Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 163 (8170 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-28-2014 10:42 AM
62 online now:
1.61803, Coyote, DrJones*, frako, jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle (9 members, 53 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kavinmarter
Happy Birthday: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 742,217 Year: 28,058/28,606 Month: 3,115/2,244 Week: 519/710 Day: 19/76 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Are there two Christs in the Bible?
ramoss
Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 31 of 109 (350219)
09-19-2006 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2006 8:05 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
First of all, when it comes to the Jewish expectations of the Messiah, the expections are to be 'From the seed of David'.. 'From the root and branch of Jesse'. This specificlaly means an unbroken line through the male line.. father to son, and no adoptions.

Second of all, according to the New Testament, Mary is a Levite. She is cousins with the mother of John the Baptist, who is a levite. This eliminates the potential that either Luke's or Matthews Geneology refers to Mary's line.

It is easy to reinvent the wheel, and try to retrofit something into a huge book if you are only looking at a couple of lines out of context. If you look at Isaiah 9:6-7 in context, and you understand the cultural references, you will understand that Isaiah 9:6-7 is a reference to the King Ahaz's son, Heziekel. Literally, Heziekel means
'God is stength', (Or Migthy God).

As for Matthews geneology, it goes through a cursed line. That disqualifies any decendant throught that line of becoming the Messiah.

There is no 'fall of man' as you are describing it in Genesis. That is
the exgenesis of Augustus, based on the misinterpetation of Paul.

None of the words of Isaiah have anything to do with Jesus. Isaiah was talking about things that were immediate as a sign to King Ahaz.. and therefore a child born 700 years later would be irrelavent to King Ahaz.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2006 8:05 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 1:17 PM ramoss has responded
 Message 53 by thehousethatGodbuilt, posted 02-11-2009 10:14 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 671 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 32 of 109 (350313)
09-19-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ramoss
09-19-2006 8:59 AM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
First of all, when it comes to the Jewish expectations of the Messiah, the expections are to be 'From the seed of David'.. 'From the root and branch of Jesse'. This specificlaly means an unbroken line through the male line.. father to son, and no adoptions.

The Jews were also expecting a warrior messiah who would destroy the Roman occupiers. It just shows our lack of erudition on the matter.

“Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O’ land, land, land, hear the Word of the Lord! This is what the Lord says: ‘Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.” -Jeremiah 22:28-30

And then a few chapters later we read:

“In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from the line of David; He will do what is just and right in the land. In those days, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the Name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord Our Righteousness.’ For this is what the lord says, ‘David will never fail to have a man sit on the throne of the house of David." –Jeremiah 33:14-17

Second of all, according to the New Testament, Mary is a Levite. She is cousins with the mother of John the Baptist, who is a levite. This eliminates the potential that either Luke's or Matthews Geneology refers to Mary's line.

Mary and Elizabeth were related just as John and Jesus were related through them, however, this does not mean that Miryam was not from the tribe of Judah. Elizabeth could easily have been a Levite while Mary was from Judah because it does not mention how closely they are related. If Mary was the daughter of Heli as stated in the gospel of Luke, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally through his reputed father, but rather by direct personal descent through Mary. We also know that she had no brothers since she had no brothers. Mary was an heiress to that throne and therefore her husband, according to Halacha, was reckoned among her father's family as his son. So then, Joseph was the actual son of Jacob and the legal son of Heli. In a word, Matthew shows us Jesus' right to the throne through legality and Luke, through His natural pedigree. Understand now how difficult it is to be the messiah?

What human being doeswhat only God can do, spoken throughout messianic scripture, and can be a living descendant of David and yet avoid the curse? Its impossible. Therefore, just as YHWH foreshadowed through Abraham, "God will provide HIMSELF the acceptable sacrifice." Jesus came to us Mashiac ben Yosef to be our suffering servant, but He will come back to us with glory to subjugate the nations as Mashiac ben David.

There is no 'fall of man' as you are describing it in Genesis. That is the exgenesis of Augustus, based on the misinterpetation of Paul.

First of off, I never said anything about the Fall of man, secondly, what is your Pauline misinterpratation based on?

None of the words of Isaiah have anything to do with Jesus. Isaiah was talking about things that were immediate as a sign to King Ahaz.. and therefore a child born 700 years later would be irrelavent to King Ahaz.

