The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$thread_modes - Line: 46 - File: showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code 46 errorHandler->error_callback
/showthread.php 1617 eval




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hello everyone!
#21
The Hebrew word for salvation still does not mean saved from sins.

No matter what you say, it has been just about 100% proven the Book of Matthew was not written in Hebrew, so that claim goes out the window.

The awaited Jewish messiah will be a direct descendant of David through the fathers line, not Miriam.

Joseph wasn't Jesus's birth father, supposedly the G-d was. G-d is not a descendant of David.

I'm not sure if you realize that we are very well researched, resourceful and versed here on this form so things don't get by us too easily.
Reply
#22
(11-24-2020, 06:14 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: The Hebrew word for salvation still does not mean saved from sins.

No matter what you say, it has been just about 100% proven the Book of Matthew was not written in Hebrew, so that claim goes out the window.

The awaited Jewish messiah will be a direct descendant of David through the fathers line, not Miriam.

Joseph wasn't Jesus's birth father, supposedly the G-d was. G-d is not a descendant of David.

I'm not sure if you realize that we are very well researched, resourceful and versed here on this form so things don't get by us too easily.
I think you maybe missing the whole point of the Hebrew word pun Yeshua means Hashems Salvation...Yoshia means he will save...the Angel said you shall name him Yeshua for Yoshia his people from Thier sins.....And we know for a fact Mathew was originally written in Hebrew, no doubt, there's over 28 manuscripts at least ..that are witnesses to the Hebrew original...not translations from Greek to Hebrew. Along with historical documents, talking about the Hebrew original, and how the Jews used it to that very day...I dont even see a point in that being a debate. 
And no G-d is not supposed to be a "birth father", rather, The Word(Memra) of G-d was to become Flesh. "Clothed" as a man

I think you may have also forgot, it was you who had mentioned, that you can't be a Jew and believe in a divine Messiah, I simply stated that's really only true for 21st century Judaisim, and not Judaism as a whole. -in response to "I'm not sure if you realize that we are very well researched, resourceful and versed here on this form so things don't get by us too easily." As in it's not like I'm trying "to get one by you" I'm just replying to all of you haha.,
There's a difference between Biblical Judaisim and rabbinical Judaisim as well.
All the writing of the Rabbis deserve great respect, but cant be put above the Hebrew Bible, when somethings are contrary to Torah, we must pick Torah over Talmud  in that case, what is good keep, what is not don't. Like certain times they say G-d sins, or that He wears a tfilllin, or that He has to pray to Himself in order to have mercy...humanizing Him. These things don't line up with scripture...or pardes...
I believe the Hebrew scriptures easily point to a divine Messiah, and many Ancient rabbis completly agree, and many rabbis don't believe in a divine Messiah just as well, so we gotta take the Authority of The Hebrew Bible as #1 in this situation I believe.
Reply
#23
Completed,

No, I'm not missing the point. You cannot use Christian scripture to prove the Hebrew bible.

The Hebrew word for salvation that is written in the Hebrew bible has nothing to do with sin. I don't really care what the Christian bible thinks it means.

No, you do not know for a fact that the Book of Matthew was written in Hebrew, that is pure speculation. And if I'm correct, some actually say it was Aramaic. Yep, I agree, no point in debating that.

I see you really do not understand "Biblical Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism". What makes you think Rabbinical Judaism is "put above the Hebrew bible"?

I know you believe the Hebrew scriptures easily point to a divine messiah and you are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't make it true though. Show me a verse that clearly states the messiah will be divine.

And there you go again talking about these ancient rabbi's who said the messiah will be divine. I've asked you to please show us references to where that is written.
Reply
#24
(11-24-2020, 08:11 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Completed,

No, I'm not missing the point. You cannot use Christian scripture to prove the Hebrew bible.

The Hebrew word for salvation that is written in the Hebrew bible has nothing to do with sin. I don't really care what the Christian bible thinks it means.

No, you do not know for a fact that the Book of Matthew was written in Hebrew, that is pure speculation. And if I'm correct, some actually say it was Aramaic. Yep, I agree, no point in debating that.

I see you really do not understand "Biblical Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism". What makes you think Rabbinical Judaism is "put above the Hebrew bible"?

I know you believe the Hebrew scriptures easily point to a divine messiah and you are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't make it true though. Show me a verse that clearly states the messiah will be divine.

And there you go again talking about these ancient rabbi's who said the messiah will be divine. I've asked you to please show us references to where that is written.
Yes I know Salvation is not directed towards sin, but it is directed towards *Saving, that's the point of the pun. From Thier sins.. is secondary within that word pun. The Brit hadasha is A Jewish book, whats gotta be seperated is How the Christains used it historically..compared to what the real Message is... from Yeshua and His Jewish Disciples. 

