To Pug, newbie Christians, Christians

[pug]

But a human cannot be a substitute atonement for another person's sin.

 

Unless He is the Son of God.

[Ssel]

As I said, Psalm 22 doesn’t say “pierced.” The Hebrew says “like a lion.” ...

 

KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

 

NRSV: For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled;

 

Jerusalem Bible says tied, not pierced.

 

In my testament it says:

 

22:017 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet

 

The Hebrew word is ka’ari, as a lion. It is in keeping with animal motif that David has used in prior verses: bulls, dogs. It simply doesn’t say pierced in the Hebrew.

Its difficult for me to tell from your wording, but would it help to know that they were saying (in more modern English);

 

"For (they are like) dogs all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me (as dogs surround a lion). My hands and feet have made useless;"

[Kuroikaze]

But a human cannot be a substitute atonement for another person's sin.

 

Unless He is the Son of God.

 

I don't remember that as being written down as an exception in the OT

 

"And thus sayeth the lord, human sacrifices are not acceptable to me unless he is also half god and my son then go ahead and kill him, you'll get even better results"

 

Show me that verse and I'll rethink my position

[SkepticOfBible]

But a human cannot be a substitute atonement for another person's sin.

 

Unless He is the Son of God.

 

 

The title of "son of God" isn't something reserved exclusively for Jesus.

 

Adam was a son of God(Luke 3:38), the angels are sons of God(Job 1:6), Israel is a son of God(Exo 4:22), Satan is a son of God(Job 1:6), as are the kings that sat on the throne such as David and Solomon.

 

Does does that mean that any of the above can be considered a subsituted atonement for the sins of another?

 

Pug, please show me from the OT where it says that in the New Convenant, God will come and take away the sins of mankind by sacrificing himself.

[scotter]

Scotter’s theological view on Christianity

 

Christians,

 

After all the posts, I would also like to share with you my view on Christianity.

 

For those who know me well enough here, that I am a God believer also. Ok, here it is.

 

I see Christianity is a religious structure of God and man, Heaven and Hell, sin and salvation. In this religious structure, the Christian honestly, sincerely believes in Jesus, who died for his/her sins, he is justified by faith through grace of God, he is saved. That he believes he would go to Heaven after he dies, and eternal hell fire is punishment for sinners, non-believers.

 

I believe if you believe Jesus as the Messiah, repent your sins before God, you reach God; or if you wish to counter, Christianity is a religion that God reaches out to man, fine. Christianity is not an empty shell though, that you believe Jesus died for your sins, and Jesus did. You believe Hell exists, and Hell does. (--- if you choose to see divinity in man, you are with God; if you choose not to see divinity in man, you are not with God, and not being with God is equivalent of being in Hell – Hell does exist.) You believe the Christian tenets, like 300+ OT prophecies fulfilled in Jesus as the Messiah, original sin, final judgment and more……, and I believe you shall reach God --- Christianity is true in this sense. An observant Christian is righteous before God. That your prayers get answered in the name of Jesus, great.

 

Billions of Christians are not believing a lie. I believe there is divinity in New Testament and Christianity - I go so far as to say Jesus is the business between God and the Christians, I do not interfere the relationship between God and you, nor do I wish to de-convert you. Sri Ramakrishna (don’t take that I am a Hindu though) said even one sees divinity in the ordinary, and he sees God. As a myth or a historical person or the Messiah to the Christians – Jesus is no ordinary. Can one not see divinity in Jesus then?

 

I believe God perhaps designates you as a Christian (a slightly modified Calvinist pre-supposition theory), believing Jesus/Christianity is the ONLY way to Heaven, to reach God, so you don’t waste your time swinging back and forth in searching, in anguish…..one heart, one mind, one Triune God.

 

Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) – Christian apologetics in defending their one true religion.

Paul says, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8) – Christian position towards Islam.

John says, “No one who denies the Son has the Father“ (1 John 2:23) - certain Christian position towards Judaism (why I use the word ‘certain’: evangelical Christians are somewhat split, some now have the position of leaving the Jews alone, some continue to evangelize to the Jews; but they are united towards their (dis)belief towards Islam.)

 

I believe there is divinity in the scriptures i.e. God’s word, to be precise, God’s word to the Christians in this religious structure of Christianity. They don’t align me into believing exclusivity of Christianity, and I feel fine – see above for my position. I believe God’s will, or in some cases, your freewill makes you believe in its exclusivity; just like some of you believe perhaps Satan pulled some members here out to become ex-Christians, perhaps some members here left Christianity out of freewill.

 

In believing Christianity’s exclusivity, but hey, let’s not forget what Jesus said, the 2nd most important command is loving one another, not picking differences among one another, after the foremost command of loving God. How you handle your belief and treat others within the exclusivity framework is your call, and a test. Even perhaps God designates you as an evangelical Christian who believes in its exclusiveness, I don’t think God designates one to be snobbish, judgmental, resorting to threats of hell fire and violence that one adds to the package.

 

If a friendly Christian tries to share his beliefs with me, I say, “Good for you! You have God, you live a good and decent life worshipping Him.”

I read drug addicts, ex-convicts testimonies that they became Christians and they turned around their lives. I say Praise God. They found new lives in Jesus, in God.

 

So I believe what you believe, and I don’t believe what you believe.

 

Last but not least, my thoughts are that for a Christian who comes here to Ex-C.net, it is not so much to confront the ex-Christians, but to confront himself.

 

I am now working on adapting a document about Isaiah 7:14 and Virgin during the Holidays, after I am done then I continue to post in this thread.

 

Quite interesting this post happens to be on Christmas eve (I didn’t calculate it). Have a good holiday readers.

[pug]

But a human cannot be a substitute atonement for another person's sin.

 

Unless He is the Son of God.

 

 

The title of "son of God" isn't something reserved exclusively for Jesus.

 

Adam was a son of God(Luke 3:38), the angels are sons of God(Job 1:6), Israel is a son of God(Exo 4:22), Satan is a son of God(Job 1:6), as are the kings that sat on the throne such as David and Solomon.

 

Does does that mean that any of the above can be considered a subsituted atonement for the sins of another?

 

Pug, please show me from the OT where it says that in the New Convenant, God will come and take away the sins of mankind by sacrificing himself.

 

This, may help?

 

http://www.eauk.org/contentmanager/content...stevemotyer.pdf

[SkepticOfBible]

But a human cannot be a substitute atonement for another person's sin.

 

Unless He is the Son of God.

 

 

The title of "son of God" isn't something reserved exclusively for Jesus.

 

Adam was a son of God(Luke 3:38), the angels are sons of God(Job 1:6), Israel is a son of God(Exo 4:22), Satan is a son of God(Job 1:6), as are the kings that sat on the throne such as David and Solomon.

