|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The Hebrew word "Betulah" specifically means "virgin" so you can't say Hebrew doesn't have a word for it i meant that the hebrew of that verse does not contain the word virgin. i know there is a hebrew word for virgin. sorry for the confusion.
It is used I believe five or six times in the Old Testament and in all but two of those places it is translated "young woman" in most English translations, but in those two it is translated "virgin," one in this Isaiah passage and one in the Song of Songs. the kjv translates it virgin twice in song of songs, and once in genesis. but there is no reason in any of those verses for it to be translated as such. neither of my jewish bibles do.
It was translated this way NOT just by Christian translators but by the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures that was made two or three hundred years before Christ really? i only see it in the genesis verse, and not the songs. but then again, i don't read greek very well. but a search reveals that parqenos does not appear in song of solomon at all. yet it appears three times in genesis 24, only ONE of which is translated "virgin" in the kjv rendering of the masoretic text. which means that something changed. because these are actually a different hebrew word, besides almah and betulah. it also indicates that parqenos is not being used to represent the hebrew word for virgin.
There is simply too much going on here to take the time to examine a single passage like this, but I believe just reading through it makes it clear that at some point there's no way it can be continuing to refer to the present situation with Ahaz. uh. read isaiah 7, 8 and 9 again. it's a prophesy that will be fulfill when a child is about 13. the prophesy is that ahaz will defeat israel and aram. to just look at the part about a young woman concieving is silly. it doesn't say virgin. there's nothing special about the young woman getting preggers. and it says his name is immanuel, not jesus.
"Immanuel" means God with us, certainly a Messianic title. It may also be somebody's name. ahaz was worried that god had forgotten him, or that he'd messed up. the child was a sign that god was still with him, and judah. thus, "god is with us:" immanuel. not jesus. the child is a sign that god IS with them, and that ahaz will defeat aram and israel. not that the child IS god. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-17-2005 07:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have to take a break until late tomorrow. I haven't been making any of this up. I'm simply trying to explain what Christian theology says and has said for 2000 years now.
I understood your question about what Jesus meant and gave you the orthodox Christian answer in that list of the prophecies I found. It's exactly what I've always been taught. It's standard Christian interpretation. Beyond that I've tried to answer the secondary questions it has raised, but basically your question has been answered: That's what Jesus was referring to about how He is spoken of in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms. It was His claim to be the Messiah. So really it is Jesus you are arguing with, not me. But if there is more I can answer tomorrow I will try again. So bye for now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Yes, I noticed that we agreed. But you seemed to be thinking of the passages Jesus had quoted rather than the Messianic passages, so that when you dismissed some of them, such as Daniel, you were missing the point. (Actually I looked it up and IIRC there are three verses in Daniel that Jesus quoted from, but I'm afraid I'd have to look it up again as I've forgotten them) i'm well aware of that. but daniel in itself is a whole nother discussion. we're just looking at the books that jesus specifically mentioned as being contained in the torah, nevi'im, and psalms.
Also, just as a reminder, the New Testament references on the list are statements of the fulfillments of the Messianic prophecies. The prophecies are the Old Testament scriptures, and all from the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms and the NT give fulfillments. I forgot the psalms the first time around. jesus did occasionally too. but we're not looking at arguments about how jesus supposedly fulfilled prophesies. we're showing that most of these arguments are simply wrong. it's not neccessary to look at them when we have the verse they cite. we're look at the evidence, not the later mental gymnastics to make jesus fit through the hoops.
What makes the reference particularly clear is that the pronoun is not plural, but singular: "his heel" --not "their heels" but "his heel." genesis has a bad habit of refering to groups in the singular. for instance, it often calls who groups the equivalent of "bastard" by stating their origin in sexual misconduct. (ala lot's sons by his daughters.) in this instance, it's making a singular case out a tendancy to not like snakes. it's an explanation of our reaction to snakes. although prior to the time of christ, this was read as singular. but not as messianic prophesy. there's another book or two that has this verse refering to seth, eve's son, who is bitten by a snake and bashes its head in. also, look how seth is refered to:
quote: seth is specifically referred to as eve's seed. nothing special about that.
Anyway, there is at least one place where God speaks to Abraham about his Seed that it is clear it is not only to the people who will come from him, though it is that too, but also to the Messiah the individual. If I find the reference I will post it. i'm pretty sure it was the verse this was addressing. seed is referring to multiple offspring. descendents.
OK but Job wasn't Jewish. whether or not job himself was jewish, it is still jewish literature, written by jews. and he answers to, and talks about the god of the jews, yahweh, in the sense that jewish people do. (as opposed to the people of ugarit, who refer to yahweh was the son of el)
Is that a familiar Jewish way of talking? If so I stand corrected. you stand corrected.
I know that Jewish society is matrilineal, which is in fact how Jesus' lineage can be legitimated through His mother without a human father. But it was also patriARCHAL, not MATRIarchal. yes. however, that brings up another issue. the line of kings ALWAYS goes through the father. if jesus had no earthly father, he could not have been heir to david's throne, and the messiah. whether or not he was of the house of david.
