Disprove The Bible, Not Modern Christianity

[rayskidude]

"the ONLY, repeat ONLY time that ratsakh is translated as "manslayer" is when it refers to a person accused of murder who is fleeing to a City of Refuge. This is the ONLY context in which is is translated this way, and according to Rabbinic commentary this is because the translators are using a sort of "innocent until proven guilty" approach to the translation. A literal translation would render ratsakh as "murderer" here as well."

 

But the literal translation would not communicate an accurate sense of the passage in English - which is the goal of translation. Incorporating a degree of 'interpretation' as long as it's agreed upon by a board of qualified ancient Hebrew scholars is acceptable. Note the example of Ezra the scribe:

Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people, and as he opened it all the people stood.

Neh 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God, and all the people answered, "Amen, Amen," lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

Neh 8:7 Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law, while the people remained in their places.

Neh 8:8 They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

 

"It is stating that this translation most likely came from Jewish source material, and that therefore the most cogent explanation as to why the word "manslayer" was used must also come from Jewish source material."

 

Bible translation is conducted by Christian scholars, who translate from ancient documents and critically assembled texts - we don't necessarily base our translations or understandings of Scripture on Jewish source material. We wouldn't ignore it, but it wouldn't form the basis for our work. Given that we're in the New Covenant, we have a greater perspective on Old Testament teachings.

[Guest Davka]

Bible translation is conducted by Christian scholars, who translate from ancient documents and critically assembled texts - we don't necessarily base our translations or understandings of Scripture on Jewish source material. We wouldn't ignore it, but it wouldn't form the basis for our work. Given that we're in the New Covenant, we have a greater perspective on Old Testament teachings.

I cannot even think of where to begin to respond to the jaw-dropping level of hubris and antisemitism that went into that paragraph. Not to mention abysmal ignorance.

 

The ENTIRE FRIGGING BIBLE IS JEWISH SOURCE MATERIAL!!!!!!

 

And no, we don't have a greater perspective on OT teachings. If anything, Christians who attempt to understand either the NT or the OT with no comprehension of Judaism and Jewish customs screw up terribly.

 

Here's an example: without reference to Judaism or an understanding of Hebrew, tell me the meaning of Matthew 18:18. Go ahead, enlighten me as to how this passage is so clearly understood under the New Covenant.

[florduh]

Given that we're in the New Covenant, we have a greater perspective on Old Testament teachings.

 

It's hopeless.

[Ouroboros]

It's hopeless.

Yes, isn't it amazing. People, deep into religion, justify their belief regardless what it is they believe. They are just are culturally relative as anyone else, except they claim they got it from God.

[rayskidude]

The ENTIRE FRIGGING BIBLE IS JEWISH SOURCE MATERIAL!!!!!!

And no, we don't have a greater perspective on OT teachings. If anything, Christians who attempt to understand either the NT or the OT with no comprehension of Judaism and Jewish customs screw up terribly."

 

Here's an example: without reference to Judaism or an understanding of Hebrew, tell me the meaning of Matthew 18:18. Go ahead, enlighten me as to how this passage is so clearly understood under the New Covenant.

 

Please note that I stated that we would not ignore Jewish source material in our understanding of the OT - but by Jewish source material I meant Rabbinic traditions, the Talmud, etc - obviously not the Old Testament itself. And we don't function apart from an understanding of Jewish traditions and how the Jewish people implemented God's laws. But undoubtedly, there are portions of the OT - such as Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Psalm 2, Psalm 110, Isaiah 7:14 & 9:6, Deut 18:15, the Abrahamic Covenant as expounded further in Galatians, and the New Covenant in Jer 30:31-34 - that the NT brings to greater light and gives an understanding of the fulfillment of these passages of the OT.

 

Matt 18 has a context of shepherding & caring for God's people >> in begins in presenting care for little ones & the grievous sin of causing yourself or others to stumble. Then moves onto the priority of going after those who stray, and then instructs re: dealing with those who have sinned, with a process to restore them into fellowship. However, for those who resist repentantance, there is a process to care for their souls - but if they remain unrepentant, then we're to treat them as though they were an unbeliever - calling them to repentance. And in this heart-rending process of taking a dear brother/sister in the faith through church discipline - we need wisdom, and compassion as a shepherd going after a stray, and also courage to carry out this difficult process to the end. So Matt 18:18-20 assures us that when the church takes up this discipline process collectively or through an elder board (not based on the testimony of one person) >> we know that God has led us in this process.

