Sin and Repentance

[metis]

Right, but are we able to agree that what I stated is the case? Jews and Christians don't have any need or reason to agree about Jesus and the NT

I.e. do you consider the statement to be true?

IMO, yes.

If you look at the top of my posts, it says "ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic", and when I say "ecumenical" I mean ecumenical. And it's not just a matter of tolerance-- it's also a matter of both respect and open-mindedness as I don't believe any denomination or religion has a monopoly on the truth, whatever that may be.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually yes, repeatedly.

So now you want to mix up your bad translations of different statements and ask why they are either foretold OR necessary for encouraging (as if those two are choices exclusive of each other or exclusive of other options)? You really need to regain your focus. You haven't read the answers I have given and now you are shifting the question? You will be still waiting if your method is to ignore responses.


Um, why do you inject "Armageddon" and the concept of "encouraging"?

Put differently, if you start with poor translations and no skill at understanding the base text, then asking why someone who doesn't subscribe to your bad translations doesn't agree with the conclusions that they (erringly) lead you to is ridiculous. So go on and worship your dead man-god because your mistakes and those of those you follow lead you to that. One day, when you decide to learn a little, you might just change your mind.

Are insults a way to further your agenda, to help a wayward Jew return to the true God?

Despite your callous behavior, I still care for you.

Still waiting for you to answer the most basic questions as to why God wastes scrolls telling the Jewish people some of us will die near rich people or be near evil people when we die. That and the sky is blue isn't "prophecy" either in the forthtelling or encouraging/admonishing sense.

PS. As a Jew who has studied Hebrew and Greek both, I don't subscribe to your notion of God's impotence. God is able to save billions of Jews and Gentiles who read His Word in their first language.

 

[rosends]

Are insults a way to further your agenda, to help a wayward Jew return to the true God?

Why do you suppose you know my agenda?

Despite your callous behavior, I still care for you.

And I pity you.

Still waiting for you to answer the most basic questions as to why God wastes scrolls telling the Jewish people some of us will die near rich people or be near evil people when we die.

Yes, you are still waiting. But only because you have ignored the answers that have been given and are waiting for an answer you like.

PS. As a Jew who has studied Hebrew and Greek both, I don't subscribe to your notion of God's impotence. God is able to save billions of Jews and Gentiles who read His Word in their first language.

Not only have you not demonstrated any understanding of Hebrew or of the study of the Jewish texts in their first language, but you have now imputed to me a position vis-a-vis God and his power which is inaccurate. Is intellectual dishonesty a way to further your agenda?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

IMO, yes.

If you look at the top of my posts, it says "ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic", and when I say "ecumenical" I mean ecumenical. And it's not just a matter of tolerance-- it's also a matter of both respect and open-mindedness as I don't believe any denomination or religion has a monopoly on the truth, whatever that may be.

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere. So, like I stated before. The Christian perspective is not something that is held by Torah based Jews for some really good reasons. If Christians want to accept NT as their bible, more power to them. What seems to have been at conflict was the lack of certain Christian acceptance of this statement.

I.e. the impression is given that Jews accept that Christians have their own perspective. Jews are thus not trying to change the mind of Christians away from Christianity. Yet, there is no acceptance from "certain" Christians in this thread, and some other threads like it, that Jews have good reasons to reject the NT. One of many being the Jewish Hebrew Tanakh which Torah based Jews have good reasons to come to the conclusion does not support the NT claims. Further, Torah based Jewish investigation of the NT and the history around it has further revealed that Torah based Jews and Noachides should stay away from the NT, based on directives from Hashem to Torah based Jews.

These reasons and conclusions that Jews have are based on the Torah that Torah based Jews received at Mount Sinai from Hashem. In short, if Christians accept the NT that should be enough for them. There is no Christian based need for Torah based Jews to accept it [the NT] in any way. By like token Torah based Jews feel no obligation to try and convince non-Jews that the Torah is correct, historical, etc. Besides, our concept is that no human has a monopoly on the truth. The "Truth" has a monopoly on the Truth.

 

[Left Coast]

***MOD POST***

Please mind the Rules, folks. You may critique each others' ideas or arguments on their merits all you like, but please don't attack each other and keep it respectful.

 

[MNoBody]

all books lie, they just lay around and cannot really speak of themselves.....one must divine the truth out of them and that needs to be checked, since they lie and are untrustworthy on their own merits.
the tool is only as good as the hand that wields it.

 

[metis]

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere. So, like I stated before. The Christian perspective is not something that is held by Torah based Jews for some really good reasons. If Christians want to accept NT as their bible, more power to them. What seems to have been at conflict was the lack of certain Christian acceptance of this statement.