No other prophet so beautifully gives us messianic scripture than Isaiah. King Ahaz, huh? King Ahaz was a ruthless king who didn't get to be burried in the royal tombs because nobody liked him. So, how is it that Isaiah should prophesying or speaking about King Ahaz in a positive light? Explain to me why you think Isaiah is talking about King Ahaz and not Jesus.


"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ramoss, posted 09-19-2006 8:59 AM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ramoss, posted 09-20-2006 10:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 34 by jar, posted 09-20-2006 1:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 33 of 109 (350646)
09-20-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 1:17 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?

The Jews were also expecting a warrior messiah who would destroy the Roman occupiers. It just shows our lack of erudition on the matter.

“Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O’ land, land, land, hear the Word of the Lord! This is what the Lord says: ‘Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.” -Jeremiah 22:28-30

And then a few chapters later we read:

“In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from the line of David; He will do what is just and right in the land. In those days, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the Name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord Our Righteousness.’ For this is what the lord says, ‘David will never fail to have a man sit on the throne of the house of David." –Jeremiah 33:14-17

You have correctly identified why Jesus can not have been the Messiah.
He comes from a cursed line, as shown by your quotes. That shows that
the line has to go from David through Solomon.


Mary and Elizabeth were related just as John and Jesus were related through them, however, this does not mean that Miryam was not from the tribe of Judah. Elizabeth could easily have been a Levite while Mary was from Judah because it does not mention how closely they are related. If Mary was the daughter of Heli as stated in the gospel of Luke, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally through his reputed father, but rather by direct personal descent through Mary. We also know that she had no brothers since she had no brothers. Mary was an heiress to that throne and therefore her husband, according to Halacha, was reckoned among her father's family as his son. So then, Joseph was the actual son of Jacob and the legal son of Heli. In a word, Matthew shows us Jesus' right to the throne through legality and Luke, through His natural pedigree. Understand now how difficult it is to be the messiah?

What human being doeswhat only God can do, spoken throughout messianic scripture, and can be a living descendant of David and yet avoid the curse? Its impossible. Therefore, just as YHWH foreshadowed through Abraham, "God will provide HIMSELF the acceptable sacrifice." Jesus came to us Mashiac ben Yosef to be our suffering servant, but He will come back to us with glory to subjugate the nations as Mashiac ben David.

In those days, it was extremely difficult for people to marry outside of their tribe, and Elizabeth has been shown to be a levite. There is no scriptural reason, (except that Matthew and Luke disagree) to say that one is Mary's,and the other is Josephs. The line has to go through the MALE line, which makes Mary's lineage irrelavent anyway.
There is much more scriptural evidence for her to be a levite than from the House of Judah though. I would like to see what passage in the New Testament that points to either of the lineages being of Mary though. Maybe you can show the explicit line in the new testament that points that out??


No other prophet so beautifully gives us messianic scripture than Isaiah. King Ahaz, huh? King Ahaz was a ruthless king who didn't get to be burried in the royal tombs because nobody liked him. So, how is it that Isaiah should prophesying or speaking about King Ahaz in a positive light? Explain to me why you think Isaiah is talking about King Ahaz and not Jesus.

The sign was TO king Ahaz, not about King Ahaz. Let's look at what Isaiah wrote

Isaiah 7:1-4

quote:

7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. BOM: 2 Nephi 17:1-25
7:2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

In those days, Ahaz was the House of David. The sign Isaiah was giving was to King Ahaz.

What was King Ahaz worried about?? It says it in Isaiah

quote:

7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
7:9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established

And what was the sign?

quote:

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young maiden has conceived and will soon bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

As you can see from CONTEXT, King Ahaz was worried about the King of Assyria. Isaiah's sign was to King Ahaz, and the sign was a time period from the birth of a child, to the time the child was old enough to know good from evil. By this time, the problem King Ahaz was facing will have been resolved. No messiah in those passages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24991
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 34 of 109 (350688)
09-20-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 1:17 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
No other prophet so beautifully gives us messianic scripture than Isaiah.