[Guest Davka]

You are correct about the context of Matthew 18, but since you know little or nothing of rabbinic tradition, you completely miss the meaning of verse 18. This is not surprising, since I have rarely heard or read any commentary on this passage which displays an understanding of what Jesus was saying.

 

In rabbinic tradition, there is a concept called halakha, which can be loosely translated as "rabbinic law." This is a Jewish response to the numerous admonitions in the OT to appoint Judges, and to have these Judges rule on any matter which is not spelled out in detail in the Law. The oral and written body of rabbinic/judicial decisions regarding the keeping of the Law is collectively known as halakha.

 

In halakha, there are two very basic concepts: asoor (forbidden) and mootar (permitted). For example, it is asoor to take long walks on the Sabbath (since this is considered a form of work), but it is mootar to walk a long ways on the Sabbath in order to attend Synagogue (since the commandment to observe the Sabbath and keep it Holy is considered greater than the commandment not to work on the Sabbath). Halakha is full of examples like this - careful distinctions between what is forbidden and what is permitted.

 

What you need a knowledge of Hebrew for is this: the words asoor and mootar have multiple meanings, just as many words in English do. Asoor means "forbidden," but it also means "bound," as in "tied up." You see where I'm going with this: mootar means both "permitted" and "loosed." For a native Aramaic speaker in a Jewish tradition, translating these words in your head into the Greek equivalent of "bound" and "loosed" is a natural step.

 

This is not just a minor footnote - it is huge. Look at the passage again: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall (declare halakhically forbidden) on earth shall be (forbidden) in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall (declare halakhically permissible) on earth shall be (permitted) in heaven." Translation: I am telling you, my disciples, to ignore the halakhic pronouncements of the religious leaders. From now on, you create your own halakha, and God will agree with your assessment." Jesus laid the foundation for a church that was separate and distinct from mainstream rabbinic law with this one pronouncement. Read Matthew 16:19 with this information, and you will see Peter in a different light.

 

Now, as I'm sure you are aware, many many Christians have taught for many years, with the help of the "Holy Spirit" and in the authority of their superior New Covenant understanding, that this passage is about "binding and loosing" demons and angels. Because they did not study Judaism, and saw the OT as largely irrelevant, they attempted to understand this passage in a vacuum. And the result was that they were teaching total unBiblical nonsense, which is still repeated today as iggerant Christians "bind" the evil spirit of no parking places close to the mall.

 

This is just a single example. Still think you're better off studying the Bible without those pesky Jewish sources?

[Ouroboros]

Davka, Awesome.

 

That was one of the verses my old "cult" Church had as core verses for their doctrine. They were in the same category as Kenneth Hagin, if you know what I'm talking about. And this verse was the foundation for "binding demonic powers through prayers and God would bind the devil, and whatever you loosened--especially money, lots of it--would be give to you by God." etc.

 

And now finally you show me what it really meant. What it really means, is exactly what I keep on telling Christians, which is: come to your own conclusions. Don't follow religious dogma, structure, traditions, etc, but get your own personal belief. But the majority love to follow someone else. They don't have personal belief, but instead they have the cloned belief of their pastor/preacher/parent.

[Neon Genesis]

Please note that I stated that we would not ignore Jewish source material in our understanding of the OT - but by Jewish source material I meant Rabbinic traditions, the Talmud, etc - obviously not the Old Testament itself. And we don't function apart from an understanding of Jewish traditions and how the Jewish people implemented God's laws. But undoubtedly, there are portions of the OT - such as Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Psalm 2, Psalm 110, Isaiah 7:14 & 9:6, Deut 18:15, the Abrahamic Covenant as expounded further in Galatians, and the New Covenant in Jer 30:31-34 - that the NT brings to greater light and gives an understanding of the fulfillment of these passages of the OT.

Are you referring to the supposed NT fulfillment of OT prophecies? If the NT has such a greater understanding, why is the virgin birth prophecy based on a mistranslation of Isaiah which originally was about a young woman, not a virgin? Why does Psalm 22 not mention anything about the Messiah at all if it's a fulfillment of prophecy? Even most bibles will say that Psalm 22 is being written by David who is pleading to God for deliverance from hostility. How can David praying to God for something completely unrelated to the Messiah be a prophecy about a future Messiah?

