Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus?

[omega2xx]

In post 238 you wrote, "He did not get his theological training from Christians schools." Then you wrote later, "DTS is one of the most respected seminaries in conservative theology , ". The DTS is an evangelical seminary, "Founded in 1924, our mission is, “to glorify God by equipping godly servant-leaders for the proclamation of His Word and the building up of the body of Christ worldwide.”" So you now concede that he got his theological training at a Christian school. Don't be ashamed to admit that you were mistaken.

That has nothing to do with you saying he had a Christian degree. Don't be afraid to admit you were mistaken.

Really? How many does it take? A doctor with his MD isn't an expert? A lawyer isn't an expert?

That depends on what the subjecgt is. That is why in some subjects you can have a PhD and and ThD.

Actually, I posted the Klein which had the etymology and the source words from the Syriac and Uggaritic. Your source makes a claim and then draws the inference that because the text says both the two words are identical? The text also refers to her as "bat" a daughter. Does this mean that she can't be one without being both? Are you saying that a young woman by definition MUST be a virgin because you can't be a young woman without being a virgin? And you can't be a virgin without being a young woman?

Read what I said instead of going off on a tangent. If the same person is described as an alma and as a Bethulah, then both words must mean the same thing. If different ideas are expressed in one of the words, then God doesn't know Hebrew. As I said before and you have chose to ignore it, God picked Rebekah. Do you think He chose a none virgin for Isaac?

Now you have completely lost focus. No one is claiming that she wasn't a virgin. The text uses 2 different words to describe different aspects of her and the words are not synonyms.

The only difference is that gone describes a young girl and a virgin could be an older woman.

Your claim is that because 2 words are used they are synonyms. That's ludicrous and the etymologies provided from the source words bear this out and deny the claim of identity of meaning.

What is ludicrous is to think that since Rebekah was a virgin, alma can't also refer to a virgin.

And you still haven't explained how they could identify the child if the girl was not a virgin.

 

[omega2xx]

You believe? That's nice. Ever wonder why Feinberg didn't make any connection to other Semitic languages? Klein did. I'll trust Klein's expertise and not Feinberg's empty assertion.

Feinberg did study Semitic languages. You are not qualified to say Feinbergs assertions are empty.

 

[omega2xx]

Absolutely irrelevant. Zipporah is regarded highly like her father.

• It is not irrelevant. You ar trying to says that is an example of God approving of mixed marriages and the OT is full of example wher God not only told them not to, insomecased He told the to divorces their non eewish wives.told them

Next would be Ruth, another convert and the great grandmother of King David.<<

What she did and wht she became does not indicate the children's being Jewish comes from the father. If anything it show it comes though the Mother, unless t=you think David was not Jewish.

There is no place for your racism here.

When you have to play the race card, it is to try to get sympathy when it is obvious you are wrong.

 

[rosends]

That has nothing to do with you saying he had a Christian degree. Don't be afraid to admit you were mistaken.

That's true. That was a separate concern of yours which I addressed in post 265. Try to keep up.

That depends on what the subjecgt is. That is why in some subjects you can have a PhD and and ThD.

So wait, are you saying that one degree DOES make an expert? In #269 you said "One does not become an expert with one degree." So now, it might. Got it.

Read what I said instead of going off on a tangent. If the same person is described as an alma and as a Bethulah, then both words must mean the same thing.

Try to pay attention. If you are described as a "man" and a "pilot" that doesn't mean that "man" and "pilot" must mean the same thing. That you think otherwise is bizarre.

If different ideas are expressed in one of the words, then God doesn't know Hebrew. As I said before and you have chose to ignore it, God picked Rebekah. Do you think He chose a none virgin for Isaac?

As I explained before, I think he chose a young woman about whom in certain contexts it was inappropriate to discuss sexual status, but whose sexual status was, nonetheless, proper for the position. Therefore there were 2 words used. If only one concept was referenced, why would there be 2 words used? Do you think he doesn't know the language?

What is ludicrous is to think that since Rebekah was a virgin, alma can't also refer to a virgin.

