If the Jewish Messiah has already come….

[Dawnofhope]

Based on your Christian translation, that's what will come out, true. I provided a somewhat different translation which you seem to have chosen to ignore.

Please refer to my post #344 where I have quoted from the Hebrew Bible. I appreciate it isn't your version but would have hoped it was a translation that would be acceptable to both of us.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Based on your Christian translation, that's what will come out, true. I provided a somewhat different translation which you seem to have chosen to ignore.

Here is my source:

Isaiah 9 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

 

[Muffled]

I don’t claim to be all that bright. Please explain to me how a virgin birth is a sign for King Ahaz. King Ahaz was dead over 700 years by the time Jesus was born.

Who said it was a sign for Ahaz? I believe a sign that doesn't occur for 700 years could not have been for Ahaz.

 

[Muffled]

What I mean to say is, are you conveying messages of your Christian belief or are you fabricating your own ideas and conveying them?

I believe I, God am speaking to you through Muffled.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that the "virgin" part was a translation error.

And by the way, who is immanuel?

Ciao

- viole

I believe the word should have been translated "young girl." However a young girl had to be a virgin or she would have been stoned. Also ther have been millions of young girls having babies so one of them having a baby isn't a sign but a virgin having a baby is. So the context of a sign rrequires "young girl" to be understood as virgin.

I believe Immanuel is God with us. There are two ways to view that: 1. God is on our side 2. God is present. God incarnated as Jesus makes God very present.

 

[Tumah]

I believe I, God am speaking to you through Muffled.

Well, I guess that's a different can of worms.

 

[Tumah]

Here is my source:

Isaiah 9 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Mechon-Mamre uses the JPS, not their own translation. My translation remains valid and ideal since it fits the context.

 

[Tumah]

Please refer to my post #344 where I have quoted from the Hebrew Bible. I appreciate it isn't your version but would have hoped it was a translation that would be acceptable to both of us.

There is no "translation that is acceptable to both of us". There are the words of the prophecy and the work of interpreting them to make sense out of it. If we are capable of interpreting them in a way that fits the context, there's no logical reason to do otherwise. This is the method employed by Rabbinical commentaries and the one I've done here.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is no "translation that is acceptable to both of us". There are the words of the prophecy and the work of interpreting them to make sense out of it. If we are capable of interpreting them in a way that fits the context, there's no logical reason to do otherwise. This is the method employed by Rabbinical commentaries and the one I've done here.

I see major problems in that approach where you can just make it up us you go along according to your personal opinions and understandings. It appears similar to Muslims who didn't want anything other than the Arabic for the Quran. Christians centuries ago were reluctant to translate from Latin to English for the first time. There was much angst about what would happen if those who were not trained priests accessed such writings. The problem then was the priests had become corrupted and untrustworthy.

I suppose if you are comfortable with Mosaic law as it stands why wouldn't you want to turn the clock back. If there's no agreed authorised translation then there can be no mutually agreed on starting point. Where do we go from here?

 

[Tumah]

I see major problems in that approach where you can just make it up us you go along according to your personal opinions and understandings.

Your equating my approach to making it up as I go along is a false one. Using context to determine meaning is the logical choice - one that I have difficulty understanding why anyone wouldn't agree with.

It appears similar to Muslims who didn't want anything other than the Arabic for the Quran.

I agree with such sentiments. My experience with Hebrew and Aramaic tells me that Semitic languages simply don't work the same as Germanic ones. A simple word:word translation from a Semitic to Germanic language will not accurately transmit the nuance and intent that is being communicated.

Look at what's happening here - your reliance on translated versions is inhibiting your ability to see the broader translation possibilities inherent in the text. Instead you resort to removing passages from their contexts in order to fit meanings that you want to impose on them. This is not logical and unnecessary. We have a passage about a king nestled within a context of the Assyrian conquest of Israel. There is a known king who lived during that time. So the obvious choice should be to link this passage to that king.

So you have questions. "אין קץ" means "without end" and that king's peace was limited. "עולם" usually means "forever". That's ok, because "governance on his shoulder" is a phrase not found in the entire Tanach. Nor does it literally mean that there is going to be an object on his shoulder. Who even knows where the actual throne that David sat in is at this point?
Why do you not entertain the possibility that this messianic figure will be so strong, that he'll actually walk around carrying the entire Congress on his shoulders?
Why do you have no problem giving alternate meaning to the latter phrases beyond the literal or common, but hesitate to do so with the first two phrases in order to maintain contextual integrity of the passage - especially as both renditions I provided have precedence?

Christians centuries ago were reluctant to translate from Latin to English for the first time. There was much angst about what would happen if those who were not trained priests accessed such writings. The problem then was the priests had become corrupted and untrustworthy.

The corruption of the priests doesn't detract from the validity of their point. This can be proven from the fact that even today serious students of the Christian Bible turn to the original Latin or Greek to learn intent. You can even see that on these forums.

But what I am saying is not that the layman should rely on "priests" to read the writings, but that the layman should learn the language to read the writings. To see the nuance and word selection the author chose. Not to rely on others' translations.

I suppose if you are comfortable with Mosaic law as it stands why wouldn't you want to turn the clock back. If there's no agreed authorised translation then there can be no mutually agreed on starting point.

