to the claim of fear.”
What you think on this is irrelevant. Either Rabbi Cohen meant what he wrote or he did not.
If he did not mean it then it is not historical evidence.
If he did mean what he said it then it is historical evidence.
I think he meant what he wrote in his book.
Can you provide evidence that R. Cohen did believe the words he wrote?
If Cohen was quoting another historian, can you provide evidence that both the original commentator did not believe what Cohen quoted them as saying?
Rosends continued : And I supported my statement by referencing some commentators – “Emanuel of Rome says that because of fear many attested to loving Jews and the Torah even if they didn’t fully convert, while Ibn Yahya says that this refers specifically to descendants of Amalek because they knew they were targeted. The Ohr Chadash says that they (specifically, the weak commoners) affiliated themselves with Jews, not necessarily converted. “ I guess it bothers you that I referenced 3 and not one.”
I am not bothered with the additional references as they support my claim.
I agree with Emanuel that many attested to loving Jews out of fear of the Jews.
I agree with Emanuel that many did not convert. That is my claim as well.
I agree with Ohr Chadash that some people in Judea affiliated with Jews and did not convert.
These all support my claims that there were gentiles among the Jews that did not convert to Judaism since,
They are the same thing I told you in post #188 when I quoted Rabbi Cohen regarding non-jews, living among Jews and not converting. Here it is again from Cohen :
Post #188 Clear said : He relates that ’Professed to be Jews’ is the meaning of the Hebrew mityahadim.
He tells us that historically “The simple meaning of the Hebrew…is not that many non-Jews converted to Judaism but that they pretended to be Jews: they professed themselves to be something they were not. They did so because they feared for their lives; the Jews had just been given carte blanche by the king to kill their enemies, and therefore many gentiles pretended to be Jews in order to protect themselves” ( from the book “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”. Location 2022 of 6465).
The Jewish Journal itself (April 2016 - cut and past below) also describes the Mityahadim as Gentiles “who professed to be Jews”. This does not mean they actually converted or lived their lives as Jews. It also describes the meaning of the word "Jew" just as I claimed. It originally meant a member of the tribe of Judah, later it was used to designate those of the kingdom of Judah.
6) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT SPECIFICALLY THE DESCENDANTS OF AMALEK WERE SCARED OF THE JEWS.
Rosends claims : Ibn Yahya says that this refers specifically to descendants of Amalek because they knew they were targeted.”
All other historians both you and I have referenced do NOT make this claim, but simply refer to non-Jews as a categorical term.
Can you provide any proof to readers regarding Ibn Yahya’s claim that the these people who were scared of Jewish reprisals were only descendants of Amalek and no others?
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Hello @rosends
1) Regarding names used anciently:
Rosends said : “Alexander” is not Jewish by any stretch yet many Jews have the name”
I agree that Alexander is not Jewish by any stretch, but we are not talking about relatively modern times are we.
We are talking about Judea and babylon, etc. 2500 years ago. How many Jews in Judea named their children “alexander” in 600 b.c.?
HISTORICAL usage is the point.
While you (and I) have little training in such linguistic history, there are those who are trained in this field and understand the concept. For example
Tero Astola says “Basia and Marduka both had Babylonian names, but Amuse’s name points to his non-Babylonian origin. A-mu-se-e is the Babylonian spelling of Hws (Hosea or Hoshea), a name which is attested several times in the Hebrew Bible. The significant differences in the spelling result from the Characteristics of Babylonian, in which the West Semetic h could not be accurately presented and w was customarily written as m or left completely out”.
He points out in his book regarding other spellings which indicate Babylonian versions of the same name.
In discussing the Ebabbar temple Marduk-Remanni archive he correctly uses the term “Judean family” in discussing the remnants of the archive. In using this term he cannot tell if the individuals are “Jews”, merely that they were “Judeans”. One could not tell what religion a Judean was.
For example, the descendants of Ari (with an “h” - arih) a Judean take on Babylonian names that are theophoric (indicate a God) of the Babylonian Gods. So Arih ( (a Judean name” has descendants with names that indicate honor of other Gods such as Bel (Marduk), Nabu, and Samas and so one descendents name is “Bel-iddi”.
He points out that one could often tell by the name where one was from but one could not tell what God they worshipped. Perhaps Ari (a Judean) worshipped Marduk and Ahu-Yama (a Judean name) worshipped Jehovah. One could not know BECAUSE “Judean” did not indicate a religion, but a place. (01)
2) Regarding the innovation of “Matrilineality” in Rabbinic Judaism
Rosends said : “… the matrilineality of Judaism still determined religious identity.”