She was also a daughter. Does that mean that the words "daughter" means "virgin"?

And you still haven't explained how they could identify the child if the girl was not a virgin.

By identifying the woman as the wife of the person being spoken to. If God looks at me and says "the woman is pregnant" or if he looks at me and says "tell your neighbor that the woman is pregnant" then "the woman" is not just any random woman and doesn't need to be identified by a gynecological exam.

 

[rosends]

Feinberg did study Semitic languages. You are not qualified to say Feinbergs assertions are empty.

Sure I am. Not only am I supported by Klein and Wilhelm Gesenius but his claim has no actual textual basis and only exists via your inference. Are you preferring your claim of implicit proof vs. provided explicit proof?

 

[Tumah]

I think the majority of opinion is that the canonical Mt was in Greek. Christians preached about Jesus in the Greek language and quoting Jewish Scripture in Greek translation, deriving from Alexandrian Jews and regarded as sacred additional books first composed in Greek, (Wisdom of Solomon), or preserved in Greek although originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (I Maccabees, Tobit, Sirach). In Protestant bibles these are named the Apocrypha, Catholics refer to them as Deuterocanonical.

I understand. What I'm saying is that it seems that Hellenized Jews were the ones that primarily seemed to have used the Greek texts (such as the Septuagint) as Pharisaic texts appear to be primarily in a form of Hebrew and Aramaic. So maybe it is likely that early Jewish NT writers came from the Hellenized Jews rather than Pharisaic. This may also be evidenced by the similarity between John 1 and Philo's Logos as well as the somewhat lack of familiarity with Pharisaic Law found in some NT stories.

 

[Flankerl]

It is not irrelevant. You ar trying to says that is an example of God approving of mixed marriages and the OT is full of example wher God not only told them not to, insomecased He told the to divorces their non eewish wives.told them

No I am not. Zipporah joined the Nation of Israel. Great stuff.

Also you should calm down a bit. Leads to less typos.

What she did and wht she became does not indicate the children's being Jewish comes from the father. If anything it show it comes though the Mother, unless t=you think David was not Jewish.

I never wrote anything about any children in this thread. I think that's all in your head.

Ruth also joined the Nation of Israel. Great stuff once again.

When you have to play the race card, it is to try to get sympathy when it is obvious you are wrong.

Thing is I don't need any sympathy. You are showing why you are kinda hateful towards people disagreeing with you.

 

[omega2xx]

Sure I am. Not only am I supported by Klein and Wilhelm Gesenius but his claim has no actual textual basis and only exists via your inference. Are you preferring your claim of implicit proof vs. provided explicit proof?

That's true. That was a separate concern of yours which I addressed in post 265. Try to keep up.

You have not proved anything. You have only made a statement of your beliefs. You certainly haven't proved Klein is more knowledgable then Feinberg.

]So wait, are you saying that one degree DOES make an expert? In #269 you said "One does not become an expert with one degree." So now, it might. Got it.

surely your reading comprehension level is better than that. Well, maybe not.

Try to pay attention. If you are described as a "man" and a "pilot" that doesn't mean that "man" and "pilot" must mean the same thing. That you think otherwise is bizarre

DUUH

As I explained before, I think he chose a young woman about whom in certain contexts it was inappropriate to discuss sexual status, but whose sexual status was, nonetheless, proper for the position. Therefore there were 2 words used. If only one concept was referenced, why would there be 2 words used? Do you think he doesn't know the language?

Since she was a virgin, if alma doesn't imply virgin,the word is used incorrectly.

She was also a daughter. Does that mean that the words "daughter" means "virgin"?

DUUH

By identifying the woman as the wife of the person being spoken to. If God looks at me and says "the woman is pregnant" or if he looks at me and says "tell your neighbor that the woman is pregnant" then "the woman" is not just any random woman and doesn't need to be identified by a gynecological exam.

The verses uses an indefinite article, not a definite article.

 

[omega2xx]

No I am not. Zipporah joined the Nation of Israel. Great stuff.

