Was Jesus Neanderthal by 1 to 4 per cent?

[Trimijopulos]

So Romans are suppose to understand Aramaic? Because most around would have been Romans. So why should we assume that they knew the Aramaic word for God? We shouldn't. More so, it really wouldn't be too much of a mistake to see that Romans thought Jesus was calling out to Elijah, as it would have sounded nearly like that.

The text makes no reference to Romans. Common Jewish people are meant and they did not recognize the name of their own God.

Really, it seems like you are just really stretching here. I mean, how can one not understand the Aramaic, yet still translate it? That doesn't make sense. More so, you seem to be assuming that the authors of the Gospels were there at the cross. No, they weren't.

The four Aramaic words are but copy-paste from Psalm 22:1.
The authors of the Gospels were eye witness with their mind's eye in everything they describe because it is fiction they write and thus we are able to know how and what they were thinking.

I have studied Hebrew, and I can tell you that you're study simply is wrong in this case. Elohim can, and often does mean, God. It can and often does refer to a singular being. It is based off of context that we see this.

Studying Hebrew will not help you understand the following passage:

Then his master shall bring him (the slave –Eved) unto the elohim; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. (Ex. 21:6)

Elohim is translated in this case as “Judges.” What do judges have to do with a slave – or even a servant? You have to study comparative mythology and any archaic text you can lay your hands on in order to be able to understand why judges are involved with the marking of slaves at door posts.

As regards the virginity issue, Ι suggest that you read the Chapters 19 to 21 of the book of Judges and try to find a reasonable explanation for the fact that although the tribe of Benjamin was in need of fertile women, the women that.. “hath lain by man” and most probably had given birth and were exactly what was required, they were killed and instead virgin women were brought to the men of the Benjamin tribe.

Why this murderous passion with the virgins?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Studying Hebrew will not help you understand the following passage:

Then his master shall bring him (the slave –Eved) unto the elohim; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. (Ex. 21:6)

The correct translation of 'elohim is most probably 'gods' - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[fallingblood]

The text makes no reference to Romans. Common Jewish people are meant and they did not recognize the name of their own God.

So where are common Jewish people mentioned? They aren't, so your argument fails.

The people who would have been at the crucifixion would have been primarily Romans, specifically, Roman soldiers.

The four Aramaic words are but copy-paste from Psalm 22:1.
The authors of the Gospels were eye witness with their mind's eye in everything they describe because it is fiction they write and thus we are able to know how and what they were thinking.

Mark, the earliest Gospel, was not written until around 70 C.E. The other Gospels were written after that. They all were based on oral tradition, that was older.

Paul, writing in around 50 C.E., based his information probably off of James, and the disciples. I mention this because Paul comes before the Gospels, and thus show that the story of Jesus was in circulation before the Gospels, which suggest that it is not fiction.

So basically, you're argument doesn't hold water. The authors of the Gospels were not eye witnesses. They were not writing fiction. They were taking down oral traditions, as well as some written traditions. They may have added some stuff on their own, but the vast majority came from other sources.

Studying Hebrew will not help you understand the following passage:

Then his master shall bring him (the slave –Eved) unto the elohim; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. (Ex. 21:6)

Elohim is translated in this case as “Judges.” What do judges have to do with a slave – or even a servant? You have to study comparative mythology and any archaic text you can lay your hands on in order to be able to understand why judges are involved with the marking of slaves at door posts.

Actually, understanding Hebrew would help you here. First, what translation are you using? I just looked through a handful of translations, and they all translate Elohim as God (this includes a Hebrew Tanakh). More so, the context does show that it should be God. Again, understanding Hebrew helps.

As regards the virginity issue, Ι suggest that you read the Chapters 19 to 21 of the book of Judges and try to find a reasonable explanation for the fact that although the tribe of Benjamin was in need of fertile women, the women that.. “hath lain by man” and most probably had given birth and were exactly what was required, they were killed and instead virgin women were brought to the men of the Benjamin tribe.