Only some people put it above the Hebrew scriptures, based on the verse, Torah is not in heaven, that we should say who will go up and get it? (paraphrasing)..some believe the commands are not in heaven bc the Rabbis went up to heaven and brought them down for us....in essence, in some views, the rabbinic writings represent a continuation of Torah,and hold the same and even higher validity.

Rabbi Moshe Botarel explains in his commentary to Sefer Hayetzirah that the Spirit that was Hovering over the earth, was the Ruach haKodesh. Rabbi Yehuda tells us in his commentary to Sefer Hayetzirah that G-d spoke with Devar Elohim or The Mimra, (the same name Yeshua is called in John 1) 
In Genesis Rabbah(commentary on the book of Genesis)  the Rabbis understood the Spirit is none other than the Spirit of the Messiah.-Genesis Rabbah 1:2..
The Jerusalem Zohar, explains Why The authors believe that G-d is triune they point out that the name Elohim is made up of two Hebrew words El (G-d)and Hem(they) therefore, they conclude G-d is manifested as a compound unity. 

The idea of Binah who is the "Son of El," can be seen beautifully in Mishlei 30:1-4
"Who hath established all the ends of the earth?what is His name and what is His Sons name,if thou knowest?" Rashi tried to argue that this speaks of Moses, but Rav. Y.G Ben Avraham identifies several reasons to reject these claims, in addition he raises the point that the term "Son of El" is also mentioned in Daniel 3,25...
I have to dig up these commentaries from Rabbis by hand but believe me there is 1000s and I have access to 100s, I'll share more as I find them. 

And Daniel 7:13 seems to show A divine Messiah as well.
Reply
#25
(11-24-2020, 07:12 PM)Completed in Israel Wrote: ... And we know for a fact Mathew was originally written in Hebrew, no doubt, there's over 28 manuscripts at least ..that are witnesses to the Hebrew original...not translations from Greek to Hebrew. Along with historical documents, talking about the Hebrew original, and how the Jews used it to that very day...I dont even see a point in that being a debate. 

Check your facts. What are the 28 manuscripts you are referring to? How late are they dated? What makes you believe they are manuscripts of an original written in Hebrew as opposed to a translation? Critical scholars in this area are in almost universal agreement that the gospel of 'Matthew' was written in Greek and based largely on the earlier Greek gospel of Mark. One can easily see how 'Matthew' is constantly revising and improving upon 'Mark's less eloquent Greek text. Papias, who is not considered a very reliable source, does indeed speak of a Matthew writing sayings/oracles in the Hebrew dialect, but this is most probably not a reference to the current gospel of 'Matthew.' It may be a reference to a lost source of sayings of Jesus or perhaps a messianic interpretaion of some passages understood to be 'oracles' in the Hebrew scriptures--those are the two leading scholarly views, but it is almost certainly not the current gospel of 'Matthew'. The text of Papias is best understood as indicating that Matthew supplied what was lacking in the earlier Greek gopsel of Mark.
Reply
#26
"Yes I know Salvation is not directed towards sin, but it is directed towards *Saving, that's the point of the pun. From Thier sins.. is secondary within that word pun. The Brit hadasha is A Jewish book, whats gotta be seperated is How the Christains used it historically..compared to what the real Message is... from Yeshua and His Jewish Disciples."



Excellent, so you agree the Hebrew word for salvation has nothing to do with sin. You can add all the "puns" you want, that doesn't change the true meaning of the word.

Brit Hadasha is a Christian term used by Messianics, which once again has nothing to do with Judaism.

The more you use Christian terms, the more you show your separation from Judaism.

