Yuku free message boards

My Recent Posts · (03/18/09

Using Genesis 1:26 as "proof" of a mutli-god is the epitome of proof texting, because it ignores the VERY NEXT LINE which says:

Genesis 1:27. And G-d created man in His image; in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them.

HIS -- singular. HE -- singular.

It also says He created THEM in His image. Male or female (He created THEM. . .) So was G-d an hermaphrodite? Genesis 1:26 "Let us. . ." may be interpreted one of two ways given the very next line. Either G-d is speaking to His heavenly court or He is using the majestic "we" (e.g. when Queen Elizabeth refers to herself in the plural as "England").

It is just ridiculous how the missionaries pick and choose things out of context. If you want to "prove" to a Trinitarian that back in the days Jsus supposedly lived that no Jew would ever think of a trinitarian god, read Josephus.

And this very thing it is that principally creates such a wonderful agreement of minds amongst us all; for this entire agreement of ours in all our notions concerning G-d, and our having no difference in our course of life and manners, procures among us the most excellent concord of these our manners that is any where among mankind; for no other people but the Jews have avoided all discourses about G-d that any way contradict one another, which yet are frequent among other nations; and this is true not only among ordinary persons, according as every one is affected, but some of the philosophers have been insolent enough to indulge such contradictions, while some of them have undertaken to use such words as entirely take away the nature of G-d, as others of them have taken away his providence over mankind.

Nor can any one perceive amongst us any difference in the conduct of our lives, but all our works are common to us all.

We have one sort of discourse concerning G-d, which is conformable to our law, and affirms that he sees all things; as also we have but one way of speaking concerning the conduct of our lives, that all other things ought to have piety for their end; and this any body may hear from our women, and servants themselves.

Josephus, Against Apion II:179-80 or book 2, chapter 20

My Recent Posts · (03/18/09

I fail to see the relevance of that excerpt from Contra Apionem.

My Recent Posts · (03/18/09

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my reasoning in using the quote. Josephus makes it clear that in the era associated with Jsus and early Chrstianity Jews were of one mind then (as we are now) about G-d. G-d is One, not a trinity or a man, etc. He does go on in chapter 24 to speak of "one G-d."

Here is a link to Josephus'"Against Apion II"

Josephus was also famous for his"Antiquities of the Jews" in which he paraphrased the T'nach for the Romans. He wrote:

(Abraham) began to have higher notions of virtue than others had, and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning G-d; for he was the first that ventured to publish this notion, That there was but one G-d, the Creator of the universe.

Jospheus dates to was born in 37 CE -- around 5 years after Jsus supposedly died and long before Chrstianity was a "major" religion. Therefore Josephus' writings that declare (as do modern Jews) that G-d is one and that this is the common view of all Jews (not a trinity) as far back as the birth of Chrstianity itself.

I use this extra-T'nach source to show that the concept of a trinitarian god was never a part of Judaism -- it was imported from pagan religions. Sorry that I wasn't clearer in my intention.

My Recent Posts · (03/18/09

Sophiee1 wrote:
....37 CE -- around 5 years after Jsus supposedly died....

Harod hagadol was still alive when Yoshke was supposedly born, and he died in 4BCE. Lukos 3:23 gives Yoshke's age when he died as "about thirty years old" (it seems a bit strange that the writer didn't feel it necessary to say exactly how old his principal character is meant to have been), meaning that his execution would have taken place in the mid-20s, not in the early 30s.

My Recent Posts · (03/19/09

The "facts" in the GT around Jsus' birth conflict -- making it impossible to say when he was born, if he was born at all.

The Greek text asserts that when Jsus was born Herod was King of Judea (Luke 1:5), Quirinius was Governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and Caesar Augustus was the emperor of Rome (Luke 2:1).

There was never a time when those three overlapped. So it is impossible to say if Jsus died in the 20s or 30s of the first century -- we have no clue as to when he was born -- IF he was born.

Jospheus was born in 37 CE, so my point was that he lived after Jsus' supposed ministry (and as a baby certainly couldn't attest to whether Jsus lived), but as he came to maturity around 55 CE he would have been aware of Jewish thoughts in that era. It is interesting that Josephus, even though he describes the Essenes, the Zealots, the Sadduccees and the Pharisees still insists that the belief in G-d were the same for all Jews. No trinitarian god and no man-god.

Why didn't Josephus mention the Jewish sect "the Nazarenes"? Why didn't he mention that they worshiped three gods in one??

