If Christ wasn't the messiah, what was he?

[rubi]

OK Your point wasn't supportive in its usage, so I understand why giving up is the only solution Maid is always used in context of a young woman, virgin, ready for marriage.

if I understood you correctly, you're saying that phrase 19 and phrase 20 are two separated phrases with no connection between them, correct?
who can you call here to be an external commenter?
I didn't understand the issue with Adam.

 

[rubi]

That doesnt seem to have anything to do with our conversation. Did i miss something?

you queted the entire message, i've brought it to your attention

 

[InChrist]

the native language was Hebrew. I don't know whether they knew to read, though it is highly important to learn Tora. It may cost too much for a poor family

As a Pharisee, I assume Paul knew how to speak and read the Hebrew language.

 

[InChrist]

I think that as an occupied nation while living under a colonoial regeme like the Roman empire, the language spoken by the people was Hebrew but they knew the foriegn toungue. I also think there was massive manipulation by the Romans for it they had a huge interes in upgrading christ to a God level. in order to do that they had to make him messiah.

Seems to me it was a lot of Jewish people who first came to believe Jesus Christ was God, and the promised Messiah, a few hundred years before Rome ever did.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Seems to me it was a lot of Jewish people who first came to believe Jesus Christ was God, and the promised Messiah, a few hundred years before Rome ever did.

Yeah, it happens. Some Muslims took Bahaollah to be a messenger of Allah. In Hinduism, some people take Lekhraj Kirpalani (Brahma Kumaris) to be Lord Brahma and Swami Sahajananda as Lord Vishnu (Swaminarayan). Some consider the rapist Nithiyananda to be Lord Shiva. There is no dearth of gullible people.

 

[Brian2]

Just for the sake of discussion, if Christ wasn't the Messiah, what was he?

A false Christ.
A claimant, but not the Messiah.

 

[RestlessSoul]

the conversation on youtube was except Isaiah 14:7 is there any phrase that shows that the Messiah is the son of God? The reason that I asked this was that I saw that the Christian bible translates wrong the word "העלמה" as "a virgin" and as "the young woman". the answer I got is that it is the only considerable source, which means there was a deception by the people who edited the New Testament which as far as understand were the Romans, and since we know how important it was for them to make Christ God, it makes sense how they would stop at nothing to perfect their ability to have control over the people.

Weren’t the Gospels first written in Koine Greek?

 

[Brian2]

The reason that I asked this was that I saw that the Christian bible translates wrong the word "העלמה" as "a virgin" and as "the young woman".

Matthew would have used "virgin" imo maybe because the Septuagint used "virgin" in it's translation.
Also Matthew, as an apostles of Jesus, would have known that Mary had been a virgin.
Also since the child in Isa 9 is the Messiah (the one who will sit on the throne of David forever and who is called "Mighty God" also (Isa 9:6,7) and because that child is the same as the Isa 7:14 child, the Isa 7:14 child is seen as a reference to a sign of the Messiah and so a legitimate translation of "virgin" would be appropriate instead of the "young maiden" translation. (and I have heard that "almah" can be used for "virgin" depending on the context it is used in.

 

[rubi]

Weren’t the Gospels first written in Koine Greek?

I don't know. I do think, they were highly manipulated. click here

 

[metis]

the estimation are about how much of the people remembered their teaching, if they had any. so while as children might study the holy language, they might forget if they didn't dealt with it in their day to day life. on the other hand it was widely spoken, so even if you studied as a kid and since then you didn't read a word, you still spoke it, so it might be different then today with you and latin, for example. I think there was a difffernce in periods of time in history

Most theologians believe that so much of what we read in scriptures was originally part of "oral tradition" that was passed on down the line. Therefore, the position of inerrancy makes no sense but so is the opposite of pooh-pooing what we read as being totally fiction.

 

[metis]

In the question of "If God made Adam" - your point says they are an evolution the Jewish posts said otherwise.

Assuming that Adam was an actual person, which is dubious to say the least, the question should be how did God make Adam? IOW, as you know, the ToE does not in any way negate God's creative powers.

 

[metis]

As a Pharisee, I assume Paul knew how to speak and read the Hebrew language.

He was Greek educated, so yes he likely could.

 

[metis]

Weren’t the Gospels first written in Koine Greek?

Depends on where one draws the line because it is entirely possible that at least some accounts may have been originally written in Aramaic. Since we have no such copies, we can't say for sure one way or the other.

Koine Greek was the intellectual language in the Mediterranean region, so using that as the main medium made sense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the position of inerrancy makes no sense but so is the opposite of pooh-pooing what we read as being totally fiction.

I agree, but what does that mean? Once one acknowledges that gMt is not inerrant, how does one distinguish between that which accurately conveys oral tradition and that which is inferred apologetics (e.g., virgin birth, the resurrection of saints, etc.)? And, having made that distinction, by what standard does one judge the pericopes that are presumed to be high fidelity transmissions?

 

[Brian2]

I don't know. I do think, they were highly manipulated. click here

I realised I was reading a biased article when I got to this:
The whole Torah is the same! All 304,805 letters preserved by God!
It's a claim but the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls show us that it is probably not true even if the Jews have done a good job of preserving the text.
With the New Testament it is important to know that the huge number of manuscripts that there are from various places and times have enable scholars to get pretty close to what the original text was.
Here is a 3min 19 second video that gives imo a less biased analysis of the accuracy of the New Testament and how important the mistakes are.

we can be now certain that we have the original New Testament - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[metis]

I agree, but what does that mean? Once one acknowledges that gMt is not inerrant, how does one distinguish between that which accurately conveys oral tradition and that which is inferred apologetics (e.g., virgin birth, the resurrection of saints, etc.)? And, having made that distinction, by what standard does one judge the pericopes that are presumed to be high fidelity transmissions?

I have no magic wand so as to do that, nor do I believe anyone else does either.

Thus, I am far less concerned and focused on the past, mostly preferring to take teachings from multiple sources and try to see which might be helpful in setting a direction.

How about you?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Depends on where one draws the line because it is entirely possible that at least some accounts may have been originally written in Aramaic. Since we have no such copies, we can't say for sure one way or the other.

Koine Greek was the intellectual language in the Mediterranean region, so using that as the main medium made sense.

Using Greek made sense if the intended audience for the Gospels, and the rest of the New Testament, was an international one. It seems that by the time the Gospels came to be written, Christianity had broadened it's horizons beyond that of a Messianic Jewish sect.

 

[metis]

Using Greek made sense if the intended audience for the Gospels, and the rest of the New Testament, was an international one. It seems that by the time the Gospels came to be written, Christianity had broadened it's horizons beyond that of a Messianic Jewish sect.

Yes, that is the likely scenario, imo, plus Alexandria had a significantly large Jewish center that contained numerous scholars.

 

[seekandfind]

you queted the entire message, i've brought it to your attention

All I quoted was your original post and responded to it. I dont know what "whole message" you refer. But i am new and using a phone so maybe i cant see what you are seeing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have no magic wand so as to do that, nor do I believe anyone else does either.

Thus, I am far less concerned and focused on the past, mostly preferring to take teachings from multiple sources and try to see which might be helpful in setting a direction.

How about you?

Sorry to be so slow in getting back to you. I gad a morning obligation at my synagogue.

When I'm dealing with relational/ethical questions, I read Torah as message while keeping in mind that the human messengers have an agenda and, in fact, multiple agendas. I embrace "Standing on the Parted Shores of History" as truth irrespective of the historicity of the Exodus narrative.

At the same time, I value history and, therefore, I value that which informs history, and I struggle with that which distorts history.