Isaiah 7 does not foretell Jesus. If you would like to once again examine that please start yet another thread on it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Terral
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 109 (356275)
10-13-2006 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by carbonstar
08-13-2006 2:10 PM


Melchizedek Is The Incarnation Of The Holy Spirit
Hi CarbonStar:

quote:
Carbon >> Reading the Bible can be very unclear and confusing. Who was Melchizedek and what made him so special that Christ had to be compared to him? Jesus is described as coming in the "order of Melchizedek" and he is described as having no descendants.
I see this as an indication that Melchizedek could have been another Christ.

We disagree. The true identity of Melchizedek is understood through His relationship with Abraham paying tithes (Heb. 7:8+9), as this key principal of Scripture is none other than the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. To gather the elemental precepts teaching this doctrine, we must travel all the way back to the Garden and examine Adam's relationship with the 'Tree Of Life.' But first, we should learn to recognize the three individual components making up the Tabernacle of Moses.

Imagine that Adam is walking around in the ‘Court’ of the Tabernacle/Temple with the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” standing in the middle (Holy Place) and the ‘tree of life’ standing behind the veil in the Holy of Holies. Adam entered the Holy Place to eat the forbidden fruit and stood one step away from passing through the second veil to eat from the tree of life and continue living in his fallen condition forever. Therefore, the Lord God removed Adam from the Garden and blocked the entrance using two cherubim “to guard the way to the tree of life.” Gen. 3:24.

The Lord God has the intention of restoring the “tree of life” (Holy Spirit) relationship with the chosen seed (Abraham, Isaac and Jabob) through Mosaic Law through the Tabernacle of Moses in the wilderness, then through the Temple in David’s and Solomon’s Kingdom of Israel. However, God shows us that Melchizedek (a Gentile) is making intercession for Gentiles long before any Jew ever walked upon this earth from the loins of Abraham. Scripture tips His hand by saying,

quote:
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.” Hebrews 7:3.

Melchizedek was made ‘like’ the Son of God, which tells you He cannot ‘be’ the Son of God Himself. God’s Son ‘incarnated’ onto this earth as “Jesus Christ” and His Spirit of the Holy of Holies incarnated onto this earth as Melchizedek. He has no beginning ‘of days,’ because He is seen working way back in Genesis 1:2 moving over the ‘surface of the waters.’ And unbroken thread exists from Genesis 1:2 all the way to Revelation 22:17 where the “SPIRIT and the bride say, ‘Come.’” That Holy Spirit is the ‘My glory’ (Ex. 29:43) consecrating the sons of Israel leading Moses to say, “I pray You, show me Your Glory!” Exodus 22:18. The is the same “Glory of the Lord” filling the Tabernacle in Exodus 40:34+35. David makes the connections, saying,

quote:
“Do not cast me away from Your Presence and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.” Psalm 51:11.

“Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your Presence? Psalm 139:7.


Carry that back to the Garden and Adam’s relationship with the Lord God through the “Presence of the Lord” (Gen. 3:8).

This ‘Presence’ and ‘glory of the Lord’ is positioned in the Holy of Holies behind the Second Veil, when Zacharias (John’s father) entered the Temple to burn incense (Luke 1:9); which connects John the Baptist being baptized with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). John the Baptist then passed the Holy Spirit baton to Jesus Christ in the Jordan (Matt. 3:15+16), until He passed the “Helper” (John 16:7) to the Twelve on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1+). In every case the Holy Spirit is consecrating “her seed” (Gen. 3:15), while separating them from the world and the ‘wrath’ to come (Rom. 5:9). The same Holy Spirit will continue consecrating the sons of Israel from behind the Second Veil of Ezekiel’s restored Temple (Eze. 40+), until the antichrist appears to set up his “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15 = Dan. 11:31+12:11-13), Christ intervenes (Matt. 24:30-31) and New Jerusalem finds Him saying “Come” (Rev. 22:17).

In Christ Jesus even now,

Terral


"For the word of God is Living AND Active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by carbonstar, posted 08-13-2006 2:10 PM carbonstar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 10-13-2006 10:12 AM Terral has responded
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 10-13-2006 1:07 PM Terral has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 7529
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 36 of 109 (356283)
10-13-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Terral
10-13-2006 9:56 AM


Re: Melchizedek Is The Incarnation Of The Holy Spirit
Terral writes:

We disagree.