 

Does does that mean that any of the above can be considered a subsituted atonement for the sins of another?

 

Pug, please show me from the OT where it says that in the New Convenant, God will come and take away the sins of mankind by sacrificing himself.

 

This, may help?

 

http://www.eauk.org/contentmanager/content...stevemotyer.pdf

 

No it did not.

 

And I asked you specifically about OT not NT.

 

The book of Hebrews is very fine example of where the NT takes the OT writings and twist it to fit their theological preferences.

 

One glaring example is the description of the convenant of Jeremiah

 

Hebrews 8:8

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: [9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a G-d, and they shall be to me a people: [11] And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. [12] For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. [13] In that He saith,! A new [covenant], He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. (KJV)

 

vs

 

Jeremiah 31:31

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their G-d, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (KJV)

 

As the highlighted words the Book of Hebews tries to shows that Isreal broke the convenant of the OT, and because of this God was pissed at them and left them

 

Whereas the Book of Jer shows that even though Isreal broke the convenant of the God, God was still faithful to the nation of Isreal

 

This is an fine example of where the words were changed to alter the meaning of the chapter. This was clearly done with premeditated intent.

 

And right after that the Book of Hebrews make the following claims

 

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear

 

So please tell me how does God's everlasting and perfect laws becomes obsolete?

 

if the NC of Jeremiah has come to pass, then this raises more questions

 

1)Why does the author of the book of Hebrews convientiantly leaves out the following verse when he talks about the NT in Jeriamiah.

 

Jer 31:30

Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.

 

The answer should be pretty obvious. If every man would die for his sins then you would not need Jesus

 

2)Why do christians have to teach other about the law when the text clearly says that God will imprint the laws in our heart

 

3)if the NC has arrived there is no need for missionaries to spread the word, for everyone would already have it directly from God.

 

4)If NC has arrived then why do we have to repent for our sins?

 

5)If NC had already arrived, people would not need to be taught through Bible study or preached to, for every person would know God, just as he promised.

 

For more examples how the book of Hebrew uses this style of verse picking to fit, I present to you the following article

 

Three Key Elements Used In Doctrine Creation

 

Lastly I think it is very circular reasoning to use the NT to prove the validity of it.

 

Here is an interesting article regarding the book of Mormon

The Christian claim of authenticity relies to a large extent on the validity of Old Testament prophecy. It is claimed by Christian apologists that these prophecies, said to have been given by God to selected men long before the birth of Jesus, foretell not only his coming but also many important events which took place during his brief lifetime. So, it’s all a part of God’s grand plan. But what about the prophecies of other holy books and their fulfillment? Are they legitimate? Do they have any claim on authenticity? In that regard, let us take a brief look at one example in the Book of Mormon.

 

In the Book of Mormon there is a very interesting prophecy foretelling its coming. The prediction is spelled out in language far more explicit and conclusive than can be found anywhere in Bible prophecies. In 2nd Nephi 11 verse 125 of the Revised Authorized Version*, it reads as follows:

 

And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall bring forth to you the words of a book, and they shall be the words of them that have slumbered.

 

The book is described in the next seven verses. But, in Nephi 133 we are told:

 

Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered to the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hidden from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it, save it be that three witnesses shall behold it by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

Sure enough, in the front of every Book of Mormon in a section appropriately titled "The Testimony of Three Witnesses" is a statement signed by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris swearing in the name of God that they had seen the actual plates with the engravings on them from which the book came. Prophecy made; prophecy fulfilled.

 

As if that weren’t enough, on the facing page is the testimony of eight additional witnesses who swear, also in the name of God, that they not only saw the golden plates but actually handled them. I understand that at the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah they still have the official signed affidavits of all of these witnesses. They are there for anyone and everyone to see.

 

Now, here is an example of a prophecy made and fulfilled with confirming witnesses. Yet I’m sure that most non-Mormons, particularly fundamentalist Christians, will put no credence what so ever in any of it. In fact, they might even scoff at it. When confronted with this evidence they quickly switch their demeanor from that of a true believer to that of a bonafide skeptic. Yet the evidence here is many times more convincing than anything they can come up with from the Bible. In fact, if Bible believers had anything even close to this confirming evidence they would be shouting it from the roof tops.

 

In reality, however, the Mormon claims of prophecy fulfillment are just as open to question as are any others. The reason is obvious. It is the common sense principal declaring that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. In the matter of a prophetic claim like this one, mere human testimony is inadequate. We are going to demand something far more convincing than a few words written in a book, particularly a book of dubious origin like the Bible. We are sensible enough to realize that there are more reasonable explanations than the one offered. We understand that men can be sincere but honestly mistaken. We understand also that men can deliberately lie.

 

So, I would suggest to those hinging their faith on the claim of Old Testament prophecy fulfillment that they apply the same common sense judgment to their beliefs that they so readily apply to similar claims cited in the holy books of other religions. Just ask yourself, "Why should I believe a thing simply because it is written in a book?"

 

Book of Mormon

[scotter]

Good post, Pritish. Thank you.

 

Christians, think of how you look at the Book of Mormon; then surmise yourself as a Jew, how you look at the NT, and you will have a better understanding of Judaism.

[scotter]

Almah in Isaiah 7:14 and its virginity problem

 

Isaiah 7:14

[Tanakh] לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל .

[KJV] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

[RSV] Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.

[NIV] Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

 

Scotter’s remarks:

 

For Isaiah 7:14, RSV has improved over KJV by translating “almah” as young woman; but NIV version has an evangelical agenda, so they translate as “virgin” again, despite NIV is newer than RSV and regarded as most “scholarly” and updated. Genesis 34:3 also reveals NIV’s inconsistency.

 

Other appearances of almah:

 

1Genesis 24:43:

[Tanakh] הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי נִצָּב, עַל-עֵין הַמָּיִם; וְהָיָה הָעַלְמָה, הַיֹּצֵאת לִשְׁאֹב, וְאָמַרְתִּי אֵלֶיהָ, הַשְׁקִינִי-נָא מְעַט-מַיִם מִכַּדֵּךְ.

[KJV] Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

[RSV] behold, I am standing by the spring of water; let the young woman who comes out to draw, to whom I shall say, "Pray give me a little water from your jar to drink,"

[NIV] See, I am standing beside this spring; if a maiden comes out to draw water and I say to her, "Please let me drink a little water from your jar,"

 

2 Exodus 2:8:

[Tanakh] וַתֹּאמֶר-לָהּ בַּת-פַּרְעֹה, לֵכִי; וַתֵּלֶךְ, הָעַלְמָה, וַתִּקְרָא, אֶת-אֵם הַיָּלֶד.

[KJV] And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother.

[RSV] And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go." So the girl went and called the child's mother.