[Guest Davka]

Are you referring to the supposed NT fulfillment of OT prophecies? If the NT has such a greater understanding, why is the virgin birth prophecy based on a mistranslation of Isaiah which originally was about a young woman, not a virgin?

I hate to do this, but - the understanding of an "almah" was that she would be a virgin. Even though it is not explicit in the word, virginity is strongly implied. Sort of like saying "13-year-old girl" in Victorian times - the expectation would be very strong that she was a virgin.

 

The passage in Isaiah indicates that it will be an amazing, incredible thing for an "almah" to bear a child. If it merely meant "young woman," the passage would be meaningless. Jewish scholars certainly read it as meaning a virgin, which is why the Septuagint translates it as "virgin."

 

Why does Psalm 22 not mention anything about the Messiah at all if it's a fulfillment of prophecy? Even most bibles will say that Psalm 22 is being written by David who is pleading to God for deliverance from hostility. How can David praying to God for something completely unrelated to the Messiah be a prophecy about a future Messiah?

This one is actually pretty weird. Psalm 22 describes something that sounds a whole lot like crucifixion, especially the line "they have pierced my hands and my feet." The word used for "pierced" is a really uncommon one meaning specifically to hammer an awl through something.

 

Christianity says that the Bible has multiple layers of meaning for numerous passages. And since Messiah is also called the "son of David," a Psalm written by David is not entirely unrelated to Messiah, according to Christian belief. Which is almost as convoluted as Rabbinic belief at times.

 

EDIT: It's hotter than crap outside, and I'm bored. Can you tell?

[rayskidude]

You are correct about the context of Matthew 18, but since you know little or nothing of rabbinic tradition, you completely miss the meaning of verse 18. This is not surprising, since I have rarely heard or read any commentary on this passage which displays an understanding of what Jesus was saying.

 

Now, as I'm sure you are aware, many many Christians have taught for many years, with the help of the "Holy Spirit" and in the authority of their superior New Covenant understanding, that this passage is about "binding and loosing" demons and angels. Because they did not study Judaism, and saw the OT as largely irrelevant, they attempted to understand this passage in a vacuum. And the result was that they were teaching total unBiblical nonsense, which is still repeated today as iggerant Christians "bind" the evil spirit of no parking places close to the mall.

 

This is just a single example. Still think you're better off studying the Bible without those pesky Jewish sources?

 

I have not run in the Christian circles you refer to; and in the Reformed tradition, I have not come across such an interpretation as binding and loosing of demons, etc. There's nothing in the context that would lead to such a conclusion. What I have seen is Christians use this passage of 18-18-20, byt esp 20 - to say that whathever 2 Christians agree on is OK with God - and they lift the verse out of the church discipline context.

 

We obviously see the binding'loosing of demons, etc as 'bad theology' & 'bad exegesis.' And I would be inclined to say that bad theology is, unfortunately, pervasive in charismatic circles.

 

Thank you for the insight on Matt 18:18; it's very helpful - and I believe that that way we implement this in our church life is similar to what you've noted. Church leaders must determine collectively what sins are of the type and severity to warrant the action of church discipline - for which prayerful consideration is required - all with the assurance of God's presence in this process.

 

And as I said previously, we are not to ignore Jewish sources, we're just not restricted by their teachings.

[rayskidude]

I hate to do this, but - the understanding of an "almah" was that she would be a virgin. Even though it is not explicit in the word, virginity is strongly implied. Sort of like saying "13-year-old girl" in Victorian times - the expectation would be very strong that she was a virgin.

 

And of course, the NT perspective goes beyond the understanding of 'alamh' as iimportant as that is >> to the understanding of 'Immanuel'

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

So the Immanuel is fulfillded in Jesus of Nazareth as God incarnate.

 

Why does Psalm 22 not mention anything about the Messiah at all if it's a fulfillment of prophecy? Even most bibles will say that Psalm 22 is being written by David who is pleading to God for deliverance from hostility. How can David praying to God for something completely unrelated to the Messiah be a prophecy about a future Messiah?