:confused: Who is "we"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Terral, posted 10-13-2006 9:56 AM Terral has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Terral, posted 10-13-2006 10:39 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Terral
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 109 (356286)
10-13-2006 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
10-13-2006 10:12 AM


Terral Is Disagreeing With CarbonStar
Hi Prat:

quote:
Prat >> Who is "we"?

I am disagreeing with “CarbonStar” whose name appears in the “quote.” : 0 )

(Carbon and I) “We disagree.” This place needs a “Private Messaging” system allowing members to converse more freely, which would reduce the number of personal messages in the archives.

GL,

Terral


"For the word of God is Living AND Active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 10-13-2006 10:12 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 38 of 109 (356314)
10-13-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Terral
10-13-2006 9:56 AM


Melchizedek Not a Messiah
I do agree that Melchizedek was not a messiah, but the rest of your post is very complex for something so simple. It is suited to a sermon, not a debate.

Melchizedek was a king who was also a high priest.

The song (Psalm 110) is about King David and shows that he was a king and considered a high priest. I feel the author of the book of Hebrews was trying to impress upon the Jewish audience that Jesus was a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, meaning he was also a king; not just a high priest as the Levites were (not in the order of Aaron).


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Terral, posted 10-13-2006 9:56 AM Terral has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 39 of 109 (356417)
10-13-2006 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by carbonstar
08-13-2006 2:10 PM


carbonstar writes:

Melchizedek could have been another Christ.

Why not?! Let him join the club. There are a plenty of Christs in the Bible, as our friend ramoss has been trying to point out.

Problem is, translators have tweaked the text in such a way as to eliminate all mention of any Christ save Jesus.

You see: the word 'Christ' is not English, it's Greek.

When Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew to Greek, they gave the word 'Christos' where our language would call for the word 'anointed.'

When Christian scholars translated the Greek Bible into Latin, they retained the Greek word by way of transliteration: 'Christos.'

When the Latin Bible was brought to English, all instances of the word Christ were expunged from the Old Testament by way of translation. Everywhere the holy text once read: Christos, it now reads: 'anointed.'

In unlike manner, when it came to the New Testament, those same translators declined to bring Christos into English; thus making Christ Jesus appear to be the only one upon whom this title was ever bestowed.

Since your question includes a specific query into the possibility of other Christs, I hereby propose that we consider the relative virtues of another royal Son of God, say: Christ Solomon.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by carbonstar, posted 08-13-2006 2:10 PM carbonstar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Terral, posted 10-15-2006 10:29 AM doctrbill has responded

  
Terral
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 109 (356653)
10-15-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by doctrbill
10-13-2006 10:24 PM


The Original Manuscripts Of Our Modern Translations Are Written In Greek
Hi Dr. Bill:

quote:
Bill >> When Christian scholars translated the Greek Bible into Latin, they retained the Greek word by way of transliteration: 'Christos.' When the Latin Bible was brought to English, all instances of the word Christ were expunged from the Old Testament by way of translation. Everywhere the holy text once read: Christos, it now reads: 'anointed.'

Your position is that of a historical revisionist, as people like the Lockman Foundation scholars bringing us the New American Standard Bible worked from the Critical Text never translated into Latin or any other language. The New King James Version is a translation from the Received Text, or the Antiochian version of the Greek manuscripts ALSO without any Latin translation. Everything from your post above is based upon a false notion that the Egyptian (Critical Text), Antiochian (Received Text) and indeed the Majority Text (combining similarities of all known manuscripts http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html ) are derived from a “Latin” translation. There are many ‘anointed’ principals in Scripture, but Jesus Christ is the “Only Begotten” Son OF GOD. John 3:16. Scripture says,

quote:
“He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ). John 1:41.

“The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham . . .”. Matthew 1:1.


It is not that Jesus Christ is ‘a’ Messiah, but He is ‘the’ Messiah to the Jews seeking the fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy in Christ’s day 2000 years ago. We can look these things up in our ‘Greek’ Lexicons without ever using any Latin anything. We should understand that Christ, Peter and his fishermen brothers and fellow disciples were all speaking on their native Syrian dialect of Aramaic, which Israel spoke since their final captivity in 6 B.C. However, NT Scripture is given to us in the commercial ‘Greek’ language of commerce used throughout the known civilized world in Paul’s day, which appears in the Critical and Received Texts from which our modern Bibles are translated.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral


"For the word of God is Living AND Active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by doctrbill, posted 10-13-2006 10:24 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by doctrbill, posted 10-15-2006 1:39 PM Terral has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 41 of 109 (356689)
10-15-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Terral
10-15-2006 10:29 AM


Re: The Original Manuscripts Of Our Modern Translations Are Written In Greek
Terral writes:

Everything from your post above is based upon a false notion that ... [various texts] ... are derived from a “Latin” translation.