[NIV] "Yes, go," she answered. And the girl went and got the baby's mother.

 

3 Psalms 68:26 (In the Christian Bible the verse is :25)

[Tanakh] קִדְּמוּ שָׁרִים, אַחַר נֹגְנִים; בְּתוֹךְ עֲלָמוֹת, תּוֹפֵפוֹת.

[עֲלָמוֹת(alamot) is plural of עַלְמָה(almah)]

[KJV] The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.

[The verse is related to Exodus 15:20 describing the women dancing: “Then Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and dancing.”]

[RSV] the singers in front, the minstrels last, between them maidens playing timbrels:

[NIV] In front are the singers, after them the musicians; with them are the maidens playing tambourines.

 

4 Proverbs 30:18~19

[Tanakh] שְׁלֹשָׁה הֵמָּה, נִפְלְאוּ מִמֶּנִּי; וארבע (וְאַרְבָּעָה), לֹא יְדַעְתִּים. דֶּרֶךְ הַנֶּשֶׁר, בַּשָּׁמַיִם-- דֶּרֶךְ נָחָשׁ, עֲלֵי-צוּר;דֶּרֶךְ-אֳנִיָּה בְלֶב-יָם-- וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה.

[KJV] The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.

[RSV] the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a maiden.

[NIV] the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a maiden.

 

5 Song of Songs 1:3:

[Tanakh] לְרֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים, שֶׁמֶן תּוּרַק שְׁמֶךָ; עַל-כֵּן, עֲלָמוֹת אֲהֵבוּךָ.

[KJV] Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.

[RSV] your anointing oils are fragrant, your name is oil poured out; therefore the maidens love you.

[NIV] Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the maidens love you!

 

6 Song of Songs 6:8:

[Tanakh] שִׁשִּׁים הֵמָּה מְלָכוֹת, וּשְׁמֹנִים פִּילַגְשִׁים; וַעֲלָמוֹת, אֵין מִסְפָּר.

[KJV] There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.

[RSV] There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number.

[NIV] Sixty queens there may be, and eighty concubines, and virgins beyond number;

 

This link provides further insight to NIV translation:

http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/it-lied1.htm

 

One with footnotes that tell the source language and documents for the verses. Online Bible and SeedMaster for Windows are both good shareware/freeware computer versions for the pc.

 

The NIV is the worst. Here's why:

 

The Winter 1994 issue of The Skeptical Review has a long article by former minister Dan Barker titled "Did Paul's Men Hear a Voice?" In it he exposes the NIV attempt to eliminate the conflicting accounts between Acts 9:7 and 22:9. He has this to say, quote:

 

The motives of the NIV and LB translations are made clear in the preface to each book. The NIV, translated by a team of evangelical scholars (instigated by the National Association of Evangelicals), is introduced with these words:

 

"We offer this version of the Bible to him in whose name and for whose glory it has been made. We pray that it will lead many into a better understanding of the Holy Scriptures and a fuller knowledge of Jesus Christ the incarnate Word, of whom the Scriptures so faithfully testify."

If there is a contradiction in the New Testament, then it could not "faithfully testify" anything.

 

The NIV team was extremely selective in choosing its scholars:

 

"[T]he translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They believe that it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well-being."

This is not the agenda of a team of objective scholars! This is evangelism.

 

If there is a contradiction in the Bible, the NIV translators, committed a priori to infallibility, could never see it! (Some skeptics might be tempted to use the phrase, "There is none so blind as he who will not see," but I would never stoop to such ad hominem tactics.)

 

The Living Bible does not claim to be a strict translation. It is a paraphrase by Dr. Kenneth Taylor, who admits in the preface:

"...when the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide, along with his sense of 'logic....' The theological lodestar in this book has been a rigid evangelical position."

 

What if an "atheistic" or skeptical organization were to translate the Bible, putting together a team of staunch materialists, systematically excluding conservative or evangelical scholars, announcing a "rigid skeptical position," claiming to be "united in our commitment to the fallibility of the Bible" and advertising the "hope that this translation will lead many astray from faith into a solid doubt of the reliability of Scriptures?" Such prejudice clearly would taint the objectivity of the translation.

 

Scotter adds: Regarding the Hebrew word “almah”: if readers examine the translations, within each citation the three translation versions KJV, RSV and NIV are random; and within each translation version of the 6 citations the translation is also random – but when it comes to Matthew 1:23, all three translations translate as “virgin”. It is selective and almost to the realm of being deceptive.

[scotter]

A technical exposition of Isaiah 7:14 in detail after the KJV/RSV/NIV translation discussion:

(quoted from a previously post in Ex.C)

 

Isaiah 7:14

 

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת | הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל

 

Isaiah 7:14 – Christian Translation (King James Version)

 

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

Isaiah 7:14 – Jewish Translation (Judaica Press)

 

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel

 

The criticial issue in the translations of Isaiah 7:14 is the meaning of the word האלמה (ha'almah). The original Hebrew text, along with a Christian and Jewish translation, is shown above. The word ha'almah and the translations of it are highlighted in red.

 

The word ha'almah is composed of two parts: the prefix ha (ה) and the word almah (עלמה). The prefix ha means "the" in Hebrew; for example, "the man" is ha'adam (האדם). Thus, we see that the translation should be "the almah". To give them credit, some Christian translations include this into their translations, such as the NKJV and NIV, among others.

 

The second part of the word ha'almah is the word almah (עלמה) which most Christian Bibles translate as "virgin". However, almah does not mean "virgin" - it means "young woman". All Jewish Bible translations have rendered almah as either "maiden" or "young woman". Had Isaiah meant the prophecy to be about a virgin, he would have used the word betulah (בתולה), which does mean virgin. almah and betulah are similar to square and rectangle. A betulah may be an almah, but an almah isn't always a betulah.

 

Let us examine some of the the instances where the word almah is found in the Tanakh.

 

Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go!" So the girl went and called the child's mother (Exodus 2:8, Judaica Press)

 

Behold, I am standing by the water fountain. When a maiden comes out to draw [water], I will say to her, 'Please, give me a little water to drink from your pitcher.' (Genesis 24:43, Judaica Press)

 

In both these instances, it cannot be derived whether or not the text is about a virgin with certainty. However, it can be derived in other instances, such as Proverbs 30:19.

 

There are three things that are concealed from me, and four that I do not know; The way of the eagle in the heavens, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman. So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth, and she says, "I have committed no sin." (Proverbs 30:18-20, Judaica Press)

 

We see here that "the way of a man with an almah" is compared to the "way of an adulterous woman". In other words, "the way of a man with an almah" refers to sexual relations before marriage. This shows us that almah can in fact refer to non-virgins.