This one is actually pretty weird. Psalm 22 describes something that sounds a whole lot like crucifixion, especially the line "they have pierced my hands and my feet." The word used for "pierced" is a really uncommon one meaning specifically to hammer an awl through something.

 

Psa 22:13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion.

Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast;

Psa 22:15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death.

Psa 22:16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet--

Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones-- they stare and gloat over me;

Psa 22:18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.

 

I would also point out other physical aspects of crucifixion and the surrounding scene, it was devised as a very humiliating means of execution - reserved for common criminals and people in the lower classes. And please note the prophecy 'and for my clothing they cast lots.'

 

Psa 22:1 To the choirmaster: according to The Doe of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?

 

I would also not ignore these words which Jesus cried out during the crucifixion.

[Guest Marty]

I hate to do this, but - the understanding of an "almah" was that she would be a virgin. Even though it is not explicit in the word, virginity is strongly implied. Sort of like saying "13-year-old girl" in Victorian times - the expectation would be very strong that she was a virgin.

 

And of course, the NT perspective goes beyond the understanding of 'alamh' as iimportant as that is >> to the understanding of 'Immanuel'

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

So the Immanuel is fulfillded in Jesus of Nazareth as God incarnate.

 

 

 

How so? The name Immanuel is not the name jesus, so how is the "prophecy" fulfilled? That's like saying I will name my kid Joe and I end up naming him Robert.

[Guest Davka]

And of course, the NT perspective goes beyond the understanding of 'alamh' as iimportant as that is >> to the understanding of 'Immanuel'

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

So the Immanuel is fulfillded in Jesus of Nazareth as God incarnate.

Here we disagree. You are quoting Church tradition, not simply looking at what the Bible says.

 

Immanuel is Hebrew for 'God [is] with us.' But that's not what Miriam/Mary called her son. It's not even close. She called him "Yeshua" (alt. "Yehoshua") which means either "he will save" or "God will save." The Christian claim that this verse is somehow fulfilled in Jesus is based on circular reasoning: Jesus is "God with us" because the New Testament says He is, and the New Testament is right because the OT prophecies Jesus, which we can see because the OT says the virgin will call his name "Immanuel," which means God with us, which is who Jesus is because . . .

 

Because why? It's like a piece of paper on which I have written "everything on this piece of paper is true." It proves nothing and means nothing, because it is self-referential.

 

This is why the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. As far as they are concerned, the Messianic prophecies have not even begun to be fulfilled. They're waiting for a virgin to conceive and bear a son and call him Immanuel. Hasn't happened yet.

[dagnarus]

And of course, the NT perspective goes beyond the understanding of 'alamh' as iimportant as that is >> to the understanding of 'Immanuel'

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

So the Immanuel is fulfillded in Jesus of Nazareth as God incarnate.

Here we disagree. You are quoting Church tradition, not simply looking at what the Bible says.

 

Immanuel is Hebrew for 'God [is] with us.' But that's not what Miriam/Mary called her son. It's not even close. She called him "Yeshua" (alt. "Yehoshua") which means either "he will save" or "God will save." The Christian claim that this verse is somehow fulfilled in Jesus is based on circular reasoning: Jesus is "God with us" because the New Testament says He is, and the New Testament is right because the OT prophecies Jesus, which we can see because the OT says the virgin will call his name "Immanuel," which means God with us, which is who Jesus is because . . .

 

Because why? It's like a piece of paper on which I have written "everything on this piece of paper is true." It proves nothing and means nothing, because it is self-referential.

 

This is why the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. As far as they are concerned, the Messianic prophecies have not even begun to be fulfilled. They're waiting for a virgin to conceive and bear a son and call him Immanuel. Hasn't happened yet.

 

Actually as far I can tell the Jews don't even consider Isa 7:14 to be a messianic prophecy. It's supposed to be a sign to King Ahaz that he won't be defeated in battle by Rezin. Given that Ahaz died roughly 700 years before Christ's birth he couldn't have fulfilled it. To say that it's a messianic prophecy requires a believe in double fulfillment which is questionable method of interpreting prophecy. There's more information on this subject here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...cies.html#birth.