That is not what I said, nor is it what I intended to say.

Jesus ... is ‘the’ Messiah to the Jews seeking the fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy in Christ’s day 2000 years ago.

The majority of Jews did not believe in Jesus because he did not fulfill the prophecies, not even those made in his own time. Jesus did not do what messiah was supposed to do: Save his people from their enemies.

We can look these things up in our ‘Greek’ Lexicons without ever using any Latin anything.

Are you prejudiced against the Latin language?

You won't find the word 'salvation,' in your Greek lexicon, because the word salvation isn't Greek, it's Latin. Are you prepared to forgo the use of this word in your religious liturgy?

You won't find the word 'lucifer,' in your Greek lexicon. Are you prepared to forgo the use of this word in your religious speech? Are you prepared to stop uttering this term just because it's Latin?

Christ, Peter and his fishermen brothers and fellow disciples were all speaking on their native Syrian dialect of Aramaic, ... However, NT Scripture is given to us in the commercial ‘Greek’

Even if your statement were true ... So What? You have missed the point entirely.

The point is this: The holy scripture has been purposely tweaked; methodically purged of the word 'Christ.' What reason is there to do this, other than to increase the apparent uniqueness of Jesus "who is called Christ." "

There are many ‘anointed’ principals in Scripture, but Jesus Christ is the “Only Begotten” Son OF GOD. John 3:16.

Another can of worms you open here. I would love to help you eat some. Later perhaps. I am tiring of this post already.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Terral, posted 10-15-2006 10:29 AM Terral has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Terral, posted 10-16-2006 12:06 PM doctrbill has responded

  
Terral
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 109 (356853)
10-16-2006 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by doctrbill
10-15-2006 1:39 PM


Please Back Up Your Bold Assertions With Third Party References
Hi DrBill:

quote:
Terral writes >> Everything from your post above is based upon a false notion that ... [various texts] ... are derived from a “Latin” translation.

Dr.Bill >> That is not what I said, nor is it what I intended to say.


What? Please forgive, but that is exactly what you said:

quote:
DrBill Original >> When Christian scholars translated the Greek Bible into Latin, they retained the Greek word by way of transliteration: 'Christos.'

When the Latin Bible was brought to English, all instances of the word Christ were expunged from the Old Testament by way of translation. Everywhere the holy text once read: Christos, it now reads: 'anointed.'


Your statement above should be retracted, because nothing could be FARTHER from ‘the truth.’ Translations derived from the Latin ‘Vulgate’ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate ) were deemed “flaws of the Great Bible” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible ) by the time Elizabeth 1st took the throne ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible ), until in 1568 the church responded with the “Bishops’ Bible” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops%27_Bible ). The King James Version replaced that version in 1611 as the “de facto standard of the Church of England.” Anyone can pick up an Exhaustive Concordance for their particular translation to realize that their New Testament is taken from either the Received Text (KJV) or the Critical Text (NASB) taken from the Egyptian Minority Texts or the later Byzantine Majority Texts” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible ). This notion that Bible scholars have translated these original manuscripts from Latin to English in our modern Bibles is preposterous. That is why Strong’s Lexicon and Vines’ Expository Dictionary of NT Words have numbered ‘Greek’ terms for the words in your NT.

quote:
Terral Original >> Jesus ... is ‘the’ Messiah to the Jews seeking the fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy in Christ’s day 2000 years ago.

Dr.Bill >> The majority of Jews did not believe in Jesus because he did not fulfill the prophecies, not even those made in his own time. Jesus did not do what messiah was supposed to do: Save his people from their enemies.


