Just like God appeared to Abraham before the judgement of Sodom and Gommorah, the Messiah was The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, in human form.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?
- Thread starter ayin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jesusisyhwh
Just like God appeared to Abraham before the judgement of Sodom and Gommorah, the Messiah was The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, in human form.
A very Roman Anglo-Saxon interpretation that does not remotely reflect the Hebrew text.
How is the New Testament Roman Anglo Saxon? Some people think Easter is pagan but they still celebrate ressurection Sunday.
The New Testament was compiled, edited, redacted, and certified by Rome (Roman, Greek and Hellenist Church Fathers), and became the state religion of Rome. Incarnate Gods are Roman religious cultural belief, and most definitely not a Hebrew belief that would be grounded in the Hebrew Tanakh.
Yes, Christmas and Easter are modeled around Roman and European pagan holidays.
Messianic Jews and even some Christians don't celebrate Christmas and Easter.
Easter is not a Pagan holiday at all. It's a Christian interpretation of Pesach. It celebrates Jesus' resurrection. Maybe you think all of its modern trappings have been around since forever, like a lot of folks think for some reason, when we see the earliest Christians celebrating this holiday and looking to the Jews for the date of Pesach so they knew when to celebrate Easter, or Pascha as it's commonly known in the rest of Europe.
This 'all Christian holidays are Pagan' nonsense really needs to stop. Easter is the most Christian holidays there is and it's modelled after a Jewish one. Hardly Pagan.
So the eggs come from the eggs used in the Seder in memory of the Korban Chagigah? And the rabbits allude to the Germanic/Ashkenazi Jag den Has/YaKNHaZ pun?
Tzephanyahu
Member
The differences between the Masoretic and Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls aren't limited to a hand full of references. The internet is flooded with this information.
However, if you want a a video presentation detailing the significant changes and quotes from witnesses in the early church attesting to these changes, you can watch this, if you have the time.
There is only one God, that is true. But His Son carries His authority. This is reflected in the power of sharing the Name, Yahweh, which in that culture means sharing the same power/authority. But there is only one God, Yahweh.
This is not too dissimilar to the Kings of Israel who would have a coregency with their son. Their son would effectively be king and wield all the power and authority as king, all would answer to him as the king, but the true king would be the father himself.
Besides, the term Elohim itself is, of course, plural.
They're just a modern thing (or Mediaeval thing), really. Just a more basic representation of new life. It's an obvious symbol to go for, tbh. I just don't understand why folks think that because something is celebrated this way now, that's how it always was celebrated.
Last edited:
Doesn't change anything 98%+ of all Christians celebrate Christmas and Easter.
I have studied the Dead Sea scrolls in this down right false. The video is manipulatively false. The differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls do not represent your claim. The Dead Sea scrolls are closer to the Hebrew Tanakh than the Western Old Testament.
Don not argue by web link. It was very long, wordy, rambling and did not describe changes in the scripture, but interpretations of the scripture. Be specific of the changes you claim.
True
Jesus denied this in every synoptic gospel.
Comparing the hierarchy of Israel's royalty gets you nowhere. It still remains the Tanakh proper translation and context considers Adonai and Elohim to singular One and only One Monotheistic God.
Adonai is also plural, but your neglecting your Hebrew. Plural in this case DOES NOT translate to more than one. That is emphasis in this thread that the Western use of Hebrew is simply flat wrong.
Last edited:
To a degree true Easter itself celebrated on the designated day is not a Pagan holiday. Eggs of course are a common part of the celebration of spring in many cultures, but not bunnies. I believe the belief in the physical Resurrection in the Spring and an incarnate God has Pagan origins not remotely associated with Hebrew origins. Though Christmas is most definitely a Pagan Holiday.
Last edited:
Watched it (well, most of it. Skimmed the rambles of the last 25 minutes or so). Here's what I found problematic:
20:58-21:18 - he speaks about Aquila's Greek Targum as though as though Aquila literally changed words in the text to fit the Jewish view and contradict the Christian view. I cannot emphasize enough how this is not evidence that the text of the Tanach was changed. All it means is that he chose a more literal interpretation (what is known as "p'shat" by Jews) while translating, thus resulting in a Greek translation of Torah that had nothing to do with Jesus, contrary to the Christian eisegesis of verses which is reading Jesus into quite literally everything.