Why this murderous passion with the virgins?

What does that have to do with Mary being a virgin? Nothing at all.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Actually, understanding Hebrew would help you here. First, what translation are you using? I just looked through a handful of translations, and they all translate Elohim as God (this includes a Hebrew Tanakh). More so, the context does show that it should be God. Again, understanding Hebrew helps.

Can you explain why the contexts shows that it should be God? Is the God who will decide how the slave should be marked?

I trust the scholars of the Septuagint. They are the older translators available (he will be brought to the judgment of the God; they translated).
The marking of a slave follows his judgment. The slave has to be judged before been marked or no one will know what mark he deserves.

Consider the following:

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?
(Is. 53:8)

Without judgment his generation cannot be known. You can study Hebrew all your life. You will never understand what is meant by prison, by judgment, by generation and by the marking of the slaves.
Egyptologists thought they could understand the Egyptians by learning their language. It took them two hundred years to understand how childish that thought was.
Isaiah and Ezekiel is impossible to be understood without having first understood the Egyptian funerary texts.

 

[fallingblood]

Can you explain why the contexts shows that it should be God? Is the God who will decide how the slave should be marked?

I trust the scholars of the Septuagint. They are the older translators available (he will be brought to the judgment of the God; they translated).
The marking of a slave follows his judgment. The slave has to be judged before been marked or no one will know what mark he deserves.

Consider the following:

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?
(Is. 53:8)

Without judgment his generation cannot be known. You can study Hebrew all your life. You will never understand what is meant by prison, by judgment, by generation and by the marking of the slaves.
Egyptologists thought they could understand the Egyptians by learning their language. It took them two hundred years to understand how childish that thought was.
Isaiah and Ezekiel is impossible to be understood without having first understood the Egyptian funerary texts.

You're mixing two different things here. I did not say understanding Hebrew would make you all of a sudden understand the idea of a verse fully. I said that knowing Hebrew helps in understanding why elohim is translated in certain ways. Hebrew does help then in understanding some verses better. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that further study, such as in Hebrew culture, and what led to Hebrew culture, as well as the time etc, aren't in order. And in fact, I have studied that as well. So please don't imply I said something when I clearly didn't.

Why does Hebrew help in understanding this issue? Because context helps defines how elohim will be translated. That is what I have been explaining to you.

And again, you never answered what translation you're using. I used the NRSV, the Jewish Tanakh, the NASB, the New Jerusalem Bible, and just for good measure, Robert Alter's Five Books of Moses.

Alter translates it as gods, and the reason being that it isn't necessarily clear whether or not it is meant to be plural. Both can be argued.

As for the translation of elohim as judges, that is not based on what elohim is understood as meaning. It has to do with a Rabbinic tradition that simply wanted to avert any scandal. There really is nothing that supports such a translation.

So again, what translation are you using?

 

[outhouse]

The correct translation of 'elohim is most probably 'gods' - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Ya I would go with that

 

[outhouse]

Elohim is translated in this case as “Judges.” What do judges have to do with a slave – or even a servant?

If you can even claim plural it most likely means the family of deities they worshipped early on.

El, Yahweh, Baal and Asherah were all viewed as a family of deities that they worshipped. Baal and Asherah didnt last as long as El and Yahweh before they were conpiled into one deity when they switched to strict monotheism

 

[fallingblood]

False

it depends on the context and is most proabably the deity "El"

Not when you are talking about Hebrew, as in the Hebrew we see in the Bible. To translate elohim to El would simply be ridiculous. And yes, elohim, when context defines it as plural, as possible is the case in the passage in question, means gods. If context defines it as singular, then it is God. We are talking about the Bible, and what the Hebrew word is accepted to mean. Not what it may or may not have derived from.

Again, to translate elohim (which in this case has a good possibility of being translated to gods because of the context) as El simply is ridiculous in the context that is being discussed.

Elohim can also refer to gods as in the divine council, that we do see in the Bible. However, they are understood as lesser beings in Hebrew.