I.e. the impression is given that Jews accept that Christians have their own perspective. Jews are thus not trying to change the mind of Christians away from Christianity. Yet, there is no acceptance from "certain" Christians in this thread, and some other threads like it, that Jews have good reasons to reject the NT. One of many being the Jewish Hebrew Tanakh which Torah based Jews have good reasons to come to the conclusion does not support the NT claims. Further, Torah based Jewish investigation of the NT and the history around it has further revealed that Torah based Jews and Noachides should stay away from the NT, based on directives from Hashem to Torah based Jews.

These reasons and conclusions that Jews have are based on the Torah that Torah based Jews received at Mount Sinai from Hashem. In short, if Christians accept the NT that should be enough for them. There is no Christian based need for Torah based Jews to accept it [the NT] in any way. By like token Torah based Jews feel no obligation to try and convince non-Jews that the Torah is correct, historical, etc. Besides, our concept is that no human has a monopoly on the truth. The "Truth" has a monopoly on the Truth.

What you are citing are your beliefs, but "beliefs" should not be confused with "facts" since the words are not synonymous. You have yours, they have there's, so...

The reality is that we are largely here at RF to exchange our ideas and our beliefs, and I certainly don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is someone taking a "my way or the highway" approach based on myopic intolerance, although I do admit that they even have a right to do that.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

What you are citing are your beliefs, but "beliefs" should not be confused with "facts" since the words are not synonymous. You have yours, they have there's, so...

Actually, I said the exact same thing you just stated. I.e. that Christians have ideas that fit the Christian mindset. The facts there are that Christans have ideas and Christians have mindsets. Torah based Jews have different ideas and different mindsets. The facts there are Torah based Jews have different ideas and different mindsets. When a question comes up about how Torah based Jews come to conclusions a certain of source/text and method of historical analysis is used. This source is referenced back to the Torah given at Mount Sinai by Hashem to Jews. There are Christians who disagree with the source/text and the method of historical analysis of Torah based Jews. The fact that this thread has 13 pages of of what I just mentioned above means that it isn't my beleif that this is the case. If that were just a "beleif" than everyone would be agreeing on this thread. There is another way to prove this out. Let's servey both sides and see if we present some basic principles that both sides agree on them.

The reality is that we are largely here at RF to exchange our ideas and our beliefs, and I certainly don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is someone taking a "my way or the highway" approach based on myopic intolerance, although I do admit that they even have a right to do that.

The ideas have been exchanged and continue to be exchanged. I didn't state that my way is the highway. Quite the opposite, the highway is the highway. What I think about the highway is meaningless. If someone asks me why I don't travel on highway 25 and I tell them I only travel on 613 because that is the highway that goes to where I need to go; that is the answer to the question. If someone tries to convince me myself to travel on highway 25 and I say that is okay that highway doesn't meet the requirements I have for where I need to go; that is also not saying my way is the way that the questioner must go. If the questioner doesn't like the fact that I won't travel on highway 25 and I give logical reasons why I won't, but if they want they can take highway 25, then that is them saying that it their way or the highway and not me.

My way or the highway in this context is a Jew saying that Christians must accept Jewish ideas and concepts and give up their concepts; or because Jewish. That is had not been claimed. Vice versa if Christians were to say that Jews must accept Christian texts ideas and concepts. Quite the opposite has been claimed. I.e. that Christians and Torah based Jews don't share the same concepts about different texts; this has been a fact for the last ~1,800 years. If a question comes up about "why" that is where the reasons/facts on the ground can be presented. If someone has well thought out answers to them okay; everyone can choose to accept or ignore them. If someone has no answers then people can accept or reject that.

What seems to be at issue is that when a question is asked and an answer is given there are people who don't like the answer. That is not an exchange of ideas.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

all books lie, they just lay around and cannot really speak of themselves.....one must divine the truth out of them and that needs to be checked, since they lie and are untrustworthy on their own merits.
the tool is only as good as the hand that wields it.

Thank you for stating this. This is exactly what I am talking about.

 

[metis]

I didn't state that my way is the highway

I didn't imply you did.

What seems to be at issue is that when a question is asked and an answer is given there are people who don't like the answer. That is not an exchange of ideas.

It still is an exchange of ideas even if they don't like the answer and post that with explanation. Personally, I have tended to learn more when people disagree with me than when they agreed with me.

 

[MNoBody]

debate vs. discourse
combat vs. collaborate
2 modalities
when in school the exercise was to discuss a piece of poetry or art, the modality was switched from combat to collaborate.
everyone's task was to elaborate on how the piece made them feel and what they thought about that.
no one is deemed wrong or incorrect, that isn't applied in this arena.
rather the piece is presented, everyone takes their whack at it, and then the group seeks to determine more about it, enhance the clarity, find application, to drill down on details to create a richer tapestry and greater appreciation for the literary or graphic arts[and fluency].