What the Jews believed or did not believe changes nothing about the ‘two Christ’s’ (Melchizedek) hypothesis of this thread, OR your attempts to misrepresent some “Latin translation influence” corrupting our New Testament. Scripture verifies that Jesus Christ is the Messiah (Matt. 1:1) in the very first verse of the New Testament.

quote:
Terral Original >> We can look these things up in our ‘Greek’ Lexicons without ever using any Latin anything.

Dr.Bill >> Are you prejudiced against the Latin language?


Prejudiced? Not at all, as I took a couple years of Latin in school. However, our OT is written in Hebrew with parts in Aramaic, while our NT is translated from the Greek with a few terms also derived from the Aramaic. These Latin remarks of yours have no basis in reality whatsoever, unless you want to study the transliterations leading up to the Old King James Version becoming the official Bible of the Church of England.

quote:
Dr.Bill >> You won't find the word 'salvation,' in your Greek lexicon, because the word salvation isn't Greek, it's Latin. Are you prepared to forgo the use of this word in your religious liturgy?

I thought this discussion could not get more ridiculous. Salvation (soteria #4991 = http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/4/1161011006-4854.html ) is a feminine noun used 45 times in the NT; of a derivative of “soter” (#4990) meaning “savior, deliverer, preserver ( http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/4/1161011046-5798.html ).” The common Latin term for ‘salvation’ is “salus” ( http://sunsite.ubc.ca/LatinDictionary/ ) or “palma” ( http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/ ) if you want the ‘glory, prize’ connotation.

quote:
Dr.Bill >> You won't find the word 'lucifer,' in your Greek lexicon. Are you prepared to forgo the use of this word in your religious speech? Are you prepared to stop uttering this term just because it's Latin?

Lucifer does not appear anywhere in my NASB. “Lucifer” is a transliteration of the Greek term “heylel” (#1966 = http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1161012184-9823.html ) meaning “light bearer” derived from “halal” (#1984 = http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1161012120-5933.html ) meaning “to shine.” Satan is called the “angel of light” in 2Corinthians 11:14, as his servants are called the “servants of righteousness” (2Cor. 11:15) in the next verse. There is no room in my Bible for transliterating Hebrew or Greek terms into any Latin terms whatsoever. The reason is that we must trace the ‘roots’ of these words to the original Hebrew or Greek terms from which they are taken. Trying to trace “Lucifer” to any Hebrew or Greek term simply does not compute . . .

quote:
Terral Original >> Christ, Peter and his fishermen brothers and fellow disciples were all speaking on their native Syrian dialect of Aramaic, ... However, NT Scripture is given to us in the commercial ‘Greek’

Dr.Bill >> Even if your statement were true ... So What? You have missed the point entirely.


Heh . . . No sir. Your hand is caught in the cookie jar with this “Christos” translated into Latin nonsense and these “Galileans” (Acts 2:7) all spoke in their fisherman’s dialect of Aramaic, which finds Christ on the cross, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?” Or, “My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me?” Eloi (#1682 = http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1161012613-8922.html ) is NOT a Greek term, but is “of Aramaic origin” NEVER translated into Latin or German, because it appears in our Bibles in the original Aramaic to THEN be translated in the same verse. “Sabachthani” (#4518) is an Aramaic transliteration of “sh@baq” (#7662 = http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1161012879-6277.html ) meaning “to leave, let alone.” Christ, the Twelve and most everyone else speaking in the Four Gospels are addressing everyone in their native Aramaic tongue. This is what surprised all the men from all the nations under heaven (Acts 2:5), when they heard these Galilean fishermen speaking in their “own language” (Acts 2:6+8), because they were expecting to hear Peter and the others speaking in Aramaic.

quote:
DrBill >> The point is this: The holy scripture has been purposely tweaked; methodically purged of the word 'Christ.' What reason is there to do this, other than to increase the apparent uniqueness of Jesus "who is called Christ."

Bullony. People like the Lockman Foundation scholars base their ‘translation’ on the original Critical Text Greek manuscripts and stake their reputation on their work being as concise and deliberate as humanly possible. I disagree with many of their decisions, but we have copies of the originals in order to make our own determinations. We should agree that copyist errors appear in both the Received and Critical Texts, which allows us to carefully examine those differences and take the right fork in the path.

quote:
Terral Original >> There are many ‘anointed’ principals in Scripture, but Jesus Christ is the “Only Begotten” Son OF GOD. John 3:16.