 

Next, let us examine the ancient Greek translation of the Bible into Hebrew, the LXX. Christians point out that the translators of the LXX (who may or may not have been Jews) translated the word almah as the Greek parthenos (παρθενος) in Isaiah 7:14, and they say that it means "virgin". It is true that parthenos can refer to virgins; however, like almah, it does not neccessarily mean "virgin". For example, in Genesis 34:2 we read that Shechem raped Dinah. However, in the next verse the LXX refers to Dinah as a parthenos, though she was obviously not a virgin.

 

In summary, the Hebrew word almah does not mean virgin, as it is used to describe non-virgins (See Proverbs 30:19, or the LXX of Genesis 34:3), but it can refer to one.

 

Scotter:

Matthew was having the Greek LXX OT in front of him when he was writing the Gospel.

(The real author wasn’t Matthew the tax collector disciple either, it was attributed to him.)

He wrote that Jesus’ background was no ordinary. Jesus was of virgin birth, a spectacular miracle. Then Matthew set out to look for some messages that would strengthen his writings. Matthew’s “prophecy fulfillment” was basically a Jewish midrash practice: when Matthew was writing about the (birth) story of Jesus, he referred to the OT, pasted out and applied Isaiah 7:14 to enhance the background of Jesus who he believed to be Messiah. He wasn’t lying, it was a perfectly legitimate thing to do in that socio-cultural environment.

 

Evangelicals are fixated that the Bible is God’s Word, so it is inerrant, so Isaiah 7:14 must be a prophecy. Based on this faith starting point, we have evangelical apologists find all sorts of ways to explain and defend. It is virtually meaningless based on this pre-convicted starting point. The apologetic materials are good for faith-strengthening amongst Christians themselves only.

 

Christians, you can try doing away with the concept of “God’s Word<->Inerrancy” pair, and come to the understanding that the Bible is divinely inspired, but not for the purpose of illustrating inerrant historical facts. The author-“Matthew” did not set out to write the Gospel to become the Bible either. The gospel writers, and as well other Biblical authors, were more interested in narrating the stories for the messages behind, than for the purpose of history.

[scotter]

Jesus: Da Vinci Code II

 

Initiates into the deepest secrets of British Freemasonry are taught

that Jesus was born with an identical twin, Judas Thomas. Their mother

Mariamne was the granddaughter of King Herod. She was raped by a Roman

soldier named Tiberius Julias Abdes Pathera. In his time, Jesus was known

as Yeshua Ben Panthera.

 

The twins had very different personalities. Judas Thomas was violent

and irresponsible. He led a revolt of Galileans against the Romans. The

Galileans were, in fact, from Gaul, a captured Celtic Roman province with

a highly hostile population. Judas Thomas took his revolt to Rome and in

his 33rd year was ordered crucified by Pontius Pilate. However, invoking

royal Herodian privileges and a large bribe, his uncle Joseph of Arimathea

persuaded Pontius to replace Judas Thomas on the cross with another victim.

Judas Thomas was sold into slavery and died much later in India.

Jesus, meanwhile took his priestly vows seriously. He was cousin to

John the Baptist, the chief Rabbi of the Essenes and second in line to take

over the position. With the executions of John and Judas Thomas, Jesus

became the chief rabbi of the Essenes.

 

During much of his youth, Jesus lived in Britain with his uncle

Joseph of Armithea, who ran a lucrative tin trading business between

Cornwall and Phoenicia. While in Cornwall, Jesus learned the secrets of the

Druids, a Celtic religion which was closely allied with the Essenes. Both

shared a belief in fraternal love and a strict set of fatal punishments for

those who betrayed the mysteries of their faiths. And both demanded a

rigorous three stage initiation process for those wishing to be privy to

those mysteries.

 

Jesus was in Rome at the time of his brother's crucifixion. He and

his family and followers escaped the city in the wake of the crackdown on

Zealots following Judas Thomas's revolt. Most went to Marseilles and from

there spread throughout Gaul and Britain. Jesus and his wife fled to Britain.

Yes, wife. According to British Freemasonry, he had four of them.

His first, a Nabatean named Cypros produced five children, the most famous

being Caradoc, a future king who would fight Rome with savage success.

But it was the second, Mary Magdelene who was even more significant.

Her father was an early British Celtic king and she a Celtic princess.

Their children and all their descendants produced the British royal

lineage. With this marriage, Jesus became a Celtic royal and he was given a

suitable new royal name, Jesus Cunobeline.

 

Shortly after his arrival in Britain, Jesus Cunobeline and his

family were given royal jurisdiction over a huge tract of land in southern

Wales. It is for this reason that the Prince Of Wales is considered a

direct anscestor of the first king of modern Wales, Jesus Cunobeline, with

privileges that extend to all of Judaism and Israel.

 

Just before Emperor Claudius attacked Britain, Jesus abdicated his

crown to his son Caradoc, who defeated the Romans at every turn. But

through trickery, he and his father, Jesus Cunobeline were captured and

shipped in shackles to Rome. Caradoc appealed to the Roman Senate for

clemency and was granted it on condition that Britain never fought Rome on

its soil again. He accepted the proviso and he and his entourage were given

a palace of their own. Jesus lived there for seven years.

 

Then he sailed to Egypt to learn the secrets of the Egyptian mystery

schools. He was an honored student and soaked in the secret handshakes,

cryptic messages and graduated revelations. The Christianity of Jesus

became Freemasonry.

Jesus wanted to share his new complete Essene/Druidic/Essene

religion and that proved his undoing. He was stoned to death in London,

aged 63, for betraying his vows and revealing the secrets of the mystery

schools.

 

However, back in Rome, presbyters had combined the lives of Jesus

and Judas Thomas to create a rapidly growing religion. The British-born

Roman emperor Constantine of York, a direct descendant of Jesus, and his

mother Helena saw a great advantage in spreading a publicly accepted story

of Jesus to create unity in the empire, while keeping the true story alive

amongst the most trusted of British royalty and their closest allies.

Constantine gathered a British army and smashed his way to Rome.

Shortly after, in 330, he convened a conference of presbyters in Nicaea to

unify Christianity. Final gospels were voted on and a New Testament

created. But to assure that his empire's newly official religion never

forgot the Israelite roots of Jesus and the British royal line, Constantine

tacked the Jewish scriptures onto the New Testament.

As far as British freemasonry is concerned, they are both the true

Jews and true Christians. This, they reason, is the right that comes with

knowing the secret truth of Jesus.

 

-----

 

Evangelicals, after reading this story, you may exclaim, “Outrageous! Outrageous! Who could believe such thing about Jesus? Any proofs? Any historical documents?....”

 

Christians, I shall agree with you, this story is outrageous.

 

The main purpose for this post is for you to mediate through your experience. Let’s go back to the doctrine of Virgin Birth – in terms of reason and rationality measurement, how and why do you believe the Virgin Birth?