-of course this can then polarize into camps of thought and unravel from there......or all manner of directions it could go in, which make such intellectual exercises so heady and interesting and so poignantly pregnant with possibility...tragically, most often never realized.
just a few thoughts from reading this thread flow.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

It still is an exchange of ideas even if they don't like the answer and post that with explanation. Personally, I have tended to learn more when people disagree with me than when they agreed with me.

So, like I stated. The exchange of ideas has already been happening on this thread and others. YET, when one of the differences in in language and texts then at some point there is always a limit. Especially, when the debate has been had for hundreds of years and nothing has changed about the language, text, history, or the findings of each to further one or both positions.

There is also a point where the disagreement is not between the participants but instead a disagreement between the actual texts, the methods that each side is required to hold by, and by the reliability of other sides positions.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

This may also help:

HISTORICAL QUESTIONS AND FACTS, 2004, 2006, 2011 by Dr. Jim Jones of West Chester University –
"A historical fact is an ordinary fact with some additional information. According to the Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary (Franklin J. Meine, editor, Chicago: Columbia Educational Books Inc., 1940, page 270), a fact is "anything done or that comes to pass; an act; a deed; an effect produced or achieved; an event; reality; truth; a true statement." To make this kind of fact "historical," you must include the time, place, act, and the protagonist--usually human--who performed the act. A historical fact also has a source from which all of the other parts of the fact are derived."

A Convergence of Evidence: The Key to Historical Proof, Skeptic Magazine, The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
"In 1840 the English philosopher of science, William Whewell, published his classic work on The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, in which he talked at length about inductions, or generalizations drawn from specific facts. But to prove a theory one must have more than just one generalization. And these multiple inductions must all point to a definite conclusion, building upon one another independently but in conjunction. Whewell said of these inductions that they "jumped together" to establish the veracity of a theory. "Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether different have thus jumped together, belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains."

Lessons—Going Beyond Mere Facts in the Study of History
Commentary • By Richard Rothstein • March 6, 2002
Sam Wineburg, a professor at the University of Washington, explores this conundrum in “Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts” (Temple University Press, 2001), which was called the year’s best book by the Association of American Colleges and Universities. Dr. Wineburg says the study of history should lead to empathy with historical figures, much as the study of literature explores human dilemmas by weighing the practical pressures that characters experience as well as absolute ethical values.

Dr. Wineburg shows how students can join debates of adult historians about whether Abraham Lincoln had views that would now be considered racist. On some occasions as a candidate and president, Lincoln suggested that slaves, even when freed, should not have full civil rights.

Dr. Wineburg urges the use of original sources – letters and speeches – to help students imagine a world whose moral framework was different from today’s. Such inquiry, which can engage students, raises problems that even philosophers cannot solve. If we avoid judging Lincoln by modern standards, whose 19th-century standards should we apply? Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, and slaves themselves, had values more like our own. If they did not question slaves’ humanity, should we excuse Lincoln for grappling with it? Did Lincoln, a politician worried about electability, hide his own views?

Dr. Wineburg notes that students who seek truth from a range of documents will not only learn that Lincoln’s views were complex. Studying the Revolution, students may also come to wonder if John Hancock helped organize the Boston Tea Party to protest lack of representation or because British taxes threatened his tea business. They may learn that redcoats might not have fired the first shot at Lexington. They may grapple with how Canada, now also a free nation, descended from loyalists, not rebels against King George.

 

[MNoBody]

This may also help:

HISTORICAL QUESTIONS AND FACTS,
Studying the Revolution, students may also come to wonder if John Hancock helped organize the Boston Tea Party to protest lack of representation or because British taxes threatened his tea business. They may learn that redcoats might not have fired the first shot at Lexington. They may grapple with how Canada, now also a free nation, descended from loyalists, not rebels against King George.

according to Ben Franklin, in one of his later works, he stated that the revolution had more to do with how currency is created, what it really represents and the ridiculous notions people entertain regarding that issue than it ever had to do with the tea tax......part of a much bigger picture that the boots on the ground perspective never seems to see

 

[Ehav4Ever]

according to Ben Franklin, in one of his later works, he stated that the revolution had more to do with how currency is created, what it really represents and the ridiculous notions people entertain regarding that issue than it ever had to do with the tea tax......part of a much bigger picture that the boots on the ground perspective never seems to see

Interesting, Thus, him being in the position he was in he saw things that the troops on the ground never would have seen. Further, if the other members of the inner circle who planned out things also confirm this account then it would stand that the leadership had some reasons/accounts/information that the average person who was not in the inner circle would have had. Thus, that inner circle was privy to informtion that, for example, people who imigrated to America several centuries may not have known at all.