I agree but it is not evidence the child is determined by the father.

Also you should calm down a bit. Leads to less typos.

Discussion like this do not get me excited. It is a lack of typing skills that cause my typos.

I never wrote anything about any children in this thread. I think that's all in your head.<<

Have you not said the nationality of children is determined by the father in this discussion?

Ruth also joined the Nation of Israel. Great stuff once again.

Agreed, but that also does not say the nationality of the child is determined by the father.

Thing is I don't need any sympathy.

I am not giving you sympathy. I am asking for facts and you keep avoiding answering.


You are showing why you are kinda hateful towards people disagreeing with you.

So if I disagree with you I am being hateful, but if you disagree with me, you are not. Have you ever heard of a double standard?

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't read it the same.... On Isaiah 7:10, it starts a new paragraph, with the 'Moreover YHVH spake again'...

Isaiah 7:1-9 - a siege that shall not happen.
Isaiah 7:10-25 - are future events from the start time specified.

Isaiah 7:16 For before the child knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you abhor shall be forsaken.

So this specifies it is after, when both Rezin and Remaliah have been forsaken.

Isaiah 8:4 For before the child knows how to say, ‘My father,’ and, ‘My mother,’ the riches of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.”

This is saying the Child is born after Israel is taken by Assyria, and as since Zechariah son of Berechiah is prophesied 500 years in the future within it, it is a different timeline.

She called him Yehoshua meaning the Lord Saves, as Angel Gabriel told her to....Emmanuel isn't a name it is a concept.

And as usual you folks jump from what it says, - to your opinion of what it "actually" means.

We have a real war - spoken of in other Tanakh books.

Quotes below from http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

"The Southern Kingdom of Judea had its capital in Jerusalem and was ruled by King Ahaz. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had its capital in Samaria and was ruled by King Pekah. To the north of both these kingdoms was a third, non-Jewish ruler, King Resin of Aram (Syria) whose capital was Damascus.

God dispatched the prophet Isaiah and one of his sons to warn King Ahaz that the northern kingdom had formed an alliance with this King Rezin They had joined forces to “wage war against Jerusalem.”

"Isaiah tells King Ahaz (verse 4) that he should not be afraid because God will be with him and the invasion with fail. Additionally, within 65 years the northern kingdom will cease to exist and its 10 tribes would be led into exile by Assyria. This is where the idea of ten lost tribes originates.

The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse:

“before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15

It is fulfilled in the next chapter with the birth of a child to the prophet Isaiah:

“he (Isaiah) approached the prophetess and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) a son and God said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” Isaiah 8:4"

"Eventually the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Aram-Syria are vanquished by the armies of Sennacherib King of Assyria (Babylon) who exiled the northern kingdom:

“The king of Assyria invaded the entire country… the king of Assyria captured Samaria and exiled Israel” 2 Kings 17:5-6

“Thus God saved Hezikiah (son of Ahaz) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib King of Assyria.” 2 Chronicles 32:22" (Note here that we have the SON of AHAZ and the war with ASSYRIA together.)

*

 

[Tumah]

The verses uses an indefinite article, not a definite article.

So here's the thing.

Attached to words, He may have three possible meanings:

• A preposition meaning the definite article "the", or the relative pronouns "that", or "who" (as in "a boy who reads"). For example, yeled, a boy; hayeled, the boy.
• A prefix indicating that the sentence is a question. (For example, Yadata, You knew; Hayadata?, Did you know?)
• A suffix after place names indicating movement towards the given noun. (For example, Yerushalayim, Jerusalem; Yerushalaymah, towards Jerusalem.)

He (letter) - Wikipedia​

This is how the letter "he" (pronounced hei) looks like: ה
Here are the words: הנה העלמה הרה

And here, oddly, is a Christian translation site translating the word.

