Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

Immanual might have been a prophic name to Strong, but to the ancient hebrews it was a name they gave their kids to celbrate the Worship of God. Strng was coming from the CHristian intepretation.Of course, I would like to see where Jesus was called Immanual in his lifetime too..

Talk about "splitting hairs!" Critics often accuse N.T. Christian Believers with ignoring the facts. Well my friend, if God is WITH you in purpose, it does not mean that He is along for the ride while YOU fullfill your own intellectual, military, or human derived accomplishment. Having God with you means that you and He are in one accord. One Spirit. One agreement. And I can tell you that the purpose was initially His idea and not yours. Immanuel, God with us, was made possible to all through the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In THIS day and age, God can be with us no other way.Of course you will say that my belief is merely the Christian one.
You cannot define Biblical meaning philosophically, however, as that is human derived wisdom. Only theological wisdom need apply here.
Further explanations, professor?

HI Phat What facts have I ignored? The fact that the Messiah would live a prolonged life, the fact that he will have children, the fact that he would be a blood descendant of David’s? These are facts that Christians seem happy to ignore. But it doesn’t mean that he morphed into a man and interacted with other humans. This idea that the Messiah would be some divinely related being is totally alien to Judaism, the Messiah was simply a man, nothing supernatural about him. But god is man made, he is just a character in a collection of ancient texts. God is man’s idea. Immanuel is a personal name which was never given to Jesus as Matthew’s text implies. Isn’t it strange how no one has posted any biblical verse that qualifies Jesus being NAMED Immanuel?Matt. 1:23 (KJV) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Of course it is. It is just another example of the Christian corruption of the Old Testament texts. Isaiah 7:14 isn’t even a messianic prophecy, yet Christians continue to twist it into one. The Bible is the product of the human mind, so we can define it anyway we want. Humans created it and they can really do what they want with it. Theological wisdom informs us that the Bible is a collection of ideologies with very little basis in fact. About what? Why Jesus was never called Immanuel?Brian.

Hi, Brian. Our subject, again, is about corrupting the Old Testament. You started the thread and you did not want any sensationalist ideas about Jesus to be discussed here. It appears that you wanted to represent an independant view. Am I correct, or are you representing primarily a Jewish point of view? Common sense would suggest that a strictly conservative Jewish view would be based on a dependant belief in one monotheistic Creator whereas an independant view would evolve from human wisdom. These problems that you mention....why are they problematic? What are they attacking? What is it that YOU would have us believe?While I respect you certainly as a scholar beyond my caliber, I question the motive and the passion that you have for presenting your wisdom and logic to me. What is it that you would have me do? Denounce Christianity as a corrupted offshoot of Judaism? Let me ask you something, Brian. Is this a problem for me or for you? You have told me where you stand when you said: If this is in fact what you believe, how are you suggesting that Christians need a problem? My entire basis of faith is in the Spirit as the origin of wisdom. So I quote from the book that you say was written by men. Well, we can agree that men wrote the book. Surely a giant hand did not write it. Surely the book did not drop from the clouds.You and I disagree on the source of wisdom that inspired the book. Commenting on Solomon, who I can only know about through reading the Bible, you say Yet you say that the book itself is written by man. I agree, yet you would say that Thus, any reference to God in the book is merely a reflection of one author or anothers personal agenda and ego, right? And you know that I maintain that the inspiration behind the collection of books was from an external source apart from human wisdom.You do make me think, and I do respect your titles and scholarship. I again ask you what it is that you want me to do with all of your careful assertions. What do you want me to believe in?
Myself? Well, I trust myself as a relatively sane individual. I trust that my motives in teaching or counseling others are noble and true. I will admit that I have an ego as do all of us.Additionally, I have been dissappointed and let down by a lot of people in my life. I have conversely been inspired by others. You have reminded me that it is good to have independant sources to examine. A dependant source, according to what I think that you mean, is a source that supports a faulty assertion. To me, God is a dependant source. To me, human wisdom apart from God is an independant source. Still I listen to you, even though you are independant.
Why? Because surely your wisdom and education are ultimately dependant on something. I am curious as to what it ultimately is that you depend on? What defines theological wisdom? In your opinion, does theology differ from philosophy? Can a theologian be an atheist, for example?