Again you are referencing the Religion now called “rabbinic Judaism” or “rabbinate Judaism” and applying it’s innovations to ancient Jahwism.
If you have read his history book, you will remember that one of Rabbi Shaye Cohen points is that “matrilineality” was an innovation of the Rabbis and rabbinic religion and was not part of the prophetic religion of ancient Israel.
These are not the same religions on this point. For example, Grabe, in reviewing Cohens point that matrilineality" was not part of ancient Israelite religion also agrees, point out :
Other Historians have made the same observations as Cohen and Grabe, Edwards, etc.
One problem is that individuals often view their religion as being the same as the ancient religion. Rabbinic Jews, and Christians and Muslims all tend to do this.
Modern Jews make the same mistake Christians make in assuming their modern religion is the same as the prophetic religions anciently. This is why historians distinguish the two in specific historical discussion.
The emergence of rabbinic Judaism is full of innovations created by their leadership as they attempted to define what doctrines and practices they were going to adopt and adhere to. As Rabbinic Judaism emerged, so did their creation of rules and traditions created (often) by their interpretation of earlier prophetic religion.
3) REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF GENTILES IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH
Rosends said : “I said that there were commentators that said they converted fully and some that said they didn't convert fully” (post #199)
Clear replied : “So, if they started out as non-Jews among Jews and did not convert, then they remained non-Jews among Jews.”
Rosends replied : “Yes, and were not called Jews, Judeans, Israelites etc.”
OK, so there is a tacit admission by both of us that there WERE non-Jews among the Jews.
That is progress.
You say they were not called “Judeans”, the historians say they were and that the term “a Judean”, historically , simply meant “someone living in Judeah” regardless of religion just as “a Texan” simply means “someone from or living in Texas”.
It was a geographic term in early usage and still is today. We refer to "The Judean desert", "The judean texts", etc.
For examples :
From Edwards as he speaks of Cohens claim that "Judean" was a geographic term:
From Grabe as he speaks of Cohens claim that "Judean" was a geographic term:
From Gruen as he speaks of Cohens claim that "Judean" was a geographic term:
4) REGARDING WHETHER COHENS WORDS IN HIS BOOK REFLECTED HIS OPINION OR SOMEONE ELSES
Rosends said : “ I explained (had you read, you would have seen) that R. Cohen was reflecting one specific classic commentator about this one situation.” (post #199)
Clear replied : OK. Give readers evidence that R. Cohen did not mean what he said and that he was reflecting “one specific classic commentator”.
Tell readers what commentator he was speaking of?
Tell readers what specific situation he was referring to?
Rosends replied : I don’t think I ever said he didn’t mean what he wrote so I would request that you not impute statements to me that are not mine. What I said was “What he is doing is referencing specific commentators who connect the word “mityahadim” to the claim of fear.”
What you think on this is irrelevant. Either Rabbi Cohen meant what he wrote or he did not.
If he did not mean it then it is not historical evidence.
If he did mean what he said it then it is historical evidence.
I think he meant what he wrote in his book.
Can you provide evidence that R. Cohen did believe the words he wrote?
If Cohen was quoting another historian, can you provide evidence that both the original commentator did not believe what Cohen quoted them as saying?
Rosends continued : And I supported my statement by referencing some commentators – “Emanuel of Rome says that because of fear many attested to loving Jews and the Torah even if they didn’t fully convert, while Ibn Yahya says that this refers specifically to descendants of Amalek because they knew they were targeted. The Ohr Chadash says that they (specifically, the weak commoners) affiliated themselves with Jews, not necessarily converted. “ I guess it bothers you that I referenced 3 and not one.”
I am not bothered with the additional references as they support my claim.
I agree with Emanuel that many attested to loving Jews out of fear of the Jews.
I agree with Emanuel that many did not convert. That is my claim as well.
I agree with Ohr Chadash that some people in Judea affiliated with Jews and did not convert.
These all support my claims that there were gentiles among the Jews that did not convert to Judaism since,
They are the same thing I told you in post #188 when I quoted Rabbi Cohen regarding non-jews, living among Jews and not converting. Here it is again from Cohen :
Post #188 Clear said : He relates that ’Professed to be Jews’ is the meaning of the Hebrew mityahadim.