 

Now you would insist that you believe the Virgin Birth is true…Hm….yes….exactly….that is exactly what I like you to go through. I like you to personally experience, and examine how your mind switches from one frame to another in the blink of an eye.

 

No, there is no need to do apologetics for either the doctrine of Virgin Birth, or your believing the Biblical version about Jesus is true and refusing to believe the other version; but if you like to do it, I like for you to capture that conscious moment of standing and defending it when you are just presented with the question of Virgin Birth, after you freshly rejected the above other version of Jesus’ story.

 

And there is something I like to add: some of you evangelicals claim that we are outrageous because we Ex-C members no longer believe the Virgin Birth.

 

.

 

 

Now, the technical exegesis:

 

Matthew was modeling his Messiah after the Old Testament. He was not interested in presenting history, but more interested in accentuating the person Jesus he believed to be Messiah. He was NOT lying, it was just an acceptable practice in that socio-cultural environment.

 

Recalling the story of Sarah? Abraham’s wife. Sarah gave birth to Isaac in old age. The miracle of Virgin Birth resembled the old-aged birth miracle. Matthew wanted to emphasize the special status of Jesus and even more, the divinity and purity of Jesus, he opted to model the birth of Jesus after the commonly known Mithras’. Cases for more OT resemblance? How Pharaoh had ordered that all male children born to the Hebrew slaves should be drowned in the river (Ex. 1:22) and how Herod killed the first born hoping to wipe out Jesus.

 

The two family trees by Matthew and Luke: Matthew constructed the family tree to show Jesus is from the house of David, Messiah of Israel; Luke traced all the way back to Adam – Luke meant to write that Jesus is the Messiah for humanity.

 

So who was Jesus? Actually his genealogy was unknown. Jesus was most probably from Galilee/Nazareth (Matt. 21:11,"The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee"), but the birth stories wrote that he was born in Bethlehem, so Matthew could extract that OT verse as a “prophecy”: Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Jesus was born in Bethlehem out of two different birth story versions because Matthew and Luke wrote that to “fulfill” it.

 

Dear Christians, it is NOT a prophecy and a prophecy fulfilled, it is called “Redaction”.

And Christians, drop the attempt to reconcile Matthew and Luke’s genealogies trusting that “God’s word is inerrant so there must be a way to defend it”. They were meant by the individual Gospel writers to present their theologies, they were NOT meant to reconcile.

 

If your Sunday School teacher and Pastor cannot answer you what is Redaction Analysis, go to the college Religious Studies or Theology Faculty, and audit an introductory NT course.

 

.

[SkepticOfBible]

i am not quite sure, whether you got this from apologetic site or your own thoughts.

 

Now, the technical exegesis:

Matthew was modeling his Messiah after the Old Testament. He was not interested in presenting history, but more interested in accentuating the person Jesus he believed to be Messiah. He was NOT lying, it was just an acceptable practice in that socio-cultural environment.

 

Based on what?What other works do you have where this so-called "practice" is seen. Matthew hijacked many of the verses from the OT to bolster the validity of his messiah. A good eg of this would be hosea 11:1. The UNKOWN author of matthew ripped the OT out of context to make a prophecy, when there was none.

 

Recalling the story of Sarah? Abraham’s wife. Sarah gave birth to Isaac in old age. The miracle of Virgin Birth resembled the old-aged birth miracle. Matthew wanted to emphasize the special status of Jesus and even more, the divinity and purity of Jesus, he opted to model the birth of Jesus after the commonly known Mithras’. Cases for more OT resemblance? How Pharaoh had ordered that all male children born to the Hebrew slaves should be drowned in the river (Ex. 1:22) and how Herod killed the first born hoping to wipe out Jesus.

 

"Typological parallels" and "foreshadowings" can be easily created by simply using whatever scripture remotely relates to a story you are trying to validate. Both Mormons and Islam does the same with their prophets

 

The two family trees by Matthew and Luke: Matthew constructed the family tree to show Jesus is from the house of David, Messiah of Israel; Luke traced all the way back to Adam – Luke meant to write that Jesus is the Messiah for humanity.

Which BTW contradict, and both Genealogy disproves Jesus as a valid king messiah. Both of these genealogy contradict the genelogy given in 1 Chron 3:5-24

 

Genealogical Scams and Flimflams(Jewish Site

 

So who was Jesus? Actually his genealogy was unknown. Jesus was most probably from Galilee/Nazareth (Matt. 21:11,"The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee"), but the birth stories wrote that he was born in Bethlehem, so Matthew could extract that OT verse as a “prophecy”: Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Jesus was born in Bethlehem out of two different birth story versions because Matthew and Luke wrote that to “fulfill” it.

 

Read Micah 5:2 carefully. It isn't talking about a town but of a tribe. This prophecy was fulfilled by someone else already.

 

http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/j4j_no.html#Micah

 

"If the verse does not refer to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, who does it refer to?" Frankly, asking that question reveals unfamiliarity with the Hebrew Scripture or Jewish history. From Bethlehem comes one of the greatest and most famous rulers of Israel -- King David. The verse may indeed be messianic, refering to Messiah through his ancestor David (similar to Isaiah's reference to David's father, Jesse, to indicate the Davidic line). Or the prophet may be referring to David himself.

 

.

[scotter]

Hi readers,

 

i am not quite sure, whether you got this from apologetic site or your own thoughts.

 

.....from apologetic sites that say Jesus is not the Messiah?

 

The previous particular post itself is a synthesis from this book and other studies:

 

Historical Introduction to NT by Bart Ehrman

 

Strongly recommended to everyone. Buy or borrow from the library. If you live in a metro area, the metro reference library would have, or the college library religion section.

 

Some are personal reflections: say, if historicity of Jesus is unknown, naturally his genealogical background, historically speaking, is unknown.

 

Based on what?What other works do you have where this so-called "practice" is seen. Matthew hijacked many of the verses from the OT to bolster the validity of his messiah. A good eg of this would be hosea 11:1. The UNKOWN author of matthew ripped the OT out of context to make a prophecy, when there was none.

 

Skeptic, the ripping of OT text, attributing authorships....The practice of this theological justification is called midrash. You have illustrated an example of this practice: The real author of Gospel of Matthew was not Matthew, but attributed to Matthew the Tax Collector. Another example is the Torah wasn't written by Moses, but the Priestly Writers (P) and Yahwists Writers (W) "backwrote" the Genesis, Exodus..., and so on during the Babylonian Exilic Period, and attributed the Torah to authorship of Moses.

 

I thought you knew my position all along.

 

----- Continue the thread with a new discussion.

 

How Hebrew theology got drifted away into Greek Platonic thinking, thus being paganistic to original Hebrew context.