Well, Christianity HAS corrupted the meaning of what you call the old testament.For example, Isaiah 7:14, the word ALMAH does not mean virgin. That is
a corruption. If Isaiah wanted to mean virgin, he would have use BETHULAH, not ALmah, which indeed the writer of Isaiah did do on several occations in his piece of scripture.Then, the corruption of Psalm 22.. where K'ari is translated as 'Pierced', when it means 'like a lion'.. as far as I can see, that was
a very purposeful mistranslation.

translation: Christian scholars interpreted words differently from some secular sources. OK...what is the method by which we can arrive at an agreeable concensus of the ideas and thoughts conveyed by an author? Were not the original authors of the words inspired religiously? How does one define an ideology as a non truth?

quote:

---

ideology \'-d-"-l-j, 'i-\ also idealogy \-"-l-j, -"a-\ n, pl -gies 1 : the body of ideas characteristic of a particular individual, group, or culture 2 : the assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a political, social, and economic program ideological \'-d--"l-ji-kl, 'i-\ adj ideologist \-d-"-l-jist\ n

---

Brian DOES correctly point out that Jewish scholars interpret meaning much differently from Christian scholars. says who? At best, we have a disagreement among translations of the meaning of the word. I would hardly see it as a corruption. Tell me, Ramoss what you define a corruption to be? How is this word corrupted? So Isaiah used two different "virgins"...I still see no corruption.He intended to say that a young maiden who had never been one in the flesh with a man...right? Of course I am using Strongs. If you showed me another translation, I would still be attentive to the interpretations of the source and why the interpretations were explained a certain way.[/qs] Well...I may agree that it is a purposeful translation...and who determines if it is mistranslated? In order to translate an authors words, one must see a pattern of thought. If you interpret a thought concept differently than I do, why am I the one who is mistranslating? Could it also not be you? The standard that you adhere to is consenual agreement among independant scholars. The standard that I use is consensual agreement among theologians. At best, we each have a relative platform.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-29-2005 11:35 AM

Phat,The dominant cultural authority in the US descends from Europe especially England and so the dominant religious influence is European Christianity (the distinction is to acknowldege the Orthodox and other non Europe based churches.) You are an individual who has embraced one branch of European Christianity and found a fulfilling meaning in it.Religious authorites invoke Divine authority to legitimatize their leadership. Several of the major world religions base the authority of their decisions on one or more sacred texts. Since they use differing texts or differing interpretations of text, the difference between Islam and Christianity is a different collection of texts though some books are held in common, whereas the difference between Shite and Sunni, or Baptist and Catholic is one of interpretation they disagree on matters of religious significants to them. Ultimately I see this as cultural conflict. The question can be oversimplified and has been to asking "whose side is God on.", usually expressed as "God is on OUR side." btw, I suppose this aspect of Christianity is one of the reasons I finally threw my hands up in dismay saying "this is ridiculous" and realized I just didn't believe this stuff.It is a factual experience repeated millions of times around the world by believers that they feel their belief is TRUTH and that everyone who doesn't believe as they do are in error and risk all sort of grave consequences. And then they argue scriptures or interpretations of scriptures with one another.Brian and academic religious study is doing something else, something I find interesting and more useful than arguing whose beliefs about God are true and whose false. What happens of course instead of pleasing one group of believers let's call them some arbitraty name like the Anabaptists of the Holy Books and displeasing all the other followers, the scholars displease ALL believers! Why? Because they don't take any of these books as being the TRUTH of the LIFE as AUTHORIZED by the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE and therefore my group is right and everybody elses group is wrong and if they don't repent and join our church they can, NAY they will go to HELL... HA HA! My inner rebelious adolescent got a little carried away there, but I want you to that that is how I felt at 17 and still feel when I here the smug self righteous arguments of believers on any faith as they go on about how they are right about God. I feel embarassed and irritated that you and however many millions of humans behave routinely in this fashion.Yes I know religion is such a part of the human condition and it is a part of my condition. Brian is trying to bring rationality and sanity to these mixed up irrational beliefs that have inspired people to good and to conflict and evil.When you say God can be with us in no other way then you are just continuing this. God can't be with the Jews cause they don't accept Christianity's notion that "Immanuel, God with us, was made possible to all through the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In THIS day and age, God can be with us no other way." And for the same reason God can't be with Muslims, Hindu's, etc. God is with you and against all those who don't believe as you think they should. Of course there are Muslims, Jews, and Hindu's etc. thinking the same thing of you. Adults living out childishness. Now in the last sentence maybe some of the Godly wisdom you speak of slipped into your fingers and you wrote a truth you don't yet recognize: Brian is doing God's will. Brian's writings are valid. If God is as great as you claim then he is not your possession, nor the possession of any religion. You don't get to tell God what he is and you don't get to tell me what God wants me to do, that's between me and God. And if God thinks it's useful for me not to believe in him maybe he has a purpose to further in developing science for example. So telling me I should be a Christian like you is you saying "God, you aren't doing things right. You are letting these people do something different that what I want them to do. Make them be Christians and go to church." If you have faith in God then trust the source, trust the way things are, accept, and respect the facts, respect What Is.Brian and bible scholars are trying to understand the books of the Bible as they were written, not how they are being used by people to buttress their current religious beliefs. Get over it and learn something.I recognized that this rant is really not directed at you. It's from my past and the generally good, decent but narrow minded people I grew up with in a small rural "Christian" town. And 50 years later I'm hearing the same nonsense about monkeys, evolution, and religion. This forum sometimes functions as time travel to the unfinished business of my formative years.I don't have problems with religionist loving God. It's the doctrinal nonsense that they insist is a part of religion or truth that I find so objectionable.lfen