Of course, I am comfortable with the Law that G-d gave me. But I think even if I weren't, twisting the words to suit my feelings wouldn't be scrupulous.

Where do we go from here?

You'll have to work that out on your own. I'm not trying to reach common ground with you. I'm telling you what the text says.

 

[paarsurrey]

If the Jewish Messiah has already come….

The prophesies never mentioned the word "Jewish" in the Torah.
Please quote from Torah if it is mentioned. Right? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If the Jewish Messiah has already come….

The prophesies never mentioned the word "Jewish" in the Torah.
Please quote from Torah if it is mentioned. Right? Please

I have to add:
The Jews of the Judaism people don't seem to be serious with the Religion of Moses. Instead of Moshiach judging the Judaism and its people, they are judging him:

"Hashem will certainly let him know he is moshiach before he begins the entire process. The Rambam's criteria are what we, the rest of the Jewish people, will use to identify him as moshiach. We will watch him fight wars and understand that as a potential moshiach he is allowed to do this; at the same time, we will not join in his wars until we have more proof."​

How will moshiach fulfill the Rambam's criteria without violating the oaths? | True Torah Jews

Like they, the Jews, did with Moses, and Moshiach is like Moses. Please
Regards

 

[viole]

I believe the word should have been translated "young girl." However a young girl had to be a virgin or she would have been stoned. Also ther have been millions of young girls having babies so one of them having a baby isn't a sign but a virgin having a baby is. So the context of a sign rrequires "young girl" to be understood as virgin.

So, she was not married when she got pregnant? I am not aware that young girls where in danger to be stoned when married.

So, that does not make sense. Either she got pregnant while not married, in which case she would have been stoned anyway, or she got pregnant while married, as young married girl do sometimes.

And in case they were not married yet, did the stoning squad swalled the Archangel Gabriel story just like that?

By the way, how do we know that she was virgin while she was pregnant? The Gospels won't say.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

I have to add:
The Jews of the Judaism people don't seem to be serious with the Religion of Moses. Instead of Moshiach judging the Judaism and its people, they are judging him:

"Hashem will certainly let him know he is moshiach before he begins the entire process. The Rambam's criteria are what we, the rest of the Jewish people, will use to identify him as moshiach. We will watch him fight wars and understand that as a potential moshiach he is allowed to do this; at the same time, we will not join in his wars until we have more proof."​

How will moshiach fulfill the Rambam's criteria without violating the oaths? | True Torah Jews

Like they, the Jews, did with Moses, and Moshiach is like Moses. Please
Regards

"Hashem will certainly let him know he is moshiach"

So, Moshiach will be informed by G-d by Revelation that he has been appointed to this office, so he will be supported by G-d. Will Moshiach then care about Jews that if Jews accept him or not? Please

Regards

 

[Ben Avraham]

The Messiah makes himself known progressively. He is the shoot from the stump in Isaiah it grows and fills the earth. Not an all at once thing.

That's a very adequate description of Israel as a People. He is the stump Isaiah talks about and grows progressively to impress the whole world with his progress. ("Mark Twain in his Essay about the Jews.")

 

[paarsurrey]

The Messiah makes himself known progressively. He is the shoot from the stump in Isaiah it grows and fills the earth. Not an all at once thing.

"Hashem will certainly let him know he is moshiach"

Since Moshiach is an attributive name note a proper name, and he will become Moshaiah as soon as he is told by Yahweh that he is the Mochiach, so he will become Mochiah immediately (not progressively) when he is told regardless the Jews accept him truthful or not. He will be supported by Yahweh so he does not need anybody's support.
Jews are mistaken that they are a judge to him, in fact Mochiah is their judge.
Right? Please
Regards

 

[Ben Avraham]

If the Jewish Messiah has already come!

Of course he has! He has come already 3 times, first from Egypt, and Moses was the Messianic leader; the second time around from Babylon and the Messianic leader was king Cyrus from Persia but just for his proclamation of freedom for the Messiah; lately from the four corners of the earth and, I am of the opinion that the Messianic leader was Theodor Herzl who died trying to inculcate love for Zion into the minds of the Jews.

 

[Muffled]

Well, I guess that's a different can of worms.

I believe the worms belong to you but not to me.

 

[Muffled]

I see major problems in that approach where you can just make it up us you go along according to your personal opinions and understandings. It appears similar to Muslims who didn't want anything other than the Arabic for the Quran. Christians centuries ago were reluctant to translate from Latin to English for the first time. There was much angst about what would happen if those who were not trained priests accessed such writings. The problem then was the priests had become corrupted and untrustworthy.

I suppose if you are comfortable with Mosaic law as it stands why wouldn't you want to turn the clock back. If there's no agreed authorised translation then there can be no mutually agreed on starting point. Where do we go from here?

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. It is a case of a belief allowing a person to change the words to agree with his view and then claim it is a contextual view. The only context is the personal view.

 

[Muffled]

If the Jewish Messiah has already come….

The prophesies never mentioned the word "Jewish" in the Torah.
Please quote from Torah if it is mentioned. Right? Please
Regards

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I believe Isaiah was speaking to Jewish people even if they are not directly mentioned.