I'll look into the rest of your "claims".
Reply
#27
(11-24-2020, 10:31 PM)robrecht Wrote:
(11-24-2020, 07:12 PM)Completed in Israel Wrote: ... And we know for a fact Mathew was originally written in Hebrew, no doubt, there's over 28 manuscripts at least ..that are witnesses to the Hebrew original...not translations from Greek to Hebrew. Along with historical documents, talking about the Hebrew original, and how the Jews used it to that very day...I dont even see a point in that being a debate. 
Check your facts. What are the 28 manuscripts you are referring to? How late are they dated? What makes you believe they are manuscripts of an original written in Hebrew as opposed to a translation? Critical scholars in this area are in almost universal agreement that the gospel of 'Matthew' was written in Greek and based largely on the earlier Greek gospel of Mark. One can easily see how 'Matthew' is constantly revising and improving upon 'Mark's less eloquent Greek text. Papias, who is not considered a very reliable source, does indeed speak of a Matthew writing sayings/oracles in the Hebrew dialect, but this is most probably not a reference to the current gospel of 'Matthew.' It may be a reference to sayings of a lost source of sayings of Jesus or perhaps a messianic interpretaion of some passages understood to be 'oracles' in the Hebrew scriptures--those are the two leading scholarly views, but it is almost certainly not the current gospel of 'Matthew'. The text of Papias is best understood as Matthew supplying what is lacking in the earlier Greek gopsel of Mark.
These 28 I was speaking of, it's impossible for them to be a translation, they're age isn't as important, bc they are "Witnesses" to the Hebrew original. Filled full of Hebraic word puns, more accurate than all the other text, with father being plainly stated in Yeshua's genealogy from Mirriam as the Greek all inaccurately say husband, leaving a missing generation in every manuscript. They actually have more proof these days that, Greek was a translation from Aramaic, and the Aramaic was from the Hebrew, and everyone just did "best they could" in the translations. 
Check out Nehemiah Gordon, him from a scholar point of view, proves the Hebrew original over n over, I say from a scholar POV, as He does not accept Yeshua as Messiah yet either. But he is a extremely honest scholar.
Reply
#28
(11-23-2020, 10:17 PM)Completed in Israel Wrote:
(11-20-2020, 06:08 AM)Chavak Wrote: Welcome to the forum, and thank you for the introduction. I pretty much agree with what SMR stated. We see Messianics as Christians because they hold the same basic beliefs. Those who join the children of Israel are expected to give up their former beliefs. If not, as SMR also said you cannot hold fast to His covenant. Being grafted in is not a Jewish concept.   But.....no one is going to try to talk you out of your beliefs. But we will always give our opinions and beliefs based in Torah and Judaism, and they are likely to conflict with yours.

I look forward to learning my brother, if you ask any Jew in Israel to this very day, "what do you think about converts?" They will say that they are 100% Jewish and the majority would even marry a convert. No better example of grafting in than that...and check the other reply I made to the other comments, you'll see if u can read Hebrew how far back "grafting in" goes.. from Abraham, and we got some major keys in Abraham, and Sarah going to Egypt with riches, this links back to "pardes` tho.
And to complete the before sentence the Jews who don't marry a convert, says it's for cultural reason "*bc they was ONCE Gentiles" aka no longer Gentiles but Jews... so to say that grafting in don't lign up with Judaism is simply a lack of understanding...maybe even a agriculture one, grafting a pear branch into a apple tree works even within science. (Which is the context of 2,000 years ago, everyone was farmers)
there is a difference between someone who converts to Judaism and someone who adopts Jewish and Torah practices but does not give up their former beliefs and officially convert to join the people of Israel. A person who goes through official conversion to Judaism is a Jew. Someone who tries to attach themselves to us and G-d but still holds beliefs foreign to both is not a convert and never can be.
Reply
#29
"that Hebrew scholar had discovered from the ancient rabbis, he's a karaite Jew. Dont believe Y'shua is Messiah either, but He knows that verse represents grafting, as did the ancient rabbis"

I hope you are not referring to Nehemia Gordon. No one here or anywhere other than Messianics and other Christians considers him to be a scholar.
Reply
#30
(11-24-2020, 10:55 PM)Completed in Israel Wrote: These 28 I was speaking of, it's impossible for them to be a translation, they're age isn't as important, bc they are "Witnesses" to the Hebrew original. Filled full of Hebraic word puns, more accurate than all the other text, with father being plainly stated in Yeshua's genealogy from Mirriam as the Greek all inaccurately say husband, leaving a missing generation in every manuscript. They actually have more proof these days that, Greek was a translation from Aramaic, and the Aramaic was from the Hebrew, and everyone just did "best they could" in the translations. 
Check out Nehemiah Gordon, him from a scholar point of view, proves the Hebrew original over n over, I say from a scholar POV, as He does not accept Yeshua as Messiah yet either. But he is a extremely honest scholar.

Frankly, Nehemia Gordon is not much of a scholar. He has a master's degree, but his assumptions are sometimes poorly formulated and other times simply false, sometimes comically so. For example, he assumes the principle of Greek primacy is inerrancy, which is complete nonsense. He confuses Greek and Aramaic words. More importantly, he completely misunderstands the work of George Howard on the medieval Hebrew text of Matthew, which he believes is so important. Read Howard yourself and you will see what I mean and see where your assertions are specifically not supported by his work. To their credit, neither Howard nor Gordan agree with your assertion that the dating of these manuscripts isn't that important. Beware of YouTube 'scholars'.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)