Actually, it would be more correct to say that CHristians used different
translations than what is said in biblical hebrew.The people who say that ALmah means virgin are the people who speak Hebrew. There are examples in the Tanakh of ALMAH being used in relation to non-virgins, such as in the Song of Solomon where an almah is described in very sexual and intimate detail.In the septanigent, the term ALMAH was translated to be Parthenos. This term was also used in there to describe a woman (rebecca) who was raped in Genesis.. two strikes against it meaning "Virgin"

Hi Phat, Yes, an independent view from as objective a stance as possible. They are problematic because in many many places the Old Testament texts do not say what the New Testament authors say that they do. These problems demonstrate that the NT authors have corrupted the OT texts in an attempt to make Jesus into something that he clearly wasn’t.If Jesus was this great Messiah, then the authors of the NT would not have had to invent and/or contort the OT texts. If Jesus was the promised Messiah of the OT Israel would have been free during his brief life.The virgin birth is one of the central beliefs of Christianity, and is based through Matthew’s Gospel on Isaiah 7:14. But, Isaiah 7:14 IS NOT a messianic prophecy, and it does not mention a ‘virgin’ birth at all. The virgin birth is a problem as well because it does not give Jesus a bloodline to David, and thus negates his messiahship.Don’t you find it intriguing that no one EVER called Jesus Immanuel?Seriously, read Isaiah chapters 7 and 8, and tell me that there is a messianic prophecy n there.If you do try to detach yourself emotionally from the NT (which may not be possible), and try to be objective, then there are real problems with the texts. Of course, you will always find an apologetic of some description, and some are very good and valid explanations, but many others simply do not deal with problems. The number of people in the Exodus group for example, I have never come across a valid explanation for this yet, there are many absurd attempts though. They are essentially misrepresenting the scriptures of another faith. But, more importantly, they could suggest that Christianity is a complete sham and that Jesus was little more than an opportunist whose followers could not face the embarrassment of his failure so they simply made things up to protect their reputations and lives. In doing so, they turned Jesus into a god. I believe that the New Testament authors scanned the Tanakh for any possible references that they could tag onto Jesus in an attempt to make him more popular. In doing so, they have not only taken texts out of context, they sometime just make up references that aren’t in the OT. The ‘Nazarene’ is one such ‘prophecy.’I think that the clearest message from the Bible is that Jesus could not have been the Messiah, it is blatantly obvious. Even the attempts by the NT authors show that Jesus could not have been the Messiah, he has no royal blood, he died young, he had no children, he spoke before his accusers, he raised his hands in anger, he did not free Israel, the list goes on and on.Perhaps Jesus was a special teacher, although he did plagiarise a great deal of Rabbi Hillel’s material, a charismatic leader who genuinely sought to free Israel from their enemies who ultimately failed. I love the Old Testament texts, and Christianity has corrupted those texts. This is one reason why I stopped studying the NT about 5 years ago. I still refer to it of course, but I no longer have the desire to really get in to it anymore.My motives?Well, I now look at the OT texts as a source of social, historical, and anthropological information, I try to look at the texts by standing back from them and trying to place them in what I think would have been their original context. For example, perhaps the Conquest narratives were written, not because this is what actually happened, but they were written to give Israel a claim to the land, the conquest narratives have persuaded many people that Israel has a right to that land. But, think about it, if there was no conquest, if the Israelites emerged from within Palestine alongside the other Palestinian peoples, could this perhaps be a launching pad for some discussions between the leading protagonists in Palestine today?
