Yuku free message boards

catholic: This is not to be offensive but there have been many, and I do mean Many, that have come to Jewish sites with a firm belief that they present conclusive evidence of the same. What you bring to the table is nothing new. It's been the same arguments for centuries. A person can ask the valid question, Why is it that the only language that is taught is either Latin or Greek, but Never the "Original" language of the text, Lashon Kodesh, Hebrew. Wouldn't it be the most valuable to know the language that the text is written in. People couldn't understand the language of the pyramids until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. It is no different when it comes to Tanach. Without the understanding of the language, how does a person truly understand what is written. It is common knowledge that No translation does justice. Even the Greeks admitted this.

One thing I would say, and I think there are many who agree, that given what the Xtian text says and teaches, it is highly unlikely that the authors of that text were even Jewish. We can assume this from what is taught from those texts concerning the teachings of Judaism. There are simply too many instances where the author gives a distorted understanding of Judaism. There are examples where it's not merely distorted but a flat lie. If these authors were Jewish they would certainly have known better. Given that time period we do know that many were acquainted with aspects of Judiasm. A person that is giving a teaching who is on the outside could very well come up with a distorted view of many principles. This is what seems to be the case with the Xtian authors, especially Paul. Many have concluded, from an analysis of the text, that Paul was actually a convert, who only coverted in order to marry a Jewish woman. When that didn't work out he became rather antagonistic against women in general. It is also suspicious that Paul came from Tarsus which was dominated by the worship of Mithra, and the simlilarities of Mithra and Xtianity is staggering. There are just too many questionable items when it comes to the Xtian text for anyone to give it merit.

I did read somewhere, and I haven't been able to find it again, that Paul WAS actually a Rabbi and infiltrated Xtianity in order to discredit it by creating a belief that was so antithetical to Judaism that NO Jew would ever follow it. When a person looks at his writings a person can certainly see the possibility of it. The only name that comes to mind is possibly Shimon but I'm in no way certain of that.

In any event, it would be the most profitable to undertake a study of the entire Tanach. What the Xtian authors have done is take only a snippet and use that as so-called proof. The difficulty lies in the fact that not only is just a snippet used but in every instance the text is "extrapolated" in order to come up with a meaning that fits the narrative. There is certain danger when a religion is based solely on extrapolation and not on the clarity of the text. If there were even a Single instance of clarity it woiuld be a starting point, but in Every, every case it is solely extrapolation. When G-d spoke in Torah, there is no need for extrapolation, which brings to mind another point. Isn't it interesting, and "odd", that there isn't a single instance, not one, where G-d is speaking to these writers. In Torah, the Prophets, and throughout, we constantly read that G-d says this, G-d says that. Has anyone identified HOW MANY times in Tanach that it is G-D! that is speaking, or a person says G-d told him thus. When we analyze the Xtian text there isn't one time that G-d tells a writer what to write or say. It is their Own words. Doesn't the Jewish Scriptures teach about following the teachings of men.

Some things to consider.