 

[metis]

...but instead a disagreement between the actual texts, the methods that each side is required to hold by, and by the reliability of other sides positions.

That depends on how one views the texts themselves in regards to the issues of both Divine inspiration and textual inerrancy. IMO, the former is a question waiting for an answer and the latter doesn't make any sense to me in light of variations on the same narratives. Most here are quite parochial in their viewpoints, whereas I'm more on the lunatic left-wing fringe.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you suppose you know my agenda?

And I pity you.


Yes, you are still waiting. But only because you have ignored the answers that have been given and are waiting for an answer you like.


Not only have you not demonstrated any understanding of Hebrew or of the study of the Jewish texts in their first language, but you have now imputed to me a position vis-a-vis God and his power which is inaccurate. Is intellectual dishonesty a way to further your agenda?

I know your agenda, it includes insults and not responding to questions posed.

I do not need to demonstrate Hebrew knowledge, nor does any other believer, to explain how thousands of Tanakh passages are clearly, obviously and historically fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

I dislike your elitist, illogical view that every Gentile translation is warped. I can already find Jesus in our own Jewish-led translations straight from Hebrew to English.

I haven't ignored the answers you've given, I've responded with follow-up questions. For example, you claim that Jesus is not the fulfillment of prophecies like "He will be with the rich in his death(s) and with sinners in His death(s)" which millions of Christians would recognize as obvious. Rather, you claim God wanted to tell? warn? encourage? Israel that "Some Jews will die near the wealthy, others near bad people".

The question you are seemingly unwilling to answer is, "Why would God feel this burden for us?"

Jewish sages saw Isaiah 53 as speaking of an individual, not plural:

• Targum Jonathan interprets Isaiah 53 with reference to the Messiah (singular).
• The Talmud never interprets Isaiah 53 with reference to the nation of Israel (as a whole), but only to individuals within It.
• The Jerusalem Talmud (Tractate Shekalim 5:1) applies 53:12 to Rabbi Akiva (singular), while the Babylonian Talmud applies 53:4 to the Messiah (singular) in Sanhedrin 98b, 53:10 to the righteous in general in Tractate Berakhot 5a, and 53:12 to Moses (singular) in Tractate Sotah 14a.
• Midrash Rabbah interprets 53:5 with reference to the Messiah (Ruth Rabbah 2:14).
• Yalkut Shimoni applies 52:13 to the Messiah.

Source: Is the Plural Form of Isaiah 53 Talking About Israel? - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

1. “Lamo” can be either plural or singular, as Isaiah elsewhere uses lamo to mean “to it,” not “to them,” Isaiah 44:15: “he makes an idol and bows down to it”. So, if we take lamo to refer to the servant, it could still mean “for him” as opposed to “for them.”
2. Septuagint (LXX): εἰς θάνατον (לַמָּוֶת) – The translators of the Septuagint saw a taf at the end of “lamo,” making it “lamavet” – to death. “He was led to death”.
3. NJPSV (New Jewish Publication Society Version) understood “nega‘ lamo” as
   “For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due”. The servant receives a stroke for those for whom he is suffering.

Eitan Bar writes:

“Bemotayv” (בְּמֹתָיו) in Isaiah 53 verse 9
The second time rabbi Asur “noticed” a plural description is in verse 9, where he believes the character is dying multiple deaths, not a single one, and therefore, cannot be the Messiah. He writes (from Hebrew): “Any Hebrew speaker will be amazed. Why does it says “Bemotayv” and not “Bemoto”? How come the word “Moto” in singular does not appear here, yet the word in plural, “Bemotayv”, does? Meaning the servant in Isaiah 53 experienced several deaths, not just one. Didn’t Jesus died only one famous death?…It is clear that the term “Bemotayv” in the bible speaks of plural not singular”.

However, both in biblical Hebrew and in modern Hebrew, a word written in plural form doesn’t always mean more than one referent, but may also indicate collectively (intensive plural). For example: פניו (Panayv) רחמים (Rahamim) אדוניו (Adonayv) are all in plural form, yet have a singular meaning to them.

Jewish scholar of Semitic languages, Dr. Michael Brown, agrees: “Such usage of intensive plurals is extremely common in Hebrew, as recognized by even beginner students of the language.”