What ‘minimalist’ scholars have been trying to do over the last 30 years or so, is to strip away all the supernatural elements from the texts to try and use what is left to reconstruct a plausible history of ancient Israel (the deists did something similar). They are not, like some people think, out to destroy the Bible or anything at all like that, they are out to reconstruct the past in a way that is at least plausible. In attempting this, they do need to refer to the biblical texts because ancient Israel is invisible in any extant external sources. Not at all, although I personally have arrived at more or less this stance.You are obviously free to believe what you want to believe, and if you see Jesus as the Messiah of the OT then good luck to you, I really cannot see it myself. But you really shouldn’t be upset when others look at the same texts and cannot see what you or some other Christians see. It isn’t a problem for me at all, I rejected Christianity a long time ago. But, for anyone who believes that Jesus was the first person to be born of a virgin, or that Mary was the only person pure enough to carry the Christ baby, then they really need to examine the texts again. If Isaiah 7:14 refers to a sexual virgin, then there was a virgin birth 700 years before Jesus, and Immanuel’s mummy was as pure as Mary. And it is your starting point that clouds your judgement. You cannot see any problems with the biblical texts because you are starting from the viewpoint that everything in the Bible is true and that it is God’s word. How can you criticise the text if you revere them so much, would finding an error really affect your faith? Believing in yourself is a good place to start. Why do you need to involve this fictional being in anything? If I remember correctly, don’t you also ‘preach’ to prison inmates or something like that? I apologise if I am mixing you up here.But, counselling others, helping your fellow humans is indeed a noble thing to do. But so many then feel the need to force God onto what may be a ‘captive’ audience. Many missionaries for example, have helped save millions of lives from famine and disease, but once they have earned the trust of the people they then suffocate them with the Jesus nonsense. What is wrong with helping someone simply for the sake of it being the right and good thing to do? Why not help them back on their feet and then allow them to go about their business after that? Join the club! Ditto. But this source is not accessible to everyone, it is not an objective source. If I show you a text you cannot deny that the text is there because you can see it and read it and feel it. You cannot take me and show me God, you cannot point to Him and say look there He is. Why should I accept a source that you have no demonstrable proof for? I depend on my ability to support rationally whatever proposal that I present. I depend on scholars who have decades of high level research in their various fields to point out the errors in my hypotheses and they can show me exactly where I am wrong. They can provide sources that would make me reconsider my position and alter my views on a particular issue. I suppose you could say I depend on the accuracy of human wisdom and experience, theories that present evidence that anyone can look at and examine, theories that are falsifiable. If a theory is proven incorrect, then we can look for other evidence that may support a slightly different theory. This is the problem with a faith stance when it comes to history, so much of their theories are not falsifiable. I still do not know how I would be able to falsify God. Evolution doesn’t do it, we just posit God placing the first organism here. The invisible Flood doesn’t do it, we just posit that it was a local flood, or symbolic or God made the fossil record the way it is to trick the wise. We cannot falsify God, so I cannot depend on this type of theory. I think that theology and philosophy are not really all that different. Theology employs a lot of philosophies in its explanations for many different things. Plotinus’ neoplatonism for example, is given as an explanation for the belief that only a clean (sin free) soul can go back to the presence of its maker.An atheist certainly can be a theologian, I personally know three world famous theologians who do not believe in god. You also have to remember that many people may have been theologians before they became atheist, maybe some personal trauma has made them re-evaluate their faith.But, I think it is perfectly possible for an atheist to become a very good theologian and to teach theology to others. They wouldn’t make a very good preacher though Brian.