 

[outhouse]

Not when you are talking about Hebrew, as in the Hebrew we see in the Bible. To translate elohim to El would simply be ridiculous. And yes, elohim, when context defines it as plural, as possible is the case in the passage in question, means gods. If context defines it as singular, then it is God. We are talking about the Bible, and what the Hebrew word is accepted to mean. Not what it may or may not have derived from.

Again, to translate elohim (which in this case has a good possibility of being translated to gods because of the context) as El simply is ridiculous in the context that is being discussed.

Elohim can also refer to gods as in the divine council, that we do see in the Bible. However, they are understood as lesser beings in Hebrew.

Im sorry but if we go plural for this, it would be plural for El, Yahweh, Baal and Asherah


History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like many Ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on the cult of the ancestors and the worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[77] The major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god in the early period.

 

[fallingblood]

Im sorry but if we go plural for this, it would be plural for El, Yahweh, Baal and Asherah


History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like many Ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on the cult of the ancestors and the worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[77] The major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god in the early period.

We are talking about Biblical Hebrew, in a book that is probably compiled post-exilic. There is no reason at all to assume that they mean El, Yahweh, Baal, and Asherah. Especially when elohim doesn't mean that. It means gods.

Again, we aren't talking about the Israelites of Iron Age I, unless you want to place the writing of Exodus that far back, when the Israelites still possibly had such an idea. Also, elohim, even at that time, did not have to refer just to those 4 gods. There were other gods as well. And elohim, in plural, simply means gods. It doesn't designate any specific gods.

 

[outhouse]

We are talking about Biblical Hebrew, in a book that is probably compiled post-exilic. There is no reason at all to assume that they mean El, Yahweh, Baal, and Asherah. Especially when elohim doesn't mean that. It means gods.

Again, we aren't talking about the Israelites of Iron Age I, unless you want to place the writing of Exodus that far back, when the Israelites still possibly had such an idea. Also, elohim, even at that time, did not have to refer just to those 4 gods. There were other gods as well. And elohim, in plural, simply means gods. It doesn't designate any specific gods.

Fact is, before 622BC they worshipped a family of gods.

El and Yahweh were primary with different minority sects


even after 622 it took a while to weed ouy the polytheism

 

[fallingblood]

Fact is, before 622BC they worshipped a family of gods.

El and Yahweh were primary with different minority sects


even after 622 it took a while to weed ouy the polytheism

Don't care, because that has really little to do with what I'm talking about, or even disagrees with what I'm talking about. Elohim can mean God, or gods. If it means gods, it does not necessarily refer to just the four gods you mentioned, but to any number of gods.

Elohim, when talking about the Bible, and is used in the plural can not refer to El. Why? El is not a plural noun.

So really, how does the information you provided contradict what I'm saying? It doesn't.

Also, please see when the post-exilic time is. Because what you're saying has little to do with it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He makes it up on the fly: scribbled claims perfectly suited to an outhouse wall.

 

[outhouse]

but to any number of gods.

well we do know what family of gods were primarily worshipped during their polytheistic period.

Atleast I have named them, you havnt.


elohim was redacted to cover up polytheism and you know it.

 

[fallingblood]

well we do know what family of gods were primarily worshipped during their polytheistic period.

Atleast I have named them, you havnt.


elohim was redacted to cover up polytheism and you know it.

If you are going to debate what I said, please first actually read what I said. Otherwise you just embarrass yourself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you explain why the contexts shows that it should be God?

I can easily show why it is that 'Judges' is easily understood as a harmonization.

I trust the scholars of the Septuagint. They are the older translators available...

I have a visceral contempt for willful ignorance, but this fails to rise to even that level. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Here, instead, we are confronted with a proudly displayed thinking deficit.