Because Chrstianity is not a form of Judaism at all -- it never was. It was a pagan religion which sprung from Rome, with a veneer of Judaism thrown in to try to capture the Romans who were converting to Judaism at that time. . . IMHO.

It even brings into questions if Chrstians even existed in the first century of the common era -- or if they were just an invention of Paul who began the religion about the same time Josephus began writing. . . Just a thought.

My Recent Posts · (03/19/09

Sophiee1 wrote:
The Greek text asserts that when Jsus was born Herod was King of Judea (Luke 1:5), Quirinius was Governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and Caesar Augustus was the emperor of Rome (Luke 2:1).
There was never a time when those three overlapped.

I'm afraid that history disagrees with you, Sophie: Harod hagadol reigned from 37BCE until 4BCE and GAIVS OCTAVIVS CÆSAR reigned (under the name AVGVSTVS) from 27BCE until 14CE, so about 23 years of Harod's reign did overlap that of AVGVSTVS.

The fly in the ointment is PVBLIVS SVLPICIVS QVIRINIVS [called Κυρήνιος (Kyrenios or Cyrenius) in Greek], who wasn't appointed LEGATVS of Syria until 6CE − a full decade after Harod's death.

My Recent Posts · (03/19/09

No disagreement with history, Mordochai. I didn't say There was never a time when two overlapped. I said there was never a time when those three overlapped.

My Recent Posts · (03/19/09

Just showing off, Sophie − history is, after all, "my thing" ;-)

My Recent Posts · (03/19/09

It is why we like you so much.

My Recent Posts · (03/22/09

I haven't read All the posts on this topic and maybe will sometime later. In any event, no matter How a person tries to cut it xtianity IS a Polytheistic religion. The xtian prays to TWO entities, addressing the "Father" and concluding in jc's name.
Zephaniah clearly speaks to this.

Zeph 1:5 "And those who prostrate themselves on the roofs to the heavenly host, and those who bow down and swear to Hashem and [then] swear by their king".

We see here that they pray to Hashem (Father) in the name of their King (jc). Verses before details what is done to these people. He will cut off from this place any remnant.

In the end many will realize that all the false teachings.

Jeremiah 16:19 "To you (to Israel) nations will come from the ends of the earth and say: It was all falsehood that our ancestors inherited, futility that has no purpose."

The nations will finally realize the polytheistic religion of xtianity IS a falsehood.

Further, xtianity teaches a literal reading of the text and from that teaching have Hashem sitting on a throne and jc sitting to his right. If there is One sitting on a throne and One sitting to the right, this adds up to TWO. No matter how you want to count 1+1=2. If a person attempts to reconcile this into One is disingenuous. It is to ignore reality and have a blind faith without reason. This is not the only occasion where we find TWO being mentioned. Jc refers to himself as Not being the Master but it is the One in Heaven who is Master. When jc is on the cross he prays to the Father. Therefore to say that jc is a deity that is somehow equal with G-d is pure blasphemy and is a belief in Polytheism. One term that is constantly brought up to confirm this deity is the calling of jc the son of G-d. There is no analysis of what calling someone a "son" of G-d entails. By using This term it is inferring that one is a progenitor of the other. In other words one has to be a creation of the other. Therefore a person who believes in a deity in this manner is worshipping a "Creation". This type of belief goes back to the days of Nimrod and the worshipping of the "Creations" in the heavens, namely the Sun.

It's interesting how the worship of a man-deity is so similar to the ancients worshipping other creations. These days we would think it primitive for someone to worship an idol that one makes with his own hands. But those ancients weren't worshipping the acutal wood and stone but what it represented. What they had done was to equate G-d as an equal with man. This, too, is the teaching of xtianity, whereby G-d is thought to be 'literally' walking the ground with man. Therefore, xianity, and it's deification of a man, is the same idolatry that mankind has pursued from the beginning. The only difference between what the ancients conceived and what xtianity has conceived is the latter used a more sophisticated scenario. Sophistication doesn't necessarily mean there is truth in it. Scientology is quite sophisticated and can accomodate the rational mind.