He tells us that historically “The simple meaning of the Hebrew…is not that many non-Jews converted to Judaism but that they pretended to be Jews: they professed themselves to be something they were not. They did so because they feared for their lives; the Jews had just been given carte blanche by the king to kill their enemies, and therefore many gentiles pretended to be Jews in order to protect themselves” ( from the book “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”. Location 2022 of 6465).
The Jewish Journal itself (April 2016 - cut and past below) also describes the Mityahadim as Gentiles “who professed to be Jews”. This does not mean they actually converted or lived their lives as Jews. It also describes the meaning of the word "Jew" just as I claimed. It originally meant a member of the tribe of Judah, later it was used to designate those of the kingdom of Judah.
6) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT SPECIFICALLY THE DESCENDANTS OF AMALEK WERE SCARED OF THE JEWS.
Rosends claims : Ibn Yahya says that this refers specifically to descendants of Amalek because they knew they were targeted.”
All other historians both you and I have referenced do NOT make this claim, but simply refer to non-Jews as a categorical term.
Can you provide any proof to readers regarding Ibn Yahya’s claim that the these people who were scared of Jewish reprisals were only descendants of Amalek and no others?
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Attachments
POST TWO OF TWO
7) THERE WERE NON JEWS WHO LIVED AMONG JEWS ANCIENTLY
I repeated that we agree there were non-jews living among Jews (some converted, some did not) as I said below in post #193 :
Post #193 Clear said :
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE MITAYAHADIM (NON-JEWS WHO CONVERTED) AMONG ISRAEL.
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE NON-JEWISH ALLIES WHO LIVED AMONGST THE JEWISH PEOPLE WITHOUT CONVERTING.
8) REGARDING THE EFFECT OF ERRORS IN TRANSLATION IN JEWISH HISTORICAL RECORDS INCLUDING THEIR OFFICIAL BIBLE
Clear said in post #203 : “Rabbi Cohen, tells us that medieval copyists had difficulty with understanding terms (such as Mityahadin and yudazein, etc) that they understood “Make yourselves Jews” to mean “pretend to be converts" and thus substituted gerim for yehudin.”
Rosends responded in post #213 : So you are talking about an era well post biblical, and dealing with translators.
Exactly.
Thus to the extent Jewish translators created incorrect translations on this point, their usage of terms is incorrect.
This introduction of errors is similar to the admission by the Jewish Masorretes that they made changes to the original text of the Masorretic bible they created and which was adopted by the Orthodox Jews.
The modern Jewish bible is incorrect to the extent that it does not reflect the early correct text. (If we are simply speaking of errors created in translation and not talking about other types of errors the Jews made in creating their bible)
8) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS "NO GEOGRAPHY" ANCIENTLY
Rosends said : There was no geography, nor was there a separate nation of Judah yet. This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.” (post #199)
“No geography”?? It must have been difficult to break the various children of Israel up geographically if there was no geography.
Surely, You must see that readers see the illogic of your claim.
We both agree that there were non-Jews who lived in Judea.
We both agree there were those who did not adopt the religion of the Children of Israel in Judea and thus they remained non-Jews.
We both agree with your admission that Judean is a “catch-all” term “for people who lived among the children of Israel.
If non-Jews lived in Judea, if they remained non-Jews in Judea and if it is a term for those who lived in Israel then the non-Jews who lived in Judea were “Judeans” just as I would be a Judean if I was a Muslim or Christian who was born and live in Judea today.
However, I agree that in the earliest historical context, “Judah” is simply is a geographical term for ALL who lived in Israel just as “Texan” is simply a geographic term for all who live in Texas. It is a “catch-all” term.
9) REGARDING THE USE OF THE TERM "JUDEAN" BY HISTORIANS AND ANCIENTS TO REFER TO INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN JUDEA
Rosends said : Great! Can you show me evidence of its being used to refer to a non-Jew living in Judea. That’s all I have been looking for on this front.
I think your idea of trading historical data is fair and good.
I will provide historians (WITH QUOTES) who say that early in it referred to Judean and you will provide historians (WITH QUOTES) who say it was never used geographically (since you claim there was “no geography”).
That will give readers some objective data to look at and they can decide for themselves what is, historically, correct.
1) Adele Reinhartz tells us : “Steve Mason, the general editor of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, makes the argument for precision most forcefully. Ioudaios/ioudaioi, he argues, was initially a geographical term, referring to people of the region of Judea. But by the first century the ioudaioi are no longer merely the residents of a certain geographic area: they are members of an ethnic-political entity.”
