There is no such thing as The Bible

I happen to disagree. There are mutliple variations of the Old testament.. the Dead sea scrolls have shown that.And then the worshipers of Jesus came along, and it is a new religion, worshipping a new god. The concept of god made flesh is in direct
violation of Jewish beliefs about god, so it is an entirely differnet
god.

Several items.1) The dead sea scrolls restored a number of passages that have disappeard (for example, it had the missing couplets in a psalm where each passage started with a different letter of the alphabet, in order)2) Although it restored many passages that had gotten lost, it is still 15% smaller than modern Tanakh's.The Dead Sea Scroll is a marvalous resource, since it shows on how passages get both lost and added, and how close (or not so) that other
parts can be copied.

There are variations between the scrolls in the DDS and the masoric text.Understand?And, no, Jesus is not the same god that the Jewish people envisioned. The Jewish tradition is that God is spirit, will always be spirit. God is not a man, god is not the son of man.The Jews got into a lot of trouble because they would not have images of Ceasar in their temples.. since God is not a man. That is why the Jews would consider having Jesus as "God" as a new god.This message has been edited by ramoss, 07-01-2005 09:10 AM

Simple, They are not Jewz. They are Christians who are following some of the Jewish holidays and traditions.Most of the Jews for Jesus, for example, were actually Christians who converted, and don't even have the Jewish background. Look at who funds teh "Jews for Jesus". The Southern Baptists do. LOok who is on the Board of Directors.. Many Baptist ministers.The "Jews for Jesus" is a fraud trying to prostylise to the Jews.

For example, they claim that certian passages are prophcies that aren't. They mistranslate certain passages to make the appear to be prophecies. They take passages out of context, both culturally, and from the surrounding text to 'prove' Jesus. They add certain concept that are very Greek to the Jewish religion, and project it onto the old testament. They forced such concepts as 'original sin', and the demi-god known as "Satan" onto the New testament with their assumptions.

One thing you will find is that NO "messanic Jewish" congregation is Jewish.End of story.

Actually,the karsites are also Jewish. They are not rabbitical. So, your assumptions are incorrect.If you investigate the 'messanic judaism' movement, you will find that many of them are actually "ex-christians" that were not brought up in the Jewish faith.

What makes a standard for canon'?

Any book can be claimed to be diviny inspired. You seem to be falling back on the 'It's not divinely inspired' tact. Why should anyone take one book to be divinly inspired over another? I mean, The Revelation of JOhn narrowly was not included into the canon by he just a narrow vote.What criteria do you have to say if something is 'divinely inspired' or not? Your opinion? Pulling it out of a hat? Just plain politics?

Gosh, with those particular requirements, it appears that NONE of the Old testament or new testament is 'divinely inspired'.It also seems to totally ignore the structure of the Tanakh with the torah, the prophets, and the writings.

I think there are several versions of the Septugaint. The original version was only the 5 books of moses.. but since then, other books were added on. It is a process that lasted a couple of hundred years I think, so it was varied.

The reason the book is shown to be written (or at least modified), a lot latter is that hte book is historically inaccurate for the time period that the story of daniel is written. As the 'prophecies' get to be around the 2nd century b.c.e., it gets accurate, but once about 134 B.C.E. runs around, the prediction go totally off base.

It was a book written in the second century b.c.e. to try to inspire people who were under the impression of Antioch. It is a psuedographical work. It is just part of the 'writings', not the torah or the prophets.

quote:

---

Finally, there is no answer to any question in the Talmudic Tradition, no one correct answer. Instead there is a recognition, a celebration even, of differing viewpoints.

---

Nicely put, and this is something that many non-Jewish people who quote the talmud just don't get.

Here is a rather extensive site about early jewish writings, and this page specificall about danielDanielA small sample

quote:

---

W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)

---

You also don't seem to understand the structure of the tankah. Daniel is in the 'writings'..