It might be worthwhile to have a thread on Rambam's corporeality and include Rabbi Kaplan's Sefer Yetzirah in explaining the essence of G-d. The Rambam's Mishneh Torah is also informative on this. Whether the xtian would be able to come to terms with this is probably dependent upon how much they've internalized the hatred for the Rabbis, that jc so well instigated, and xtian leaders have continued to teach. I was astonished at how many really believe the Rabbis are evil and the works of the Talmud and other writings are considered "of the devil". What is telling is that these types Never have read any of the writings, nor listened to a Rabbi in order to make that decision. The church Certainly doesn't want their followers to learn from a Rabbi because it would destroy their Own teachings. This reminds me of my youth where the entire community despised any blacks yet not one of these people had ever even met one. When a family moved into the community it was only my mother who befriended them and soon the family moved because everyone else shunned them. This is quite similar to the xtian when it comes to the Rabbis and their teachings.

My Recent Posts · (05/13/09

"MATT says that Jesus was born from a virgin citing ISAIAH 7:14. In the original Hebrew the word means young woman, not virgin. Was he wrong? The explanation is the following: in Hebrew the word almah means young woman. It appears some 7X in the OT. Around 250 BC the OT was translated to Greek(the Septuagint) Almah was translated as parthenos ( virgin ) each time.Michael Brown, the Messianic Jewish scholar, in his Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, acknowledges almah means young woman.

THE CONTEXT

The kingdom of Judah was in danger of invasion circa 730 BC. In Isaiah 7:14 there is a prophecy about a baby to be born and to be called Immanuel ( with us is God ).Then in verses 15-16 it is said that before he knows right from wrong the danger to Judah will disappear.And it did in a few years.

PARALLEL PROPHECY

Matt says Isaiah 7:14 is about the Messiah and virgin birth.Why?Because Jesus told him that besides being about an event of the 8th centry BC it was also a PARALLEL prophecy,referring to 2 events at once.Mary was a young woman then so it still applied to her. It is unlikely Matthew did not know that in the Hebrew original it was young woman,but he also knew that in the Septuagint it was virgin,from which he quoted.

The Septuagint was the OT used by the Greek-speaking Jews.It must be taken into account that though the Septuagint was only a translation and a paraphrase one it was held in very high esteem by the Jews.For example PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA ( 20 BC-50 AD) the greatest Jewish philosopher of his time, who wrote some 40 works, was,from the evidence, IGNORANT of Hebrew,only used the Septuagint. So because of that Matt quoted from it."

how accurate is the quote above?

My Recent Posts · (05/13/09

How many more times? The "Septuagint" − if it ever existed outside of legend − ONLY CONTAINED THE FIVE BOOKS OF TORAH. It did not include Y'shayahu. So you are talking crap, "mredd". As regards your other points, I refer you to mordochai.tripod.com/immanuel.html.

My Recent Posts · (05/13/09

mredd wrote:
how accurate is the quote above?

Totally inaccurate since it relies on the "Septuagint", otherwise known today as the LXX - a Greektranslation by Christians of some version of the Hebrew Bible, though not using the same order of books as in the canonized version, nor is it marked in the same way as the Hebrew Bible as it regards chapters & verses, nor does it have the same content for all the books in the canonized version. We've talked about this subject at great length in various topics on our counter-missionary board.

The legendary "Original Septuagint" was a translation into Koine Greek of only the Torah (Five Books of Moses) by 72 bi-lingual Rabbis, and no extant copies of it exist today.

UriYosef

My Recent Posts · (05/14/09

How many more times? The "Septuagint" − if it ever existed outside of legend − ONLY CONTAINED THE FIVE BOOKS OF TORAH. It did not include Y'shayahu. So you are talking crap, "mredd". As regards your other points, I refer you tomordochai.tripod.com/immanuel.html .

are you blind? did you not see the quotation marks? i was not the one "talking crap" robert is the one "talking crap" here
(link removed. Links to non-Jewish sites are against forum rules. S.)

My Recent Posts · (05/14/09

"...appears some 7X in the OT. Around 250 BC the OT was translated to Greek(the Septuagint) Almah was translated as parthenos ( virgin ) each time."

Firstly , where is the proof that back then "parthenos" meant virgin and virgin only?is it not possible that christians redefined the meaning of "parthenos" because of matthews usuage of it and then popularised thier redefinition of "parthenos"? christianity has a history of corrupting the meaning of words.

My Recent Posts · (05/14/09

As we've stated repeatedly: the Septuagint was ONLY the Torah (Five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers).

No one knows who translated Isaiah into Greek or when it was done or by whom -- let alone that it was done around 250 BCE.