2) Even the Christian Monasteries in the later periods are called “Judean Monasteries” by historians. The title of Yizhar Hirshfields book is called “The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period” These Christians are not Jews.
3) Tero Astolas wonderful historical discussion of “Judean” merchants in Babylon for the first millennia and including the time period of exile of Jews in Babylonian Captivity tells us “Judean” was a geographical term and many of the “Judeans” were not Jews. Many had theophoric names honoring the Gods of the Babylonians such as Bel, and Marduk. Lets look closer.
For example : In describing the tamkaru (Judean merchants in this case) he examines the records of cuniform tablets and follows a family of “Judean” merchants in Sippar, Babylonia. The father Arih (Ari is obviously a Judean name) is Judean whose sons are named “Marduka” and a grandson “Bel-uballit”, both theophoric names in honor of the Babylonian Gods Marduk and Bel. It is important then that some of the receipts originate with the Babylonian Ebbabar Temple.
View attachment 80815
He follows the “Judean” Bride Kassaya who marries the Babylonian Guzanu from the 5th year of Cyrus. Again the point is that Kassaya and others are called “Judeans” because of their geographical origin. Not because they are “Jews”.
4) Delorme uses the historical term in just the same way and further points out that deportees to babylon were assigned enclaves ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN, not according to religion. For example :
View attachment 80816
Delorme give us example that show even when deportees came from a specific city or a specific assumed ethnicity, their enclave was converted to a geographical term (Al-Yahudu). However, to your favor, there were examples of enclaves that were named according to ethnicity Alu sa Yahudaya (the ending “aya” is a gentilic ending but still indicates ethnicity).
View attachment 80817
Clear said : This is why the romans were able to present themselves to Rabbi Gamaliel as converts. It was, as Rabbi Cohen said, “easy to pass as a Jew”.
Rosends responded : It is easy to pass as a Jew. It was then, and it is now.
Exactly. The Jews could not have simply rounded up Gentiles among the Judeans because they were somehow different.
There was a mixture of ethnicities in Judean and geographically, they were all “judeans” if they lived in Judea.
Clear pointed out : This is why at certain periods of time the term “Ioudaia” is taken by the historian Cohen to mean “Judean” instead of “Israelite”. At later periods, Ioudaios takes on a clearly religious character such as when Mattathias slays the priest in Maccabees.
Cohen even gives examples where the different meanings are used in proximity such as in 2 Macc 6:1 versus 6:6.
Rosends responded : I don’t use the non-canonical texts as evidence.
Then you can never enter the world of religious history outside your own personal interpretations of your own canonical texts.
That is a very small historical picture.
However, I might as well point out that this is simply posturing. Of course you use other evidence else you would not have quoted other texts and individuals that are not part of your canonical texts.
The reason Cohen uses 2 Macc 6:1 as having a different meaning than 6:6 is that 6:1 is rendered “customs” instead of “law” by certain authors (e.g. josephus) while 6:6 is “laws”.
10) MESSIANIC JUDAISM IS THE JUDAISM THAT ACCEPTED THE MESSIAH JESUS AS A SOURCE OF INTERPRETATION, RABBINIC JUDAISM IS THE JUDAISM THAT ACCEPTED THE RABBIS AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
Clear said : If I use the term “The Jewish religion” as a “catch-all” then it can apply to multiple religions. For example,
Early Christianity can easily be referred to as a form of “Judaism that accepted the Messiah” given their interpretation of the old testament.
Rabbinic Judaism can easily be referred to as a form of “Judaism that did not accept the Messiah” given their interpretation of the Old Testament.
Islam can be a form of “Judaism that accepted Mohammed as the final prophet of Judaism” with their own interpretation of the Old Testament and while Islam emerged near the six hundreds, Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity emerged much closer in time period.
Rosends responded : Well, you could, but that would be wrong. Judaism is a religion that teaches that the messiah could not have been Jesus and Christianity is a religion that teaches otherwise.
Again, You are using the term "Judaism" but actually referring to “RABBINIC” Judaism that rejected Jesus rather than the religion of the prophets.
These are two different religions.
Jesus and his early followers were Jews who interpreted Judaism differently than the rabbis.
As a “catch-all” term Christianity is a Judaism that accepted the Messiah and Rabbinic Judaism rejected the Messiah.