The Job passages about being justified, clean, righteous, are famous as background to the messianic passage in which Job declares that he knows that his Redeemer will come, and will stand upon the earth, that though he is unclean, born of a woman, yet he will be justified with God. actually, that whole chapter in job (indeed the whole book of job) is one long accusation against god. job is saying someone will redeem him AGAINST GOD. notice the reaction he expects in the next verse from his friends? he's expecting to get lynched. you wanna agree with job's blasphemy?
Human beings born of a woman are born in Original Sin, job is arguing that god is unjust. do you want to agree with him? look at how job starts:
quote: that doesn't jive with original sin. and if the sin comes from being born of a woman, jesus's got it too. job is very poetically accusing god of not giving him his just dues.
Job is saying he desperately needs such a Mediator as God is so wholly Other from him. from the same chapter:
quote: As far as Jesus' being born of a woman goes, if He was born with Original Sin from His mother, nevertheless He remained perfectly sinless all His life, obeying the Law to perfection, so that He could be the "Lamb without spot or blemish" to die in our place. quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
You are making this more difficult than it really is.
Three "laws" of the 613 were pulled from Genesis.Circumcision Be fruitful and multiply Not to eat the thigh (which is also not in the laws given to Moses) By tradition they have become part of the "laws" that the Jews are to follow. Remember centuries have passed by. The examples you shared are about rules that are to be followed, not prophecies.
quote:Hey Jesus said it not me. Besides, what true messianic prophecy have they presented us from any of the five books? "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I haven't been making any of this up. I'm simply trying to explain what Christian theology says and has said for 2000 years now. oh, we know. trust me. for one, i am a christian myself. i'm not sure about purpledawn. i keep forgetting. but a lot of the nt literature simply misreads jewish literature. just wait till we get to the donkeys bit lower in your first post.
It's standard Christian interpretation ...and what if it's wrong?
It was His claim to be the Messiah. actually, i'm starting to think that referencing psalms was a subtle claim of deity. you see, psalms are usually about a very personal relationship with god, between the psalmist and god. and if jesus isn't the psalmist...
So really it is Jesus you are arguing with, not me. i think this is closest jesus ever came to claiming to be the messiah. he implies it a lot. "son of man" etc. but i don't think that he's talking about that standard list of things we alwasy see posted. this thread is to determing what he WAS talking about. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-17-2005 07:36 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Predictions are far more accurate if done after the fact.
Anyway, prophecy was not originally meant as a synonym of prediction. Prophecy was the transmittal of instruction or knowledge. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
You are making this more difficult than it really is. no, i'm really not. you are.
Three "laws" of the 613 were pulled from Genesis. Circumcision not a law. it's a covenant. and agreement.
Be fruitful and multiply a commandment, specific to adam and eve.
Not to eat the thigh (which is also not in the laws given to Moses) explanation of a law that is mysteriously missing. not a law in itself.
The examples you shared are about rules that are to be followed, not prophecies. exactly.
Hey Jesus said it not me. Besides, what true messianic prophecy have they presented us from any of the five books? i'm not sure. i think jesus might have been subtley calling himself god. but onto what jesus would have said. although jesus probably spoke aramaic, if he had spoken hebrew, when he said "law" he would have actually said the word "torah." when a jewish person refers to "the law" or "the law of moses" they mean the torah. why do you think he meant anything other than "torah?" he mentions two specific divisions of the modern tanakh by name. i've even heard arguments that "psalms" is really a bad rendering of "writings" or ketuvim, the third section. i other words, he might have been saying "the entire old testament"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I already know what Christian theology says and it doesn't match up. The Jews who listened to Jesus only had the OT to check his statements through. They didn't have Christian Theologians. This thread is in accuracy and inerrancy, not faith and belief. "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Exactly!
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: That's what Jesus DID!! It's God's Law that condemns us, that we need to be saved FROM. Oh but I can't take the time right now to get into any more of this. I just HAD to answer that one point. Other points also beckon but I have to get some things done. Don't say anything interesting until tomorrow night!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: I find it all extremely beautifully consistent myself.
quote: Yes, but all Christian Theology is is the codification of what is found in the scriptures.
quote: ???????
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: Partly true, but the Bible is unique in that it has the kind of prophecy that really IS prophetic in the sense of predictive. And they were all done BEFORE the fact. Ciao for now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That's what Jesus DID!! It's God's Law that condemns us, that we need to be saved FROM. so god's the bad guy? you realize this is blasphemy right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Would the Bible contain blasphemy?
No, God Himself has pity on us poor miserable condemned people, condemned by His law, and sends His Own Son to save us from it, from His OWN condemnation of us. It's the most beautiful story ever written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Unforatunately you haven't shown the consistency in your posts. The explanation and the words don't match up. This is accuracy and inerrancy, which to me means, stick to evidence. IOW, if the words say "the cow jumped over the moon", don't give me that theology says it means the dog jumped over the moon. If you do, you need to show me why the words don't match, with concrete evidence. If you claim double meanings, you need to show evidence of it, etc. Don't pass on Christian Theology if you can't show evidence to support their interpretation. "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024