Can you give me some examples? We can move past Isaiah 53 since this passage is are not about the messiah.
Advent is a period of preparation and purification in readiness to celebrate the first coming of the Lord, Jesus the Messiah. Advent begins November 28 and runs through December 24.
www.linkedin.com
Oh that's fine. I'm not really here to convince you or undermine your faith. I'm simply sharing my Jewish perspective.
I'm just talking History and textual criticism.I think that religious perspective just leads toward bias.
I'm not really sure what your religion is, but what I said was standard, mainstream Christian theology.
Standard mainstream Christian theology is literally traditional Christianity.
The Church has been the same , from day one.
You haven't looked in Eastern Christian literature.There is 10x more then what Western is offering.You can not find these things , you can only expirience them by studying them and visit places.
Some Books are out of reach , you can not find everything online.
The more you learn History , the more facts you can make.
I told you , look up the video , 18 minutes of your time, but when there are things to be settled , nobody usually has the time.
Of course. Irrelevant. This is the first time in your post that you have responded to my text with a remark completely unrelated.
What ?
You said :
"The Messiah of Christianity the incarnate God who suffers and dies to save the world from their sins."
We teach that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.I
That was why it was noted.
Actually I don't consider him apostate at all. He was a Jew that practiced second temple Judaism. I see him as a fellow Jew like myself, brother J so to speak. I just don't see him as the messiah or God.
I don't have any issue with your views.
You may see him as you wish.
An apostate is a Jew who has converted to a foreign religion.
He didn't converted , but he created new movement in some sense.
Christianity and Judaism are not the same.
Erm, if we are comparing the Christian OT to the Jewish tanakh, of COURSE the Christian NT was created after the advent of Chrsitianity. I mean that is too obvious for words. Am I missing something? Is there a point in there somewhere?
The Jewish Tanakh was defined after the Messiah.
So the events prior to that matter.The events that happend had some influence (I am not saying the events alone had influence)
Do you mean the organization of the Tanakh? It is simply organized by which section was accepted as canon first. Thus, the Torah (the oldest section) is at the beginning. The prophets were accepted next, and are in the middle. And the Writings were accepted last, and are at the end.
Nobody is doubting these facts.
The canonization of the Hebrew Bible into its final 24 books was a process that lasted centuries, and was only completed well after the time of Josephus.
Historian may ask many question about this , for example , Why after Josephus , and why did it happend in that time Every event before matters.
That's not how a religious person thinks , that's how Historians think.
They ask questions.
We know that this passage was altered by Christians later in history.
How do you know that ?
For example, Josephus never said that Jesus rose from the dead.
Who is suggesting that?
Here is the original text as scholars have reconstructed it
:
Not interested in reconstructed texts.
That tells only the line of scholars that you follow.
When i started studying this , i trusted nobody , ****** nobody because it is the best thing to do.
Now i follow only a few.
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
They don't know how to translate Koine.
And just because it sounds Christian it is not a reason to say that is forgery.
The only part is debated because it sounds Christian and yet we don't know crucial details.
Scholars generally agree that he is opposed to Christ and to Christianity , although we do not have a single direct statement in any of his extant writings to that effect.
Imagine that , no evidence and yet pretty obvious conclusion..
So tommorow someone may say about me that i was against Judaism because they didn't find any statement about it.
I'm sorry, I really don't wish to be disrespectful to you.
No , the oposite of it.
You have been the most respectfull.
But that is just not the case. It may hurt your feelings a bit
Feelings ?
Nono , you have been highly mistaken, i have never used my feelings to establish what is historically valid.
It leads towards religious bias.
, but the truth is that Jesus was simply irrelevant to the Rabbis.
He was so irrelevant that they needed to tell Pilate about his 'blasphemy'.
You can jump to 'Judaism and Eden and Eve' and see how irrelevant is Jesus.
You yourself replied there.
Saying that Jews organized the books the way we did in order to deny that Jesus was the messiah is simply a narcissistic way of viewing things.
Nono , i said that the events might have influence.
Are you referring to Jesus and the Pharisees? It is not clear.
It is part of Jewish tradition to debate the Law. Indeed among the Pharisees there were different schools that argued about how to interpret Torah. The teachings of Jesus are firmly in the camp of Hillel. The Sanhedrin at that time was governed by the school of Shammai. It is completely normal for Jesus to have had these debates. In fact, many such debates are recorded in the Talmud.
Then why do you say that he was irrelevant ?
He was so irrelevant that the Jews were afraid that the Romans could have punished them because of his claims?
Who do you think that told the Romans about Jesus?
Huh? I was talking about the inadequacy of translations and you bring up my "sources?" This is the second time in this post that you have replied to my comments with stuff that is entirely unrelated.
You can count to 1 milion , it is all the same to me.
To me this is just a discussion.
I meant translations from Jewish people.
There are Jewish people who can translate Hebrew to English as best as it gets , or ?
This is the third time that you have replied to my text with information that is unrelated. My comments were about how only the Writings were added to the Jewish canon after Jesus time, and instead of replying to that, you have waxed eloquent on the Pharisees etc.
Ok.
The Jewish canon was defined after the writings of Josephus.
It is not what was in the canon itself untill then, but when the canon itself was defined.
Interpretations change through time.
Because it is not uncommon for someone to write about things in the past, even the distant past.
Yes , that is how we narrow the choices of authors.
No, it is not a letter. It is a narrative, a story. This narrative was written to Theophilus. That doesn't make it a letter.
Letters , many letters to tell a story.
That is how it continued in the next years and with the next generations , with letters.