The Judaism now labeled “Christianity” took it’s interpretations and was formed about the leadership of the Messiah Jesus while Rabbinic Judaism took it’s interpretations and was formed about the leadership of the Rabbis.
The Rabbis and Jewish leadership interpreted and innovated and the result is "rabbinic" Judaism.
Even today ethnic Jews that accepted Jesus as the Messiah are called “Messianic Jews” and it is certainly appropriate for them to do so.
Clear
7) THERE WERE NON JEWS WHO LIVED AMONG JEWS ANCIENTLY
I repeated that we agree there were non-jews living among Jews (some converted, some did not) as I said below in post #193 :
Post #193 Clear said :
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE MITAYAHADIM (NON-JEWS WHO CONVERTED) AMONG ISRAEL.
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE NON-JEWISH ALLIES WHO LIVED AMONGST THE JEWISH PEOPLE WITHOUT CONVERTING.
8) REGARDING THE EFFECT OF ERRORS IN TRANSLATION IN JEWISH HISTORICAL RECORDS INCLUDING THEIR OFFICIAL BIBLE
Clear said in post #203 : “Rabbi Cohen, tells us that medieval copyists had difficulty with understanding terms (such as Mityahadin and yudazein, etc) that they understood “Make yourselves Jews” to mean “pretend to be converts" and thus substituted gerim for yehudin.”
Rosends responded in post #213 : So you are talking about an era well post biblical, and dealing with translators.
Exactly.
Thus to the extent Jewish translators created incorrect translations on this point, their usage of terms is incorrect.
This introduction of errors is similar to the admission by the Jewish Masorretes that they made changes to the original text of the Masorretic bible they created and which was adopted by the Orthodox Jews.
The modern Jewish bible is incorrect to the extent that it does not reflect the early correct text. (If we are simply speaking of errors created in translation and not talking about other types of errors the Jews made in creating their bible)
8) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS "NO GEOGRAPHY" ANCIENTLY
Rosends said : There was no geography, nor was there a separate nation of Judah yet. This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.” (post #199)
“No geography”?? It must have been difficult to break the various children of Israel up geographically if there was no geography.
Surely, You must see that readers see the illogic of your claim.
We both agree that there were non-Jews who lived in Judea.
We both agree there were those who did not adopt the religion of the Children of Israel in Judea and thus they remained non-Jews.
We both agree with your admission that Judean is a “catch-all” term “for people who lived among the children of Israel.
However, I agree that in the earliest historical context, “Judah” is simply is a geographical term for ALL who lived in Israel just as “Texan” is simply a geographic term for all who live in Texas. It is a “catch-all” term.
9) REGARDING THE USE OF THE TERM "JUDEAN" BY HISTORIANS AND ANCIENTS TO REFER TO INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN JUDEA
Rosends said : Great! Can you show me evidence of its being used to refer to a non-Jew living in Judea. That’s all I have been looking for on this front.
I think your idea of trading historical data is fair and good.
I will provide historians (WITH QUOTES) who say that early in it referred to Judean and you will provide historians (WITH QUOTES) who say it was never used geographically (since you claim there was “no geography”).
That will give readers some objective data to look at and they can decide for themselves what is, historically, correct.
1) Adele Reinhartz tells us : “Steve Mason, the general editor of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, makes the argument for precision most forcefully. Ioudaios/ioudaioi, he argues, was initially a geographical term, referring to people of the region of Judea. But by the first century the ioudaioi are no longer merely the residents of a certain geographic area: they are members of an ethnic-political entity.”
2) Even the Christian Monasteries in the later periods are called “Judean Monasteries” by historians. The title of Yizhar Hirshfields book is called “The Judean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period” These Christians are not Jews.
3) Tero Astolas wonderful historical discussion of “Judean” merchants in Babylon for the first millennia and including the time period of exile of Jews in Babylonian Captivity tells us “Judean” was a geographical term and many of the “Judeans” were not Jews. Many had theophoric names honoring the Gods of the Babylonians such as Bel, and Marduk. Lets look closer.
For example : In describing the tamkaru (Judean merchants in this case) he examines the records of cuniform tablets and follows a family of “Judean” merchants in Sippar, Babylonia. The father Arih (Ari is obviously a Judean name) is Judean whose sons are named “Marduka” and a grandson “Bel-uballit”, both theophoric names in honor of the Babylonian Gods Marduk and Bel. It is important then that some of the receipts originate with the Babylonian Ebbabar Temple.