But first - just for fun - from the A New English Translation of the Septuagint:

5. Now if the servant says in response, "I have come to love my master and wife and children; I am not departing a free person,"

6. his master shall lead him to the tribunal of God, and then he shall lead him to the door at the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with a small awl, and he shall be subject to him forever.​

That aside, by what brilliant chain of reason are we to assume that 3rd century BCE Alexandian Jews would likely be more objective and more knowledgable than those who have availed themselves of a wealth of modern scholarship? The presumption lie somewhere between pathetically naive and irresponsibly thoughtless.

 

[outhouse]

If you are going to debate what I said, please first actually read what I said. Otherwise you just embarrass yourself.

sorry it is you that is embarrassing yourself, everytime we talk about the family of gods you deny every part of El.

again show what gods were being worshipped "if" we choose a plural judge's.


Who else would they they put on the same level as Yahweh? when he was the son of El.

Who Elohim, El-Elyon, El-Shaddai, or just El.

 

[outhouse]

Elohim, when talking about the Bible, and is used in the plural can not refer to El. Why? El is not a plural noun.

So really, how does the information you provided contradict what I'm saying? It doesn't.

False

Elohim can also be its own deity not plural. And in this case according to jays post, it wasnt plural.

Elohim was never associated with yahweh, it was only redacted at a later date to include him. When the collections were being put together El was the primary deity of the northern areas and all material coming from this area. The only hope you have is that this Elohim was a later redaction of Yahweh being the primary deity at the time in a family of gods.

You have yet to refute anything.

 

[outhouse]

He makes it up on the fly: scribbled claims perfectly suited to an outhouse wall.

The sooner you woke up and realized im on your side with many things the sooner you could have more adult conversations, instead of the one sided childish ones you punish the whole forum with.

 

[fallingblood]

sorry it is you that is embarrassing yourself, everytime we talk about the family of gods you deny every part of El.

again show what gods were being worshipped "if" we choose a plural judge's.


Who else would they they put on the same level as Yahweh? when he was the son of El.

Who Elohim, El-Elyon, El-Shaddai, or just El.

I'm not denying anything of the like. I'm stating, that in this verse that we are talking about, Exodus 21:6 (maybe you should read it), the term elohim should be translated either God, or gods.

Now, if it refers to gods, I'm not saying which gods are being mentioned. It could be the divine council. It could be a number of lesser gods. It could be God and some of his cohorts. I'm not saying, as the term elohim does not designate which gods would be in use.

You claimed that it referred to four specific gods, but there is no evidence that elohim must refer to those four specific gods, and to claim so is ridiculous.

Really, you are talking about something way out there.

False

Elohim can also be its own deity not plural. And in this case according to jays post, it wasnt plural.

Elohim was never associated with yahweh, it was only redacted at a later date to include him. When the collections were being put together El was the primary deity of the northern areas and all material coming from this area. The only hope you have is that this Elohim was a later redaction of Yahweh being the primary deity at the time in a family of gods.

You have yet to refute anything.

And this shows that you are either incapable of reading what I have said, or simply too lazy too. Seriously, I have said that Elohim can refer to a specific deity, if context defines it as such. In that case, when we are looking at this particular verse, Exodus 21:6, it would then be translated as God. Now, I have stated that elohim can either be plural or singular. I have stated this many times. The fact that you are arguing against it, means you haven't read what I've wrote.

Also, Elohim was associated with Yahweh. How do we know this? It is in the Bible. It may have been redacted at a later date (which means it became associated with God, nice way of contradicting yourself), but we are talking about a later date. Exodus, and the Torah, is usually said to have been compiled in post-exilic times.

So I don't have to refute any of your nonsense, as it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Please, take some time, and actually read what I have stated. I'm talking about Exodus 21:6. I don't care about the history of God here, or the history of uses of the term elohim. They don't matter here, as I'm speaking about a specific verse here, and a specific use. Elohim, when it comes to the Bible, means either God, or gods. To translate it as El, simply would be dumb. Why? Because we are talking specifically about the Bible.

So please, stop embarrassing yourself, and read what I said before you make any responses.