[Guest Davka]

Actually as far I can tell the Jews don't even consider Isa 7:14 to be a messianic prophecy. It's supposed to be a sign to King Ahaz that he won't be defeated in battle by Rezin. Given that Ahaz died roughly 700 years before Christ's birth he couldn't have fulfilled it. To say that it's a messianic prophecy requires a believe in double fulfillment which is questionable method of interpreting prophecy. There's more information on this subject here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...cies.html#birth.

 

My bad. This verse is among many which were considered Messianic prophecies prior to the founding of Christianity, but were dropped by the Jewish leaders when Christians began claiming that they referred to Jesus. Isaiah chapter 54 is another example of this. Modern Judaism has been radically affected by Christianity, generally in a negative fashion.

 

So no, the Jews are no longer waiting for a virgin to give birth. Some of them were in AD 30, but no longer.

[Neon Genesis]

And as I said previously, we are not to ignore Jewish sources, we're just not restricted by their teachings.

So in other words, Christians understand what Jews think better than Jews do because they say so?

 

I would also not ignore these words which Jesus cried out during the crucifixion.

How is this a miraculous prophecy? You act as if it's impossible for Jesus to simply have been quoting Psalms when the gospels show Jesus as being able to quote the Old Testament when he was a kid. Your biblical prophecies remind me of psychics who claim Nostradamus predicted WWII but you'll never find a prediction of Hitler before WWII. Furthermore, last I checked, Psalms was a book of poetry, not a book of prophecy. If Psalms 22 is a prophecy of Jesus, why is there no record of anyone claiming it's a prophecy of Jesus before the time of Jesus? If Psalm 22 is a divine prophecy is Psalms 137 also divinely inspired?

O daughter Babylon, you devastator!*

Happy shall they be who pay you back

what you have done to us!

9Happy shall they be who take your little ones

and dash them against the rock!

 

How so? The name Immanuel is not the name jesus, so how is the "prophecy" fulfilled? That's like saying I will name my kid Joe and I end up naming him Robert.

I don't get this one, either. Even in the NT, the angel Gabriel specifically tells Mary to name her kid Immanuel and she goes off and names him something completely different. You'd think that would be a simple commandment to do.

[Ouroboros]

This seems to be the argument you speak of, Hans, from a book called "Hard Sayings of the Bible": Elohim or Yahweh?

 

The resolution to this apparent contradiction to some 150 uses of the name Yahweh during the patriarchal period is to be found in a technical point of Hebrew grammar, known as beth essentiae, in the phrase "by my name." This phrase meant that while Abraham, Isaac and Jacob heard and used the name Yahweh, it was only in Moses' day that the realization of the character, nature and essence of what that name meant became clear. "By the name" is better translated "in the character [or nature] of Yahweh [was I not known]."

 

If their understanding of God grew over the centuries, as human species and culture evolved, this makes sense.

 

Why God didn't explain it from the beginning, seeing as he is so chummy and chatty with Abraham? Something could not merely be spoken by God to Abraham, to you, to me. It has to be experienced over generations. Thus, YHWH is most reliable in his use by the social organism, rather than the individual. YHWH concept functions primarily to strengthen the tribe, the herd, the hive.

 

Phanta

I don't think it makes any sense. So Abraham knew God by the name YHWH, but not by the meaning of what YHWH meant. So Abraham called God YHWH because it was fun, it was cool and hip, but he had no clue what the word meant. Just like calling God ZXYXTYGH for 1,000 years, until one guys shows up, and God tells him: Now you will know me by my real name, which is: ZXYXTYGH, and Moses goes, Ooooohhh, I didn't know that the name meant that!!!

 

Yeah, right. Doesn't make sense.

 

If I call something a tomato, then I won't pick up a tomato one day and realize that it's not a tomato, but it is actually a tomato with a different meaning. So zen...

 

Maybe it's something like the theory of relativity. It meant one thing when Einstein came up with it, but today it means something else. So we know what "Special Relativity" means (for real), while Einstein didn't?

 

(But thanks for the link, it's exactly the only argument I've heard, and I think it's rather laaaaammme excuse by Christians! )

[rayskidude]

And of course, the NT perspective goes beyond the understanding of 'alamh' as iimportant as that is >> to the understanding of 'Immanuel'

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

So the Immanuel is fulfillded in Jesus of Nazareth as God incarnate.