 

Refer to the following OT verses:

 

Proverb 8:22-23

The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.

Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.

 

Sirach 24:3, 9

3: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist.

9: From eternity, in the beginning, he created me, and for eternity I shall not cease to exist.

 

Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-2

"O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things by thy word,

and by thy wisdom hast formed man, to have dominion over the creatures thou hast made

 

Who is ‘me’ here? Jesus? Do they remind you of Jesus of John 1:1? And how similar they are with the image of John 1:1 --- “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Ans. It is the wisdom of God, which is begotten of God.

 

John the Jew was employing the Jewish theological writing style: personification of expression/thought/wisdom of God. When he was writing in Greek, the closest vocabulary he came close to is Logos, a Greek word (masculine), further down it was translated as ‘Word’ or equiv. in English and other languages. See how the translations got drifted further and further away from the original Hebrew context. Jesus was a Jew.

 

In between the two adjacent paragraphs, I insert this

 

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? (thanks to member RHEMtron)

http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

 

From the resurrection versions evolvement, we can deduce that other activities of Jesus in the gospels were embellished in times also. So you know how the gospels evolved before they came to the Church Fathers’ readership. And they developed theologies on the “finalized” versions of the gospels. Evaluating this economy in the historical-critical perspective, this movement of dictation is very problematic; and in the theological perspective, Christians, it is a matter of faith that providence was present there when the Church Fathers were understanding the embellished, infused, thickened gospels.

 

Moving to the Church Fathers of the early Christian centuries. For example, when the gentile Greek Church Fathers were appropriating the verses, they adopted Greek Platonic thinking, because that was the only tool available to them in their environment. As they built and built, they decided that Jesus is God (re: Nicene Council 325 CE) --- and the rest is history. After two thousand years of construction built on the initial Greek Platonic instead of Hebrew Rabbinic starting point, there is no turning back.

 

This happening is both unhelpful and helpful:

- unhelpful to the cause of Judaism and the image of God, in this metamorphosis, or should one say deterioration, of God and divinity from monotheistic Hebrew to Platonic paganistic deviation

- helpful to the cause of Christianity and the gentile public to know God in the Platonic mediation, makes Christianity trans-cultural

 

Complementary point:

-It can be proposed that if Jesus was Greek literate, Jesus himself could have been exposed to and exhibited Greek Platonic thinking.

 

1. Geographically speaking: in Northern Palestine the region of Galilee, it is more Hellenized that the South / Jerusalem (par Alexandrian conquest 4 Century BC). There were many who knew Greek. Jesus had his ministry and miracles in Galilee, he should know Greek.

 

2. Linguistically speaking, there are two nouns that draw attentions from scholars.

Mark 7:24-30:

24: And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house, and would not have any one know it; yet he could not be hid.

25: But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet.

26: Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

27: And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

28: But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

29: And he said to her, "For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter."

30: And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the demon gone.

 

(Linguistic exegesis by the verses themselves, putting aside the issue of Gospel origins.)

Jesus used κυναρια (proun. kynaria) for “dog” the noun. In Greek, κυναρια means “little dog” (plural). Here Jesus did not use κυνος (proun. kynos), which is a term usually refers to dog (singular). In that socio-cultural environment, dogs are considered near wild beasts, most of them loitering in the streets or the suburbs eating rotten leftovers. If Jesus had used κυνος the images the word brought out were not appropriate in the social dynamics, therefore Jesus used the term κυναρια “little dog” in conversing with the woman. The images were then lovely little pet dogs competing for thrown food by the master’s table. However. linguists acknowledge that there is no such equivalent term for “little dog” in Aramaic. That said, at least for this term itself, it is not likely the Gospel author translated Aramaic into Greek. Further, it suggests that Jesus knew the differences between the two terms, he used κυναρια and not κυνο. Jesus knew Greek.

 

It could be alternatively proposed that Jesus knew Greek and had exposure to Greek thinking….so the Church Fathers was only picking up the lines.

 

Still Christians you have to carefully evaluate this critical starting point established by the patristic Church Fathers are helpful or not. Verses such as “The Father and I are one”, “Before Abraham, I am”, in Platonic interpretation, suggest that Jesus had a very intimate relationship with God and he articulated his relationship with God in Platonic terms (if you interpret in Hebrew/Essene terms, it came to similar connotation). Think a water drop merges with the ocean (Platonic theology summarized in 8 words).

 

- another step in theology building: Church Fathers read that

Matt 11:27 All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

John 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.

They understood the verses as suggesting that Jesus is the wisdom of God made flesh.

(Refer to the above OT verses and the notion of wisdom near the beginning of this post.)

 

- another step in theology building: Church Fathers were looking for clues - Jesus forgave sins, that only God of Israel can do, so Jesus is also God of Israel.

 

Scotter’s counter-questions:

– Or that Jesus believed he could forgive sins?

- Or that the gospel writers believed that he could forgive sins?

- Or that the gospel writers “backwrote” the gospels to express their already established theologies?

- all and all, the Church Fathers did not have modern tools – archaeology discovery and technology, textual criticism and redaction analysis….

 

Would post some more for next time.

[SkepticOfBible]

Yes, I heard ths arguement on from triv on this forum. i didn't know what this was in the beginning so I asked Zvi from MESSIANIC VERSES IN TANACH and Brad from Agnostic Review of Christiantiy

 

Here are their comments

 

ZVI

 

A midrash is a story on a Biblical theme that makes a point but which need not always be literally true. I'm not sure how he's using the word pesher, but it has a similar meaning of explanation.

 

Here is a short midrash: Torah says that after the earlier days of creation, G-d saw that it was good, but after the sixth day, he saw it was very good. Why? Because Adam and Eve had made love, and that made it very good.

 

So the midrash gives the writer's view of how G-d looks at marital love. Sort of sweet, I think. But it doesn't misquote Torah.

 

Fundamentalist Evangelizing Christians (FECs) are ingenious if nothing else.

 

If that's his argument, he has at least two problems. The main one is that a midrash discusses a scripture, but it doesn't misquote scripture. It isn't a matter of taking scripture out of context or finding eschatological meanings where none were originally intended. It's a matter that Matthew

uses phrases like 'in the words of the prophet' or 'to fulfill the scripture,' and then doesn't have the correct words or scripture. No matter what spin you put on it, you end up saying that this divinely inspired book (in their eyes) can't get its quotes right.

 

The second problem is less serious. Your poster assumes in his argument that Jesus actually was divine and did miraculous things like rising from the dead. It's a circular argument - that is: we know Jesus was divine because he did things mentioned in the Hebrew scripture that we know about

because the disciples saw him do divine things. This is less serious because it's internally onsistent, but it undercuts any attempts of the missionary to convince others.

...........