26:13-27:58 - he brings Justin Martyr's quoting a Septuagint of Ezra which supposedly has the following verse: "And Ezra said to the people, This passover is our Savior and our Refuge; and if ye will be persuaded of it, and let it enter into your hearts, that we are to humble ourselves to him in a sign, and afterwards shall believe in him, this place shall not be destroyed for ever, saith the Lord of Hosts: but if ye will not believe in him, nor hearken to his preaching, ye shall be a laughing-stock to the Gentiles." - the major problem here seems to be Justin's ignorance of the Book of Ezra. There are several dates given in the Ezraic portions of the book (i.e., from when Ezra himself first appears on the scene in ch. 7), but none correspond to the date of Passover itself. The closest is the last event of the book, the culmination of the separation of the Jews from the non-Jewish women, which happened on the 1st of Nissan, some 13 days prior to the preparing of the Paschal sacrifice, which was then eaten that night. Indeed, to use the phrase at the end of this supposed verse "ye shall be a laughing-stock" to think that adding this verse right at the end of the last chapter of Ezra would make any sense, without having prior written that "and then x number of days passed, and Ezra did such and such, and the time of Passover came etc". Either all of these hypothetical verses appeared in that mysterious Septuagint Justin saw and he simply forgot to mention them and brought only the most Christological of them all, or none appeared save for that one that he quoted, and we're left to hold our aching sides while rolling with laughter, or as Torrey in The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge put it in a more kind manner, "This was probably a marginal note added by some early Christian."
31:37-31:53 - sheer ignorance of what the Masoretic Text is. I recommend checking out this brand new post I made about the Masoretic Text. Of course, I'm being nice and giving him the benefit of the doubt that what he said stemmed from ignorance. It is entirely possible that he knows what the MT is and nevertheless decided to provide only the ignorant version of what it is.
35:10-37:23 - claim of a verse that no longer exists in Jeremiah, when in reality it's a combination of translations of Psalm 72:17 and 110:3. See here and the next page.
37:33-38:14 - so we have nothing to go by but Irenaeus's own claim here and a vague partial parallel in Enoch? Yes, I find that very believable. It's pointed out here that this may have been drawn from Proverbs 8:22: "The LORD created me at the beginning of His course As the first of His works of old."
42:58-46:23 - if he can argue that a text that we have no evidence of existing prior to the Church Fathers, and is estimated by some to have been written circa 75 CE, and at the same time also argue that the MT was invented by "the Pharisees" because the oldest MT MS is from the 10th century, then he's a bald-faced hypocrite.
In general, this person seems utterly ignorant of the process of the formation of the Jewish canon. He expects that later texts be included in the canon, when this was not in line with the reasoning of the sages for centuries.
49:53-50:59 - sheer, utter stupidity in this case. The claim of a "missing prophecy in Isaiah 53". All he had to do was flip back to Isaiah 52:13-15 to find his "missing prophecy". Thought this guy was an expert or something.
54:45-55:03 - a parallel to "new name" is in Isaiah 62:2. "Upon the earth" - Psalm 72:17 and Isaiah 65:16 (blessings in the latter, too).
56:31-56:43 - see Isaiah 63:9. I figured this one out by myself, but see here as well. Curiously, resembles a passage from the Haggadah, too.
1:00:41-1:02:43 - I don't get the parallel between Numbers 24:14 and Zechariah 6:12, upon which he bases his claim. I also didn't understand his assumption that the word "east" should be in Zechariah.
In short, I find Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to be not very trustworthy in their abilities to quote scripture, and in some cases, it seems they weren't very knowledgeable of what they were quoting. In other cases, it's entirely possible that they spliced together verses. I don't doubt that there are differences between the various septuagints and the Tanach (and for this I didn't comment on every single example), but I don't see anything here that "proves beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the Jewish sages edited out whole verses from the Tanach. In short, poor, bland missionizing apologetics, and if that's his best, then good luck with that.
Thr first Christians didn't celebrate Christmas or Easter and they were like Messianic Jews.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So?
Jesus purposely appointed the Twelve and game them the power to guide his Church, thus they and their appointees could make and did make decisions. Maybe reread Acts and the Epistles and see how that was set up and conducted.
Tzephanyahu
Member
Thanks for watching @Harel13
@shunyadragon I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas on the Old and New Testament. It also seems your understanding of the original texts and Dead Sea Scrolls has plenty of room for growth. Nevertheless, you seem certain and sure of your opinions, which I suppose has a merit in it's own right. But this isn't really a two-way discussion unfortunately. So we'll both save time if we leave it here. Thanks anyway.
@shunyadragon I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas on the Old and New Testament. It also seems your understanding of the original texts and Dead Sea Scrolls has plenty of room for growth. Nevertheless, you seem certain and sure of your opinions, which I suppose has a merit in it's own right. But this isn't really a two-way discussion unfortunately. So we'll both save time if we leave it here. Thanks anyway.
Christmas was inspired by the holiday Saturnalia.
Any thoughts on my comments?
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
"הוא האלהים" - Singular
Deut 4:35
Deut 4:39
Deut 7:9
2 Sam 7:28
1 King 8:60
Isa 37:16
Isa 45:18
Ezr 1:3
2 Chron 33:13
True, but Christianity has become a Roman Anglo-Saxon religion since.