Here we disagree. You are quoting Church tradition, not simply looking at what the Bible says.

 

But I would say that Matthew wrote this under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit - so it goes well beyond a Church tradition. It is a revealed truth from God.

 

The Christian claim that this verse is somehow fulfilled in Jesus is based on circular reasoning: Jesus is "God with us" because the New Testament says He is, and the New Testament is right because the OT prophecies Jesus, which we can see because the OT says the virgin will call his name "Immanuel," which means God with us...

 

This would have considerably more weight if Isa 7:14 was the only Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth - but there were about 2 dozen.

 

This is why the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. As far as they are concerned, the Messianic prophecies have not even begun to be fulfilled. They're waiting for a virgin to conceive and bear a son and call him Immanuel. Hasn't happened yet.

 

The next time the Jews see their Messiah, it will be in fulfillment of >>

Zec 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

[Neon Genesis]

I wonder which prophecy Jesus was fulfilling in Matthew 2:23 seeing as how this prophecy doesn't exist anywhere in the OT

There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’

[dagnarus]

I wonder whether Jesus can fulfill this prophecy?

 

22 And on that day the prince shall prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering. 23 On the seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bulls and seven rams without blemish, daily for seven days, and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering

Ezekiel 45

 

It should be difficult for Jesus to make a sin offering for himself given he has no sin. We should also ask why is there still the need to give goats as sin offerings in the messianic age when Jesus is already meant to have been sacrificed once for all for sins

 

Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

[Ouroboros]

In my country the white settlers for many years called a tomato a tomato, and knew its nature to be red when ripe, green when unripe, the fruit of a plant, acidic, and more. They also thought it was poisonous. (Clearly a wrong understanding.) This went on for many many generations. Then one day the poisoned fruit myth was dispelled, and a cultural appreciation for tomatoes rose up as a new understanding of tomatoes as good eating emerged. In time, the tomato was found to have a natural complement in basil and mozzarella. Thus, we have the wonder of bruschetta.

But the name of the tomato didn't change, and it didn't change the fact that you knew what a tomato was even before.

 

The name isn't the nature.

 

Just because I learn to play tennis, doesn't mean that I go and tell my kids: Now you will know me by my true name, which is Hans. You didn't know me by this name before, but now you will know me by the name Hans.

 

YHWH doesn't mean, God is Xyz for Abraham, but YHWH, the word itself, suddenly changes meaning for Moses because God says: "No you will know my name."

 

In this way, it seems this explanation tells the story of an people discovering the nature of their God over generations of thought, study, and experience, just as North American settlers discovered over time the nature of the tomato. '"By the name" is better translated "in the character [or nature] of Yahweh [was I not known].' In my mind, this contributes to the idea that the times when God "speaks" in the OT, it is not meant that he tells anyone anything out loud, but simply moves people to certain action as new aspects of "God's" nature are understood by them, and that this understanding grows in the people over the centuries, just as any knowledge of anything in this world is built upon by its people.

 

Phanta

I still don't get it. It sounds very esoteric and metaphysical, almost like the idea that a name contain a magical and supernatural ability to be something, and by changing the definition of the word, God's nature is changed too. Because I can't see how Abraham could have used a name YHWH without having a meaning, and then suddenly Moses gets the revelation what the name really meant. Sorry. I still don't get it.

 

(I know you're trying your best, but I have a hard time accepting the argument as the explanation. It doesn't make sense to me. But that's just me. Okay? )

[Guest Davka]

The way this story has always struck me is that Moses, raised in Pharoah's court, had a polytheistic view of the world. So when confronted by a "god" who tells him to go back to Egypt and free the Hebrew slaves, Moses' reaction is "ok, fine - whom shall I say sent me?" As in, Osirus? Anubis? Exactly who is it hiding in that burning bush, anyhow?

 

It looks more like a case of YHWH re-introducing himself to the Hebrew slaves after 400 years in Egypt: "Hey. y'all forgot me! Over here! In the desert, burning in this bush! Steal everything that's not nailed down and come worship me! Me, me, me!"

[Ouroboros]

The way this story has always struck me is that Moses, raised in Pharoah's court, had a polytheistic view of the world. So when confronted by a "god" who tells him to go back to Egypt and free the Hebrew slaves, Moses' reaction is "ok, fine - whom shall I say sent me?" As in, Osirus? Anubis? Exactly who is it hiding in that burning bush, anyhow?