Pesher interpretation strikes the modern reader as arbitrary and even dishonest, but it must be remembered that this was a common method of interpretation in second-Temple Judaism. Perhaps one could say that pesher interpretation is as much theological assertion as it is interpretation, so that one's acceptance of the validity of a pesher interpretation depends on one's assessment of the spiritual credibility and authority of the interpreter.”

 

It seems pretty factual to me. The second temple period was one of great turmoil, and potential messiahs – i.e. kings of the Davidic line who would lead the country back to peace and sanity – were on every corner. The second sentence – about pesher interpretation depending on your assessment of whoever is making the interpretation – is well put.

.........

The Jewish response identifies and addresses the problems created by this explanation. For starters, the notion of a "dual prophecy" is unbiblical, and it appears to have been crafted in order to explain away a serious theological problem: No hint or evidence of a second fulfillment exists anywhere in this chapter or elsewhere in the Book of Isaiah

This sounds right. There are many verses with more than one meaning, but that isn't the same as more than one prophecy.

 

 

BRAD

 

The NT tried to make connections where none existed and ignored the failure of Jesus to fulfill the role of a king messiah. The whole idea of a second coming is the systematic rationalization of a messianic failure. However, by claiming use of "midrash" and "pesher" interpretation, it opens the door for just about any connection to be deemed appropriate. In other words, creative license allows for "typological" interpretations to be evidence of the authority of Jesus.

 

Once that door is opened, anything goes and even Martha Stewart becomes authorized by God.

The beauty of it is that you can't prove it wrong.

 

I can write a story using "midrash" to validate that Jesus was Lucifer, and bent on overthrowing Yahweh. But you know how Christians would scream at that idea. Fundamentalists stress the literal interpretation of scripture as long as it supports their views.

 

If it serves their agenda to employ typological or non-literal interpretations, then they'll set aside their strict literal stipulations.

 

See this article on midrash:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/midrash.html

but I have no idea by what he means by Pesher and midrash interpretation?And how would you rebut this claim?

 

Basically, he's saying that creative license allows for any Christian interpretaion to be rendered as proper. Once that door is opened, then there isn't much you can say. But if that's true, then it works both ways.

 

It can be shown that Jesus is the rebellious figure in Isa 14:12.

I used it myself in regard to Isa 8:20.

(Paul was a false teacher and Christians have no light in them(Isa 8:20).)

I can make just as good a case for that as a Christian can make for Jesus "fulfilling" Hosea 11:1.

 

I still haven't drawn my own conclusion on this, since this is new arguement for me. But to me the blunder that was made on the "Donkey" prophecy is a big sign to me that Matthew wasn't a Jew or Jewish expert

[scotter]

On “backwriting” of the Gospels:

 

- Jesus death was very devastating to his followers who believed he was the one who would deliver Israel. How then could he have been nailed dead on the Cross? So people contemplated, somebody had a breakthrough solution and back deduced that “Jesus died for our sins”, although human sacrifice is never a Judaism element.

(Christians, like I said, your religion stresses about faith, and I do not deny your faith. And it is a matter of faith that you believe divine spark entered this somebody to cultivate this theology.)

This somebody could be the author/compiler of Letters of the Hebrews. See the Hebrews Epistle (particularly read the opening brief introduction available in some detailed Bibles), and then read the Gospel of Matthew, and rethink on the “prophecies fulfilled” that Matthew constantly stressed and reminded readers of. In the mindset of Matthew his methods were justified if they helped to affirm Jesus was the Messiah.

(Christians, I strongly suggest you read this ‘Jesus as Messiah’ thread thoroughly before you start reading Gospel of Matthew.)

 

Take the Gospel of Matthew as example, try, just try, to read with this perspective. And try with other gospels if you have time:

 

suppose there was a decided, pre-meditated theology that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and the life, sayings, death of Jesus were written to fit this

e.g. –

- Early Christians read Isaiah 53 and found new light, reinterpreting as Jesus in prophecy

- possibly “backwrote” Jesus understood himself was to fulfill Isaiah 53;

- Jesus’ sorrowful prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (who and where was the witness to record Jesus’ sorrows, if Jesus was alone in the Garden with his disciples gone?);

- the gospel writers had believed Jesus is the Messiah, their No. 1 “idol”, so is it natural that they projected their ideal images of their Messiah to Jesus and backwrote his miracles, his healings, his powers and his authority

 

.....and not in the conventional perspective for a non-believer, after reading the gospels, then gets to believe, or at least acknowledge the Christian theology that Jesus died for your sins.

 

All and all, what I am trying to say is, it is not because a lot of things that Jesus said made the Gospel writers believed Jesus as the Messiah; but the writers had believed and decided that Jesus as the Messiah, and backwrote things what Jesus said and did to articulate their projections. (incl. edit, subtract, add, borrow myths and OT verses extraction & justification)

 

Try it and see what do you comprehend from it?

 

Examples of what we can extract if reading the gospels in “backwriting” perspective:

 

Example 1 – constitutions of images of the covenants of the Last Supper

The Last Supper and the Eucharist. Jesus and the apostles were having a (Jewish) Passover dinner, signifies that Jesus is Son of David (re: Davidic Covenant). And the gospel writers were trying to constitute and recap what happened in the last Passover Supper.

 

The 2 main Christian theological foundations established from the Supper:

1. Jesus commanded his apostles to observe intimately with his blood and body

2. the New Covenant “this is the new covenant in My blood” (Lk 22:20).

 

parallel with OT –

1. Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people;

and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Ex 24:6-8)

2. Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new

covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

 

Do you see the theological designs of the gospel writers for the Supper? It is an infusion of the Sinai Covenant, Davidic Covenant and the Jeremiah ‘New Covenant’.

 

Does the picture present itself clearer to you? The pre-establishment is “Jesus died for our sins”. Then the gospel writers related this agenda to the OT images of covenants: the Passover wine related to blood, the matzoth related it to offering.

 

Side proof example of pre-meditated agenda:

Mark 14:12 “And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb….”

This is not even (Jewish) theologically correct – 1st day of Unleavened Bread is not the time for the Passover paschal lamb. It demonstrates that Mark was not too familiar with authentic Jewish customs, but he meant to present his theology and present the lamb image as a “prologue” for the matzoth as Jesus’ body in the Supper. If we want to use light/serious words, we can say Mark was adjusting/twisting certain establishments, attributing it to what Jesus did, to accommodate his gospel agenda.

 

So does that lead us to the notion that gospel writers were possibly adding and attributing things to what Jesus said?

 

And a side note: Mark’s is the earliest gospel (c. 70 CE). Matthew and Luke adapted Mark’s as groundwork (- Do you see an issue here?), and added more with their own and from the Q source. Luke also adopted Paul’s themes. This is the most adopted view by Biblical scholars. And the earliest date of Epistle to the Hebrews is speculated to be (c. 60 CE). – Do you see a clue here?