View attachment 80815
He follows the “Judean” Bride Kassaya who marries the Babylonian Guzanu from the 5th year of Cyrus. Again the point is that Kassaya and others are called “Judeans” because of their geographical origin. Not because they are “Jews”.
4) Delorme uses the historical term in just the same way and further points out that deportees to babylon were assigned enclaves ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN, not according to religion. For example :
View attachment 80816
Delorme give us example that show even when deportees came from a specific city or a specific assumed ethnicity, their enclave was converted to a geographical term (Al-Yahudu). However, to your favor, there were examples of enclaves that were named according to ethnicity Alu sa Yahudaya (the ending “aya” is a gentilic ending but still indicates ethnicity).
View attachment 80817
Clear said : This is why the romans were able to present themselves to Rabbi Gamaliel as converts. It was, as Rabbi Cohen said, “easy to pass as a Jew”.
Rosends responded : It is easy to pass as a Jew. It was then, and it is now.
Exactly. The Jews could not have simply rounded up Gentiles among the Judeans because they were somehow different.
There was a mixture of ethnicities in Judean and geographically, they were all “judeans” if they lived in Judea.
Clear pointed out : This is why at certain periods of time the term “Ioudaia” is taken by the historian Cohen to mean “Judean” instead of “Israelite”. At later periods, Ioudaios takes on a clearly religious character such as when Mattathias slays the priest in Maccabees.
Cohen even gives examples where the different meanings are used in proximity such as in 2 Macc 6:1 versus 6:6.
Rosends responded : I don’t use the non-canonical texts as evidence.
Then you can never enter the world of religious history outside your own personal interpretations of your own canonical texts.
That is a very small historical picture.
However, I might as well point out that this is simply posturing. Of course you use other evidence else you would not have quoted other texts and individuals that are not part of your canonical texts.
The reason Cohen uses 2 Macc 6:1 as having a different meaning than 6:6 is that 6:1 is rendered “customs” instead of “law” by certain authors (e.g. josephus) while 6:6 is “laws”.
10) MESSIANIC JUDAISM IS THE JUDAISM THAT ACCEPTED THE MESSIAH JESUS AS A SOURCE OF INTERPRETATION, RABBINIC JUDAISM IS THE JUDAISM THAT ACCEPTED THE RABBIS AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
Clear said : If I use the term “The Jewish religion” as a “catch-all” then it can apply to multiple religions. For example,
Early Christianity can easily be referred to as a form of “Judaism that accepted the Messiah” given their interpretation of the old testament.
Rabbinic Judaism can easily be referred to as a form of “Judaism that did not accept the Messiah” given their interpretation of the Old Testament.
Islam can be a form of “Judaism that accepted Mohammed as the final prophet of Judaism” with their own interpretation of the Old Testament and while Islam emerged near the six hundreds, Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity emerged much closer in time period.
Rosends responded : Well, you could, but that would be wrong. Judaism is a religion that teaches that the messiah could not have been Jesus and Christianity is a religion that teaches otherwise.
Again, You are using the term "Judaism" but actually referring to “RABBINIC” Judaism that rejected Jesus rather than the religion of the prophets.
These are two different religions.
Jesus and his early followers were Jews who interpreted Judaism differently than the rabbis.
As a “catch-all” term Christianity is a Judaism that accepted the Messiah and Rabbinic Judaism rejected the Messiah.
The Judaism now labeled “Christianity” took it’s interpretations and was formed about the leadership of the Messiah Jesus while Rabbinic Judaism took it’s interpretations and was formed about the leadership of the Rabbis.
The Rabbis and Jewish leadership interpreted and innovated and the result is "rabbinic" Judaism.
Even today ethnic Jews that accepted Jesus as the Messiah are called “Messianic Jews” and it is certainly appropriate for them to do so.
Clear
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
A leader can't fight a war by himself, it takes an army or a militia.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Why would that be a problem?
The first and second commandments are distinct. One relates to the living beings and the other to inanimate objects. Christians calling an object "God-breathed" doesn't bring it to life.
Straw man. There's no reason to think that they're living beings.
Ambiguous and irrelevant.
Lucifer was associated with the planet Venus, and heylel ben shakar (called Lucifer) of Isaiah 14:12 describes a living being.
There isn't a single Hebrew word for "God". You're conflating singlar and plural forms.