Well, Brian...you gave me an honest and thorough answer and explained to me your current position quite well. I respect your position, yet I will still attempt to argue if only to generate further explanations from you. Unless human wisdom was corrupted from the beginning and the overall plot of the book was to show Gods wisdom as superior to the best that humanity had to offer. Not at all. Jesus was God with us. Is that not the translation of Immanuel? One thing about Jesus that is interesting is how the subject brings out such a passion and a desire within people to either embrace Him as God or to denounce the legend. Why is it that as to the idea of, say, the Dalai Lama being a God hardly causes a stir? In other words, so what? If he is, he is. Why then, does the name of Jesus carry such an emotional charge with it? Really? Lets take Saul of Tarsus aka Paul. Do you seriously think that this man made up the entire story that he wrote? He explains why the Jews were concluded in unbelief, he explains why the church is a mystery that begins when Israel rejects the messiah, and he quite honestly shows us that he is a bit of an egomaniac, but for Christ of course!
I agree that the church was a flawed human institution of self interests aplenty, and that many Popes were corrupt. I believe that the heart of the faith was preserved through many of the "little people"...monks who were patient enough to copy the scriptures one letter at a time for no monetary gain on their part.I also agree with you, though, IFEN. You may be right when you suggest that God has a reason for His timing concerning various people knowing Him and why I may get in His way!

Phat,It hardly causes a stir because until now no one has ever heard of that idea! Where did you get the idea the Dalai Lama was a God?The Dalai Lama does carry quite a charge for the Chinese who are illegally occupying Tibet but that is understandable in a political sense.In Christian cultures even today Judaism and Islam cause quite a stir for religious and now also political reasons. I don't think it's Jesus that causes a stir at all, rather it's the actions of the Christian church claimed in the name of Jesus. But then that would be his will also!lfen