 

Example 2 – embellishment of the resurrection

The resurrection: I trust the disciples had a powerful experience (And Jewish context of resurrection is not physical). The time when the gospel writers narrated the stories of Jesus by pen, the various oral versions spread to one another were thickened and thickened. The penned versions were to narrate the pieces and versions the gospel writers heard, embedded with their own agendas and theologies to their congregations. The resurrection became their history, this is their definition of history.

 

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?

http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

<< read this again if you haven’t done so from above. (Thanks again to member RHEMtron)

btw fundamentals, if you really want to do fundamental theology, you have to construct a time machine, teleport yourself back to that time and that place in Palestine, live and dine with Jesus, record everything he says, and you can do 100% pure fundamental Christianity.

 

<< see, this backwriting is a conventional religious practise at that time traceable back to OT as precedent. There is a parallel activity in OT just as the Priestly writers and Yahwist writers backwrote the Torah, God, Genesis during the Babylonian Exilic period according to their agenda. Christians, the Torah was not written by Moses. If a modern Judaism Rabbi talks about Moses being the author of the Torah in a synagogue, it is already understood amongst the audience that he is talking about the tradition.

 

- The disciples went out to spread the good news of Jesus with utmost zeal after that powerful experience. The stories started to circulate in verbal and written forms. Thus from there the religious structure of Christian theology rooted and formed, also with the zealous missionary aid of Paul based on his own encounter experience.

 

Thus the life and death of a revolutionary young Jewish Rabbi became the ultimate, crystallized symbol of salvation in this religious structure of Christianity.

 

Ponder on this phrase again: “From Jesus to Christ”.

 

.

[scotter]

If Jesus is a historical person, and if Jesus is human, he had to have a biological father. The following provides an academic archaeological clue.

 

Celsus and Kelsos’ original works against Christianity were lost (searched and burned by Christians) e.g. Celsus <<The True Doctrine>> [178 CE], only due to Origen’s refutations against them the clues of Celsus’ writings were preserved. Origen in the eight books against Celsus, <<Contra Celsum>> [248 CE], Chapter 1, sentences 28-38 mentioned that Celsus quoted a Jew. The Jews basically described:

 

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by working with her hands [spinning]. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthera]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain magical powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers…..[scotter: and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god, also probably because of his mother’s reputation issue.]

 

Where and when of this version of Jesus’ life originated from is not traceable, and there are no other additional historical materials to support it. The Talmud also says the biological father of Jesus is Pandera (or Panthera), but the validity of the statement is controversial. Talmud’s is probably the derogatory version against Jesus (it could be another person, the Chrestos that Suetonius raised --- but not Christos) as a natural consequence of then Jewish sufferings in Christians’ hands.

 

In 1966, Italian theologian Marcello Craveri authored <<La Vita di Gesu>>, and quoted the Talmud. He stated that academicians were researching the information, and discovered that the full name of the Roman Centurion is Abdes Pantera, born in Sidon, Phoenicia. Pantera stationed with Tiberius Julius’ army in Palestine, until 9 CE.

 

Craveri’s research link is from this tombstone discovered around 1859/1860 in Bingerbrück:

 

This tombstone is kept at the Bingen Museum.

 

particular details

 

Tombstone inscriptions:

Tib(erius) Iul(ius) Abdes Pantera /

Sidonia ann(orum) LXII /

stipen(diorum) XXXX miles exs(!) /

coh(orte) I sagittariorum /

h(ic) s(itus) e(st)

 

Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, born in Sidonia, age 62, served 40 years, First Archer Cohort

 

Not sure about EXS: if it is EXSIGNIFER, that means “first archer”, considering he served 40 years, this is a higher possibility. In addition, that the name “Tiberius Julius” was addressed before his name, described that him or his father was bestowed Roman citizenship during the reign of Tiberius Julius, 14-37 CE; Sidonia should be Sidon, the then metropolitan of Syria; Abdes (Abd – servant, Abdes – Servant of Isis); the then meaning of the name Pantera is controversial – probably because of the panther like uniforms that the archers wore, an honourable address in the army, or it is a surname (there are Romans with surname Panthera, Pantera being the Latin form of Pantheras). His associated First Archer Cohort stationed in Bingen somewhere in 40-70 CE. Panthera served in the 1st cohort of archers for 40 years during the beginning of the Roman Empire's Imperial Period (25 BCE - 197 CE)

 

Craveri said Pantera stationed in Palestine until 9CE. How did Craveri deduce the year 9 CE? Not sure. One thing we know is, Hermann(Arminius) defeats the Romans at the battle of Teutoberger Wald in 9CE. Pantera and his troop stationed in Bingerbrück around 40CE. If he died around the time he stationed in his new base, or say around 40CE, he was about 15-18 at the time Jesus was born. [scotter: !]

 

German theologian Hans-Peter Hasenfratz was interviewed on German TV2 on January 22, 2006, “Anti-Christian philosopher such as Celsus declared that Jesus was a privately born, his father was a Syrian mercenary. So did the Talmud, there was a Jesus Panthera mentioned.……on how to picture and thread the historical information, there is a room for construction. If Jesus is not the Son of God, then a historian would say, we probably found a clue of who Jesus’ father was.”

 

Christians might not have been aware of this archaeological information about the Roman soldier Panthera; and if certain Christian scholars / theologians do have, despite this information is a powerful apologetic chip in proving the historical Jesus, for 150 years since the tombstone’s discovery they opt not to touch on it – because this chip is a double-edged sword – it also suggests that Jesus is a man of an earthly father, not Son of God, not the Conception by the Holy Spirit in Virgin Mary’s womb. Fair enough, this information may be helpful to those who inquire that Jesus is a myth.

 

Christians, you evangelize about the probability of “300+ prophecies” fulfilled by Jesus (for the fulfillment of the prophecies discussion, see previous posts of this same thread). Now, what are the chances that Talmud mentioned a soldier’s name, Celsus mentioned Jesus’ father being a soldier from Syria, who is highly probable biological father of Jesus, and Panthera’s biography and tomb were found?

 

Now that we have more physical clues about Jesus’ father being Panthera than being God.

 

Christians, I know what you may be tempted to say: “existence of a Roman soldier Panthera, with Celsus’ and Talmud’s references, did not prove his fathership of Jesus”…..Even the skeptic is not asking you to provide archaeological evidence of the Virgin Birth, the skeptic would sit down in the plush sofa and relax, lit a pipe and wait for you to say it, and he would watch how Christians have it both ways embracing apologetics in citing Tacitus, Pliny that “they mentioned Christians prove Jesus’ historical existence.”

 

.