Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9049 total)
91 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,669 Year: 5,315/14,102 Month: 236/677 Week: 41/54 Day: 24/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How the NT quotes Tanach texts
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 18 of 61 (717767)
01-31-2014 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
01-30-2014 3:30 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
No, Almah was never used to be Virgin. It did not say that it was not virgin, but never referred to sexual purity at all. . It means 'a young girl/woman of marriageable age'.

And, no, God did not inspire the NT authors at all. NO more than God inspired Joseph Smith or Mohammed.

As for 'how blind the Pharisees were.. well, all that means is that the writers of the N.T. were angry at the Pharisees , because they were kicked out from worshiping with them, since their belief system had become heretical

Almah never referred to 'only a virgin'. In the Song of Solomon, almah is used in a very distinctly sexual situation, where it is most definitely NOT a virgin.

I really like how these fundamentalist Christians think they know Hebrew and the Jewish faith better than Jews.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 3:30 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 02-01-2014 3:03 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 19 of 61 (717768)
01-31-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Eliyahu
01-30-2014 3:07 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Not quite. The term translated in the Greek is Parthenos, which quite often meant young woman, but sometimes meant Virgin. There was a shift in translation and meaning over the centuries

We have examples of the term parthenos being used for people who were most certainly not virgins.. but the term changed meanings by the 1st century c.e.

This indicates that the author of the Gospel of Mathew was reading the Greek, not to the Hebrew.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Eliyahu, posted 01-30-2014 3:07 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 44 of 61 (718142)
02-04-2014 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dawn Bertot
02-01-2014 9:43 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Now, here you are being exactly what you claimed Paulk to be.

Dishonest.

Isaiah 7:14, the passage of the alleged prophecy, does not say 'Virgin'.The word in question, Almah, does not refer to sexual purity, but rather a young woman of marriageable age.

Not only that, but the 'full fillment' of the prophecy was to King Ahaz, and the birth of the child was a 'timer' for certain events to happen.. that supposedly did.. during the reign of King Ahaz. Isaiah himself describes it, and says HE and his sons are the signs to king Ahaz.

Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 9:43 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2014 12:32 AM ramoss has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 50 of 61 (718485)
02-06-2014 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
02-06-2014 12:32 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
I am trying to see how your response makes any sense, considering the thread and the arguments.

It doesn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2014 12:32 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2014 10:31 PM ramoss has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 59 of 61 (719037)
02-10-2014 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot
02-06-2014 10:31 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Before I can say 'I disagree', or give reasons for disagreeing, your argument has to make at least a bit of sense first. I do not see any sense in the argument.

It looks like one giant non-sequitur that has no connection with what was being argued.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-06-2014 10:31 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021