 

It looks more like a case of YHWH re-introducing himself to the Hebrew slaves after 400 years in Egypt: "Hey. y'all forgot me! Over here! In the desert, burning in this bush! Steal everything that's not nailed down and come worship me! Me, me, me!"

That's true. I'm sure that's the idea behind the story.

 

That would make it even a bit more confusing if God tells Moses that "look, here's my name, it's the same name as Abraham knew me as, but now you will know me by the same name, but a different meaning." If Moses had lost most of his religious heritage, then he wouldn't know the difference between YWHW:God-who-do-stuff-for-Abraham, and YWHW:God-who-is-awsome'r-than-Abraham's-God.

[Guest Davka]

Here we disagree. You are quoting Church tradition, not simply looking at what the Bible says.

 

But I would say that Matthew wrote this under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit - so it goes well beyond a Church tradition. It is a revealed truth from God.

You would only say that because it is yet another Church tradition. The book of Matthew does not claim to be an inspired writing, and the rest of the Bible does not reference the Gospel of Matthew. You are using Church tradition to back up Church tradition.

 

The Christian claim that this verse is somehow fulfilled in Jesus is based on circular reasoning: Jesus is "God with us" because the New Testament says He is, and the New Testament is right because the OT prophecies Jesus, which we can see because the OT says the virgin will call his name "Immanuel," which means God with us...

 

This would have considerably more weight if Isa 7:14 was the only Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth - but there were about 2 dozen.

Actually, there are very few verifiable prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus. The story of Jesus was conveniently retro-fitted into the prophecies. And there are dozens more that are not even addressed, except to claim that he'll get to them when he returns - a very convenient "out."

 

The next time the Jews see their Messiah, it will be in fulfillment of >>

Zec 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

 

Only one little problem: this is not now, and never was, considered a Messianic prophecy in Judaism. What's more, the passage makes no sense as a prophecy of Jesus: ". . . they will look on me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for him . . . " (NASB, the most accurate Christian translation). Huh. The "me" in this passage is YHWH, the whole chapter is written as a first person prophecy from God. So who is the "him"? We have a mourning here which is compared to the mourning for King Josiah in the very next verse: ". . . In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. . . " (See 2 Kings 23:29-30). So this "him" who is mourned is quite the beloved figure, and the mourning is like the mourning for King Josiah. Well, King Josiah was DEAD when he was mourned.

 

John, by the way, saw this inconvenient little linguistic fact when he decided to treat Zechariah 12:10 as a Messianic prophecy. He recognized that having the passage say that God was pierced, but someone else was mourned as an only son was not going to work. So he tweaked the passage just a bit. John "forgets" that the Hebrew says " they will look on me whom they have pierced," and "fixes" the whole problem by changing it to " they will look on him whom they have pierced." (John 19: 37).

 

Sorry, no sale. Looks like the NT contains a mistake. Darn those infallible scriptures anyways!

[Ouroboros]

It is ok, Hans! Most certainly.

 

In the case that I choose to continue this line of thinking, I am drawn to use your latest response as a jumping-off point for further developing my thinking (rather than a challenge to you). However, in the interest of good will amongst friends, I am pleased to disengage if that is your preference.

 

I'll wait for your word.

 

Phanta

The only reason why we would disengage would be because I still have a hard time accepting the explanation. And I know you mean well. If you had been a Christian, I would have bit your head off.

 

Since you got something else you started to think about, sure, lets go further. (And I'll try to be nice.)

 

I did get that same explanation once a long time ago, and you did explain it further. So that's good. Let me try to write the explanation in my words, and lets see if that's in line with what you're thinking:

 

When God talked to Moses in the bush, he explained to Moses that God was not only a God of miracles, creator, or talking to his believers, like he did with Abraham, but he was something more than that. God told Moses that he was "The One," the all-encompassing entity of the universe, "I Am" instead of just "I'm here." And this new definition of God was the "new" name Moses got from God, and the whole thing of "YHWH" or not, has nothing to do with it. Abraham knew God by YHWH, and so did Moses, but the different view of God was new. Is that about it?