Hebrew Concordance: hā·‘al·māh -- 3 Occurrences

Notice how when it translates העלמה for Genesis and Exodus, it translates the first letter ה (he) properly as a definite article in the top 3 Christian translations (NAS, KJV, INT) "the maiden/virgin/girl". But then, when it needs to translate it for Isaiah, it somehow became an indefinite article (and across the board agreement that it means virgin) "a virgin".

Weird right?

​

 

[omega2xx]

So here's the thing.

Attached to words, He may have three possible meanings:

• A preposition meaning the definite article "the", or the relative pronouns "that", or "who" (as in "a boy who reads"). For example, yeled, a boy; hayeled, the boy.
• A prefix indicating that the sentence is a question. (For example, Yadata, You knew; Hayadata?, Did you know?)
• A suffix after place names indicating movement towards the given noun. (For example, Yerushalayim, Jerusalem; Yerushalaymah, towards Jerusalem.)

He (letter) - Wikipedia​

This is how the letter "he" (pronounced hei) looks like: ה
Here are the words: הנה העלמה הרה

And here, oddly, is a Christian translation site translating the word.

Hebrew Concordance: hā·‘al·māh -- 3 Occurrences




Notice how when it translates העלמה for Genesis and Exodus, it translates the first letter ה (he) properly as a definite article in the top 3 Christian translations (NAS, KJV, INT) "the maiden/virgin/girl". But then, when it needs to translate it for Isaiah, it somehow became an indefinite article (and across the board agreement that it means virgin) "a virgin".

Weird right?

​

The scholars who do Bible translation know the language better than you do. When it takes that much of an explanation to make an indefinite article and definite article, it is called blowing smoke.

 

[Nietzsche]

The scholars who do Bible translation know the language better than you do.

There is more than one Bible translation.

Also. He's literally a Jew. Like, he lives in Israel. He knows Hebrew. He's easily one of the most knowledgeable people here when it comes to these matters. @Jayhawker Soule would be another equally good choice.

 

[rosends]

You have not proved anything. You have only made a statement of your beliefs. You certainly haven't proved Klein is more knowledgable then Feinberg.

I have provided the evidence that Klein's position (and Gesenius') is supported by actual evidence. You have yet to give anything to the contrary, or even address the existence of said evidence.

surely your reading comprehension level is better than that. Well, maybe not.

Mine is fine, and I provided citations. You have done nothing of the sort.

DUUH

I see that this encapsulates your approach to discussion. Well done.

Since she was a virgin, if alma doesn't imply virgin,the word is used incorrectly.

Why is that? Using the word for daughter would be the wrong word if daughter doesn't imply virginity? Having more than one descriptor doesn't mean that each word necessarily overlaps the others.

DUUH

Another rhetorical gem. Well argued.

The verses uses an indefinite article, not a definite article.

Not true. The verse states הָעַלְמָ֗ה which is introduced with the definite article.

 

[Ingledsva]

Don't believe in a race specific God; know the real one.

Yeshua isn't only Hebraic.

Christianity means someone who follows Paul's, and Simon's ministry; which is heavily backed up by the fake Gospel of John.

I don't believe in the Messiah either, it is based on first hand experience, and then trying to work out what is really going on within all the books.

Baloney. It is one thing to say you don't believe in a specific group's God. It is quite another to believe in the Hebrew idea of a Messiah, and then also believe the ripped-off Christian version that this Messiah is their Jesus. That makes your beliefs Abrahamic.

Sorry, you're still reading it all as one paragraph, and it has multiple timelines within it.

'within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. '

That is referring to the Assyrian destruction of Israel/Ephraim, not this imaginary 65 year war; which it says in the verse before, it shall not happen (7:7), as they shall be removed as a people.

You are reading it wrong. See my last reply to you. Oh heck here it is again.

We have a real war - spoken of in other Tanakh books.

Quotes below from http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

"The Southern Kingdom of Judea had its capital in Jerusalem and was ruled by King Ahaz. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had its capital in Samaria and was ruled by King Pekah. To the north of both these kingdoms was a third, non-Jewish ruler, King Resin of Aram (Syria) whose capital was Damascus.