Hi phat, Sure, you can set whatever scenario you wish, we can all justify our stances that way. But, if god is a completely human invention then it certainly demonstrates just how inventive and extremely intelligent some humans are. These ancient authors have constructed a work that is still followed by around half the population of the world, they presented a text that had so many factors in it that it can be used as a control mechanism even today. This could demonstrate that humans are a lot wiser than you give them credit for. Matthew 1:23 KJV: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.They shall call his name Immanuel, and nowhere in the Bible did they call his name Immanuel. Immanuel is a personal name. Jesus means ‘Yahweh Saves’.I was also intrigued why the author of Matthew had to explain what ‘Immanuel’ means.Matthew 1:21 KJV And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.It is the same phrase Phat, ‘call his name’, appears in both verses, yet I can only recall people calling him Jesus.What about the phrase ‘ for it is he that shall save his people from their sins ’?Could it be argued that Jesus was only interested in saving ‘his people’ the Jews? The OT is littered with examples of God allowing the Israelites to be persecuted because they sinned against God, perhaps the Roman oppression was seen as another example of this? The Book of Judges talks of God being with the judges as they fought to free Israel, we are told that as along as Israel worships Yahweh he will be with the judge and that judge will never be defeated. Perhaps the situation was the same, Israel was persecuted by Rome, they thus must have been sinning for God to abandon them, if Jesus shows them that they are sinning against God and they repent, then obviously they would think that God will free them from the Romans.Perhaps, when it became obvious that Jesus failed as the Jewish idea of the Messiah, his followers had to quickly provide what they thought was a reasonable explanation for Jesus failure as Jewish messiah. Who knows? Yes, and it is a pity that when two from each camp meet then there is really no constructive discussion. The only fruitful discussions appear to take place between non-extremists, or when one of them stands back from their position and listens to the other. I can understand both camps, one wants the other to feel the love and joy of Jesus and they want all beings to be saved (some do anyway), and the other sees this legend as having been an abomination to mankind that has made us suffer for centuries and has held back human progress. It is an emotive subject, and one that will go on long after my lifetime. As Ifen points out, Buddhists do not believe in a god in the same way that we do. There are gods in Buddhism but they are a lower being that a human, for two reasons. One, their existence is not permanent, and when they lose their power they suffer greatly, and secondly, it is only as a human that a being can follow the Dharma and escape from samsara.But, I get your point, I don’t think it is Jesus per se that causes this stir, it is the people who claim to do things in his name or the people who force others into believing that Jesus is God. One of the reasons it does, for me anyway, is the way in which his so-called followers actually ignore what Jesus taught! It does get frustrating when someone approaches you in the street and asks if you have Jesus in your life, and then persist in quoting verses to you and telling you what they mean. Then when you ask how this fits in with another part of the Bible they really don’t know what you are talking about.Another reason, for me, is some of these televangelists, they really would be comical if it wasn’t so serious. I see these guys cashing in on people’s grief and playing the showman, it is intensely embarrassing.A while back we started to get the ‘God Channel’ on our cable TV. OMG, I have never seen such a collection of misfits and morons in one place at one time. Why do all the old guys on that channel dye their hair purple?Seriously though, I think it is the people who abuse Jesus’ words that stir others up, and not the big man himself. Paul is not the greatest example of an honest witness, he wasn’t exactly a man of honour was he?But, Paul could have had some sort of psychological episode, he may have been racked with guilt as he was persecuting Christians. He certainly made a few things up, historically speaking. For example, how could he have a letter from the Sanhedrin to persecute Christians in Damascus? What possible influence did they have in Syria?
Also, how reliable are the Pauline texts? Last I heard, almost half of what were believed to be his texts have now been shown to be the work of someone else!I wrote an essay when I first started studying at uni, it argued that Christianity triumphed through two psychological events, Paul’s and Constantine’s! I have no idea where it is now, but I remember my lecturer being slightly upset at me when we discussed the contents. But he did tear my essay to shreds, the guy has sold literally millions of books so I had to accept his criticism. I still received a decent percentage for the essay though! And he never refers to Jesus as an earthly being. He was also very quick to scream that he was a Roman citizen if it meant saving his neck. The thing is, we will never really know if the NT we have today is the same as the original as there are no originals to compare it with. We know that many of the OT books evolved over time, and we know that there are different versions of the Tanakh that contradict each other, I suppose the accuracy of the texts is just another part of Christianity that has to be taken in faith.Brian.BTW, I appreciate this discussion, it is nice to chat without angry overtones.Cheers.

I find it interesting that Matthew 1 has come up so many times in this discussion because it contains what I think is one of the most telling passages related to the later redaction of the Messiah tales. It shows a clear example of how the texts and tales were manipulated after the fact to support a later view.If we examine Matthew 1:22-23 we find. These two lines are totally different than anything else in Matthew 1 and if removed, the story flows smoothly. They are almost an aside, a commentary by some narrator or bard to make a point. It seems likely that these were added at a much later date and were not part of the original Matthew 1 story.Here are the two versions, with and without 22-23. Note that this is a smoothly flowing tale. It is full and complete and steps through the events without interuption.Now here it is with the two lines restored. Notice the break. The whole tenor of the piece changes with the emphasis moving from what actually happened to a connection with the OT.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Jar,Yes, when it is displayed like this it makes perfect sense that this was added later.The fact that the meaning of Immanuel is given did raise my suspiscions because, in the OT, glosses such as this are indicative of later additions to the text. It may also indicate that the reference originated in a foreign community.It is maybe worth looking again at the 'that it may be fulfilled' references in Matthew to see if they interupt the flow of the text.Thanks for that.Brian.

Jar,You are quite correct. Sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. I bet there are tons of apologetics arguing this piece of dogma to be regarded as original though.lfen