There are only two occasions in the Hebrew Scriptures where “death” in plural exists: (1) Isaiah 53:9. (2) Ezekiel 28:10 (מוֹתֵי עֲרֵלִים תָּמוּת). Ezekiel 28:10 clearly states that Ezekiel is using plural deaths (מוֹתֵי) in order to describe a singular death (תָּמוּת).

Now, let us see how bible translators in modern and ancient times understood this verse:

1. As found at the Dead Sea Scrolls, this verse was written (before Jesus existed) in the singular: “בומתו”.
2. The Jewish sages translating the Septuagint, also understood this verse as talking about the singular, translating it: ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ = בְּמוֹתוֹ (death in singular).
3. The NJPSV (New Jewish Publication Society Version) translated: “And with the rich his tomb”. Modern Jewish version, although they took out “death”, they still choose to translate verse 9 as in the singular, not plural.
4. The Targum (Jonathan ben Uzziel) a Jewish translation into Aramaic translated “Bemotayv” into the singular (בְמוֹתָא) and not into the plural (בְמוֹתָיא).

If prophet Isaiah meant the death to be in the plural, he probably would have used “בְמוֹתָ֖ם” such as appears in 2nd Samuel 1:23 (see also Ezekiel 28:10)

Is Asur about to accuse the Prophet Ezekiel as well as the interpretations by Jewish sages of ancient times as being “failures”? Or perhaps Asur would like to blame The Jewish Publication Society as trying to force their Jewish translation to fit Jesus?

Isaiah chapter 53 continues to shout the name of Jesus-Yeshua through the sufferings and death of the Messiah for our sins as a testimony of God’s love for us!

 

[rosends]

I know your agenda, it includes insults and not responding to questions posed.

Actually, as your cutting and pasting shows, you see that I DID answer your questions. Bully for you!

I do not need to demonstrate Hebrew knowledge, nor does any other believer, to explain how thousands of Tanakh passages are clearly, obviously and historically fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Sure you do. otherwise, you argue from ignorance, sheltered under the canopy of other people's mistakes. But if you would rather not think for yourself, then so be it.

I dislike your elitist, illogical view that every Gentile translation is warped. I can already find Jesus in our own Jewish-led translations straight from Hebrew to English.

First, I didn't say "every" as I have not read "every." Second, I'm not saying that every "Gentile translation" is warped. In fact, I am happy to say that every translation is warped, by definition. This is why it is better to study in Hebrew, which yousay you don't need. Third, I can find Jesus in Harry Potter also. Seek and ye shall find, right?

I haven't ignored the answers you've given, I've responded with follow-up questions.

No, you have insisted that I haven't answered what I directly answered.

For example, you claim that Jesus is not the fulfillment of prophecies like "He will be with the rich in his death(s) and with sinners in His death(s)" which millions of Christians would recognize as obvious.

Oh, so if "millions" come to a conclusion, you just jump on board. Got it. By the way, many more millions see Muhammed in the Hebraic texts. I'm sure you will sign on to that next, right?

Rather, you claim God wanted to tell? warn? encourage? Israel that "Some Jews will die near the wealthy, others near bad people".

No. I claim that this prophecy foretold events that I cited in my many answers.

The question you are seemingly unwilling to answer is, "Why would God feel this burden for us?"

Feel what burden? God empathizes all the time. Why you would think that God dies is beyond me.

You then cite all sorts of examples where sages explain the reference to the Messiah (or to specific rabbis, but somehow you don't think it applies to them). While these are all perfectly reasonable, none of them ignores the surface and explicit equivalence in the text. In fact, that is an important part of understanding Jewish texts (and one which seems to elude you) -- אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו works in concert with the concept of prd"s. Except not to you.

Then you C/P a bunch about lamo, a word I haven't discussed. I guess when you lift chunks, you lift chunks. Next up, you have secular linguistics people discuss what words can mean. That's nice. You cite someone named Michael Brown. Do you mean the messianic apologist? Great source. And all this stuff that you plunked down from a Christian site, written by a Christian apologist (mostly aimed at uneducated Israelis)? It all shows such extreme desperation and lack of original thought on your part and theirs.

The text says what it says. It also doesn't say what it doesn't say. It is explicit and clear to those who can actually read it. If you can't and want to rely on a pastiche of others to make your thoughts for you, that's on you. Attacking me and stamping your feet, insisting that you are usually oh, so persuasive when you work with people who (somehow) know less than you, is amusing, but not really educational.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

As I mentioned before, this has all been covered over and over again. So, here is a post that should help those who want to know why Torah based Jews don't hold by the NT. This is of course in the name of sharing and an exchange of ideas,

Simple Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus and Christianity

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Also, just to show that this entire debate has taken place before I present the below.