Parthenos did not mean "virgin" at any rate. The Greek translators used "parthenos" to speak of Dinah AFTER she was raped. Ever hear of Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho a Jew" (165 CE)?

Martyr (who was a Chrstian and he wrote an apologetic trying to convert Jews to Chrsianity) played the part of both Jew and himself -- but he makes it clear that Jews back 200 CE were telling Xians that Isaiah 7 did not speak about virgins:

And Trypho (the Jew) answered, "The scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted.

But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy.

Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Ze-us having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs. . .do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

This is from a post by Drashi (aka Eliyahu) from Kosher Judaism:

In the Greek society, there were two kinds of betrothal. One was a simple agreement that was easily dismissed, and the other was called called engue, where it was a "pledge" that could also be revoked, but in a more formal manner. The Greeks also developed a 2-tier marriage process as well. But if the parents didn't have any money, they could sell off the daughter as a concubine where she had no say-so.

The stages of the woman: parthenos maiden (which also translates to "virgin" in the New Testament, but the term actually defines one who has not lain with the husband). nymphe: woman who has lain with her husband but had no children. gyne: A married woman who has given birth.

In short, parthenos, in the Greek culture spoke of any betrothed woman and did not indicate the status of her hymen.

(For more info on Marriage rites of Ancient Greece go tohttp://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greekmarriage/ )

In Judaism, once the woman accepts the acquisition before witnesses, even though she will not go to the husband's house, she is considered as though she is married to him, with all of the ramifications if she joins with another (death).

Also, it is interesting to note that is does not say the G-d fathered the child, but the the trinitarian view of the "Holy Spirit" fathered him. In either case, the idea of a supernatural manifestation causing the birth of a child is foreign to Judaism, but not to the Greek school. The emphasis here is that she had never been with her husband!

Drashi stated that almah is NEVER applied to speak of a married man/woman (e.g. Mary who was betrothed to Joseph) or anyone that is known to the person seeing him or her. There is no equivalent Greek word for it (or English for that matter). I don't think this is true since many Jewish sages say the pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 was either Ahaz' wife or the prophet Isaiah's wife who was already pregnant. I'm not sure why Drashi thought almah never applied to a married man or woman and he doesn't frequent the boards any more to ask him.

My Recent Posts · (05/14/09

mredd wrote:
Firstly , where is the proof that back then "parthenos" meant virgin and virgin only?

The proof is right "in the pudding", as the old saying goes, i.e., the proof is right in the LXX itself, where Dinah is referred to as "parthenos" at Genesis 34:3, AFTER she was raped by Sh'chem.

UriYosef

My Recent Posts · (05/17/09

Sophiee1 wrote:
I'm not sure why Drashi thought almah never applied to a married man or woman and he doesn't frequent the boards any more to ask him.

If I recall, and I could be wrong, but Drashi felt almah meant one of unknown status, so it makes sense that he would feel it would never apply to a married person.

My Recent Posts · (05/17/09

The two most likely identities of the woman spoken of in Y'shayahu 7:14 are either ha-n'viyah (the wife of Y'shayahu), or the wife of King Ahaz. In either case the status of the woman is not unknown to the prophet, so this is an unsatisfactory explanation of the word 'almah, which is applied to her.

My Recent Posts · (05/22/09

"To argue that Hebrew had no future tense doesn't solve anything as far as this passage is concerned, because Hebrew writers relied on past tense when they wanted to convey the certainty of the future. Young explained this in the introduction to his literal translation:

The Hebrew writers often express the "certainty of a thing taking place" by putting it in the "past" tense, though the actual fulfillment may not take place for ages. This is easily understood and appreciated when the language is used by God, as when he says, in Gen. xv.18, "Unto thy seed I have given this land"; and in xvii.4, "I, lo, my covenant is with thee, and thou hast become a father of a multitude of nations." ... Again in 2 Kings v.6, the King of Syria, writing to the King of Israel, says: "Lo, I have sent unto thee Naaman, my servant, and thou hast recovered him from leprosy" (original emphasis). "

Greetings people
The missionary i am conversing with assumes that Y'shayahu 7:14 was put in the "prophetic past tense" using youngs argument above.Strange thing is that he acknowledges that the prophecy was CONTEMPORARily fullfilled and fullfilled in the FUTURE.
Does this mean that there was 2 "prophetic past tenses" in Y'shayahu 7:14 ?

Yuku free message boards

Michael L. Brown,

Quick Reply