God dispatched the prophet Isaiah and one of his sons to warn King Ahaz that the northern kingdom had formed an alliance with this King Rezin They had joined forces to “wage war against Jerusalem.”

"Isaiah tells King Ahaz (verse 4) that he should not be afraid because God will be with him and the invasion with fail. Additionally, within 65 years the northern kingdom will cease to exist and its 10 tribes would be led into exile by Assyria. This is where the idea of ten lost tribes originates.

The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse:

“before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15

It is fulfilled in the next chapter with the birth of a child to the prophet Isaiah:

“he (Isaiah) approached the prophetess and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) a son and God said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” Isaiah 8:4"

"Eventually the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Aram-Syria are vanquished by the armies of Sennacherib King of Assyria (Babylon) who exiled the northern kingdom:

“The king of Assyria invaded the entire country… the king of Assyria captured Samaria and exiled Israel” 2 Kings 17:5-6

“Thus God saved Hezikiah (son of Ahaz) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib King of Assyria.” 2 Chronicles 32:22" (Note here that we have the SON of AHAZ and the war with ASSYRIA together.)

*

 

[Tumah]

The scholars who do Bible translation know the language better than you do. When it takes that much of an explanation to make an indefinite article and definite article, it is called blowing smoke.

I don't think you read what I wrote. I didn't explain how to change the preoposition. I explained how the letter works as a prefix to mean a definite article. Then I showed you how the top 3 Christian translators change the same letter from a definite article to an indefinite article for Isaiah 7, while elsewhere (ie. where it doesn't contradict what the NT says) they correctly translate it as the definite article it is.

If that's not Christian bias translating, I don't know what is.

 

[omega2xx]

There is more than one Bible translation.

Also. He's literally a Jew. Like, he lives in Israel. He knows Hebrew.

Being a Jew and living in Israel does not give him an advantage in becoming an expeert in Hebrew. All become experts the same way---years of serious study.

He's easily one of the most knowledgeable people here when it comes to these matters. @Jayhawker Soule would be another equally good choice.

I agree and I agree they are experts in Hebrew. WE know there ire levels of expertise and IMO, Scholars who do Bible translation are more expert that the average person who studies a language. Even if their expertise is equal, often even very good scholar can disagree at times.

I certainly am not trying to denigrate their proven abilities.

 

[omega2xx]

I have provided the evidence that Klein's position (and Gesenius') is supported by actual evidence. You have yet to give anything to the contrary, or even address the existence of said evidence.



Mine is fine, and I provided citations. You have done nothing of the sort.



I see that this encapsulates your approach to discussion. Well done.



Why is that? Using the word for daughter would be the wrong word if daughter doesn't imply virginity? Having more than one descriptor doesn't mean that each word necessarily overlaps the others.



Another rhetorical gem. Well argued.




Not true. The verse states הָעַלְמָ֗ה which is introduced with the definite article.

When I have to repeat my comments it is time to move on. Neither of us will change our minds and that is how it should be

 

[metis]

The scholars who do Bible translation know the language better than you do.

But undoubtedly many translators have a vested interest in pushing the "company line".

Also, ancient Hebrew is not identical to modern Hebrew, so the translation of certain words in the scriptures can be quite conjectural at times. Languages evolve, and sometimes we can look at a word in Hebrew or Greek and just scratch our heads.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't think you read what I wrote. I didn't explain how to change the preoposition. I explained how the letter works as a prefix to mean a definite article. Then I showed you how the top 3 Christian translators change the same letter from a definite article to an indefinite article for Isaiah 7, while elsewhere (ie. where it doesn't contradict what the NT says) they correctly translate it as the definite article it is.

If that's not Christian bias translating, I don't know what is.

Your explanation on the details of he language, especially when you use Jewish letters, is beyond my ability to completely understand.

If one translation had a indefinite article and the other 2 had a definite article, I might agree with you, but when 3, made by 3 different teams of scholars have an indefinite articles, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The NASB is considered one of the most accurate translations available. ALL of the good translations have an indefinite article. It seems unlikely to me they all got it wrong.