DrBill >> Another can of worms you open here. I would love to help you eat some. Later perhaps. I am tiring of this post already.


No thank you, as I do not believe a single word coming from your mouth. We were just nearing the topic when you tuckered out. Next time please point us into the direction of your third party references, before coming out here and making these bold “Christos into Greek into Latin into English” assertions that really make no sense at all. We certainly do not want others to be led astray. Right? GL in the debates,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral


"For the word of God is Living AND Active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by doctrbill, posted 10-15-2006 1:39 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by doctrbill, posted 10-16-2006 9:30 PM Terral has not yet responded
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 10-16-2006 10:01 PM Terral has not yet responded
 Message 45 by doctrbill, posted 10-16-2006 10:17 PM Terral has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 43 of 109 (356954)
10-16-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Terral
10-16-2006 12:06 PM


Re: Please Back Up Your Bold Assertions With Third Party References
In your hurry to deny the inescapable conlusions of my first hand research, you have
overlooked the most obvious FIRST PLACE TO LOOK regarding all questions of word origin:

THE !@#$%^&* DICTIONARY.

SALVATION ETYMOLOGY: American Heritage Dictionary
See the source. The special characters don't copy well.

Middle English savacioun,
from Old French sauvacion,
from Late Latinsalvatio ,
salvation-, from salvatus,
past participle of salvare,
to save ; see salvage

No matter how convoluted your imagination regarding the evolution of holy scripture, there have been only three Major languages involved. Major being judged by the power of the people into whose language said scripture was translated.

  • Greek (first translation ever, in the language of the dominant empire
  • Latin (Roman), (in the language of the dominant empire, and,
  • Anglo-American (in the language of the dominant empire

These are the Holy Trinity for lay scholarship in America.
All other translations, while interesting and instructive, are side-trips by comparison.

LUCIFER ETYMOLOGY: American Heritage Dicitionary

Middle English, from Old English,
morning star, Lucifer,
from Latin Lucifer,
from lucifer, light-bringer :
lux , luc-, light; see leuk-
in Indo-European roots + -fer, -fer

No hard feelings. We all go off half-cocked sometimes; shoot ourselves in the foot sometimes.
You wouldn't believe the load of crap I've had to drop, in order bend down and pick up the truth.

Need some Salva- for that holey foot? :D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Terral, posted 10-16-2006 12:06 PM Terral has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 44 of 109 (356955)
10-16-2006 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Terral
10-16-2006 12:06 PM


Re: Please Back Up Your Bold Ass
Terral writes:

“Lucifer” is a transliteration of the Greek term “heylel”

  • No, its not.
  • Heylel is not Greek, and
  • You don't understand 'transliteration.'

BACK TO THE DICTIONARY BUBBA!

TRANSLITERATION TRANSITIVE VERB:
trans·lit·er·at·ed , trans·lit·er·at·ing , trans·lit·er·ates
To represent (letters or words) in the corresponding characters of another alphabet.

Transliteration is performed to enable the speakers of one language to 'sound out' the phonemes of another. Heylel itself is a transliterated Hebrew term which untutored readers cannot sound out for themselves. Lucifer cannot be a transliteration of Heylel because it does not at all convey the sound of Heylel from Hebrew to Latin. In order to qualify as a transliteration, Heylel and Lucifer would have to be similar in the way they sound. As it turns out, Heylel is the sound of the Hebrew word, written in Latin characters. Those who translated the holy scripture into Latin did not transliterate the Hebrew or the Greek in this instance. Instead they translated it. If you are actually studying to learn, then you probably already know the meaning of the word Lucifer.

Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot. Again.:D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Terral, posted 10-16-2006 12:06 PM Terral has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 45 of 109 (356957)
10-16-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Terral
10-16-2006 12:06 PM


Re: Please Back Up Your Bold Assertions With Third Party References
Terral writes:

“Lucifer” is a transliteration of the Greek term “heylel”

... we must trace the ‘roots’ of these words to the original Hebrew or Greek terms from which they are taken.

... Trying to trace “Lucifer” to any Hebrew or Greek term simply does not compute . . .

Good luck with that confusion. :confused:


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Terral, posted 10-16-2006 12:06 PM Terral has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014