REGARDING PSALMS 16:22 AND THE VERSION PRODUCED BY THE JEWISH MASORETES VERSUS THE ORIGINAL (OR EARLIER VERSION)
Ebionite said : “You don't have any answer to the question of who Psalm 22 and 69 are about.” (post #222)
IndigoChild5559 responded : “Let's look first at psalm 22. It's about David. Furthermore, it is the chapter where Chrsitain bibles mistranslate verse 17. Here is a good translation: "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet." Notice that the Christian "pierced" stuff is not there. Instead, it properly translates "like a lion"
Just a single historical point here. @Ebionite is actually correct historically and IndigoChild5559s claim is historically incorrect.
The creators of the Jewish Bible , the Jewish Masoretes not only admit they changed much of the original text when they created the Masoretic Bible but they gave us many examples of changes they made in the Masorah.
This is not to say they intended to corrupt the text of the bible at the time when they saw the Septuagint Bible used by the Christians as a competing text. Ttheir reasons were, in my opinion, probably not evil per se in this context, merely that they made multiple changes to the bible they created in the medieval period (between 7th and 10th Centuries.
A copy of Psalms 22:16 was found among the Dead Sea scrolls that were sequestered not later than approx. 70 a.d.
So, the Dead Sea Scrolls psalms 22:16 are almost a thousand years earlier and more original than the creation of the Masoretic Bible adopted by Rabbinic Judaism.
Below is a picture of the Dead Sea Scroll version having several lines from Psalms 22:16 which clearly show the crucial word in this controversy כארו ends in a waw and NOT a jod.
This puts to rest this specific controversy to rest and confirming the text should be translated “they pierced’dug my feet” rather than the illogical and verbless “like lion, my hands and feet” that IndigoChild5559 suggested in post #225
One cannot tell if the Jewish Masoretes corrupted the earlier text "on purpose" (since the Christians had, historically, used this verse as a proof text to support their contention that Jesus was the Messiah) or if it was an accidental error. We can merely conclude that this is one of the many errors introduced into the Jewish Masoretic text.
Thus @Ebionite is correct in offering the Septuagint (300 b.c. approx.) version as the earlier version of the text rather than the later (700-1000 a.d. approx.) Rabbinic version.
Clear
Ebionite said : “You don't have any answer to the question of who Psalm 22 and 69 are about.” (post #222)
IndigoChild5559 responded : “Let's look first at psalm 22. It's about David. Furthermore, it is the chapter where Chrsitain bibles mistranslate verse 17. Here is a good translation: "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet." Notice that the Christian "pierced" stuff is not there. Instead, it properly translates "like a lion"
Just a single historical point here. @Ebionite is actually correct historically and IndigoChild5559s claim is historically incorrect.
The creators of the Jewish Bible , the Jewish Masoretes not only admit they changed much of the original text when they created the Masoretic Bible but they gave us many examples of changes they made in the Masorah.
This is not to say they intended to corrupt the text of the bible at the time when they saw the Septuagint Bible used by the Christians as a competing text. Ttheir reasons were, in my opinion, probably not evil per se in this context, merely that they made multiple changes to the bible they created in the medieval period (between 7th and 10th Centuries.
A copy of Psalms 22:16 was found among the Dead Sea scrolls that were sequestered not later than approx. 70 a.d.
So, the Dead Sea Scrolls psalms 22:16 are almost a thousand years earlier and more original than the creation of the Masoretic Bible adopted by Rabbinic Judaism.
Below is a picture of the Dead Sea Scroll version having several lines from Psalms 22:16 which clearly show the crucial word in this controversy כארו ends in a waw and NOT a jod.
This puts to rest this specific controversy to rest and confirming the text should be translated “they pierced’dug my feet” rather than the illogical and verbless “like lion, my hands and feet” that IndigoChild5559 suggested in post #225
One cannot tell if the Jewish Masoretes corrupted the earlier text "on purpose" (since the Christians had, historically, used this verse as a proof text to support their contention that Jesus was the Messiah) or if it was an accidental error. We can merely conclude that this is one of the many errors introduced into the Jewish Masoretic text.
Thus @Ebionite is correct in offering the Septuagint (300 b.c. approx.) version as the earlier version of the text rather than the later (700-1000 a.d. approx.) Rabbinic version.
Clear
Last edited:
Very egocentric view of only one Christian religious perspective without acknowledging the Jewish perspective of what they believe.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
And what makes you think David had no men? He was very popular.