Re: Aryeh Kaplan - NT scholar - LOL!!!

[Linda Lee]

Seeing Aryeh Kaplan being discussed here recently got me curious about
him, so I looked him up, and found his book, "The Real Messiah? A
Jewish response to Missionaries", online.

For the entire book see -
http://web.archive.org/web/20080529164304/http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/pdf/RealMessiahBookPages_v4ab.pdf

From "The Real Messiah? A Jewish response to Missionaries" by Aryeh
Kaplan:

"Very often, in an attempt to respond to a missionary challenge, one
can make a number of seemingly logical moves which, in fact, play
directly into the hands of the missionaries. Therefore a number of
Jewish communal leaders have prepared these guidelines for dealing on
the spot with missionaries and their followers.

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE MISSIONARY PROBLEM

1.) You will not win hearts to Torah by trying to convince people that
the claims of Christianity are false. Spend your time, learning,
teaching, and explaining the meaning of Torah and its Mitvos. Better
still, invite a person who is in search of religious values to a
Shabbaton, or to your home for Shabbat. Let the truth and beauty of
Torah and its way of life restore people to the right path.

2.) Do not argue with missionaries; do not lend credence or dignity to
their efforts at soul snatching. There are tens of millions of non-
practicing Christians in this country who are better targets for their
efforts.

3.) Missionaries are usually close-minded fanatics. They are trained
to respond to your arguments with pat, almost memorized answers. If
they can't handle your objection, they will deflect it by raising
another, and still another point. Even if you win––you lose."

I have a few questions about this. One, Kaplan is encouraging Jews to
be missionaries themselves, which is kind of hypocritical given his
obvious animosity towards Christian missionizing. Two, I thought Jews
didn't believe in souls in the same way that Christians do, so his
reference to Christian missionaries being engaged in "soul
snatching" (see #2 above) is kind of strange in more ways than one.
3.) Kaplan acts as if Christian missionaries are 'programmed', i.e.
brainwashed, and then attempts to program anyone listening to him and
to train them how to program their young people who may be "confused
Jewishly" (see #10) and therefore easily 'corrupted' by Christian
missionaries.

Kaplan says on Page 3, "A small number of Jews seem to be finding the
teachings of Christianity very attractive", so why the urgency to
refute it, that he displays so readily elsewhere in his book, if
Christian missionizing is not being successful anyway? As that
respected doctor of the law of Moses, Gamaliel (whom Kaplan calls "the
great Talmudist Rabbi Gamliel") said of the preaching of the apostles
in Acts 5:38-39, "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and
let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will
come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest
haply ye be found even to fight against God."

Kaplan displays no first-hand knowledge of the NT scriptures; this is
apparent right away by his false claim that Paul actually started what
is present-day Christianity. I guess he thinks Christians will be less
offended by Jews blaming their rejection of Christianity on Paul,
rather than on a rejection of Christ when confronted with Christian
missionaries. (Lol! Are they in for a shock!)

Without supplying any proof of this false claim whatsoever, Kaplan
claims Christ preached a different gospel than Paul.

Kaplan says on Page 3, "Soon after the death of Jesus, we find a
marked change in the teachings of his followers. Christianity as we
know it began during this period in the work of Paul of Tarsus. Paul,
or as he was earlier known, Saul, was a disciple of the great
Talmudist Rabbi Gamliel, and he began his career by actively opposing
the early Christians. In a dramatic incident on the road to Damascus,
Paul converted to Christianity, and later became one of its foremost
leaders. Although he had never seen Jesus alive, he claimed to have
spoken to him in spirit. Under Paul's leadership, many of the
distinctive doctrines of Christianity were first proclaimed, and for
the most part, they have never changed. His teachings are recorded in
his Epistles, which form the second part of the New Testament. Among
Paul’s major teachings, we find the following:

1) Jesus was the Messiah or Christ predicted by the Prophets of the
Bible and awaited by the Jews. He is also the Son of G-d, and like any
son, isessentially the same as his Father.

2) Man is evil and sinful. All mankind is damned because of Adam’s
sin. The Torah cannot save man, since its many commandments make it
too difficult to keep. The only thing that can prevent man’s utter
damnation in hell is the belief in Christ.

3) The Jews were originally G-d’s chosen people, but they were
rejected when they refused to accept His son, Jesus. The name
“Israel,” G-d’s chosen people, is no longer carried by the Jew, but by
those who accept Jesus as the Messiah. Only these share G-d’s love.
Everyone else is damned in hell.

4) There is only one law now that Christ has come, and that is love.
One must follow the example of Christ’s sacrifice, and patiently hope
that G-d will be gracious in return."
<END QUOTE>

Kaplan claims these are Paul's, and NOT the Messiah's teachings, so
let's see where Paul may have gotten these ideas by looking at what
Christ had to say about each of Kaplan's points.

Point 1, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "Jesus was the Messiah or
Christ predicted by the Prophets of the Bible and awaited by the Jews.
He is also the Son of G-d, and like any son, is essentially the same
as his Father."

Yahashua` the Messiah/Jesus Christ said that he was the Messiah, the
Christ, awaited by the Jews:
John 4:25-26, "The woman saith unto him [Christ], I know that Messias
[Messiah] cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will
tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am
he. "

Christ said the Hebrew prophets in the Scriptures testified of him:
John_5:39, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have
eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
...
John_5:46 "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for
he wrote of me."

The Messiah said he was one with the Father, and because of this
statement, he was accused of making himself God:
John 10:30-33, "I and [my] Father are one. Then the Jews took up
stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I
shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but
for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
God."

The Messiah referred to himself as "the only begotten Son of God":
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in
the name of the only begotten Son of God.



Point 2, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "Man is evil and sinful.
All mankind is damned because of Adam’s sin. The Torah cannot save
man, since its many commandments make it too difficult to keep. The
only thing that can prevent man’s utter damnation in hell is the
belief in Christ."

Mark 7:20-23, "And he [Christ] said, That which cometh out of the man,
that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men,
proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts,
covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye,
blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within,
and defile the man."

John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus
answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye
should have known my Father also.
John 8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in
the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet
come.
John 8:21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall
seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
John 8:22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith,
Whither I go, ye cannot come.
John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from
above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins:
for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Christ said:
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even
so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in
the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Point 3, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "The Jews were originally
G-d’s chosen people, but they were rejected when they refused to
accept His son, Jesus. The name “Israel,” G-d’s chosen people, is no
longer carried by the Jew, but by those who accept Jesus as the
Messiah. Only these share G-d’s love. Everyone else is damned in
hell."

Teaching a parable in Matthew 21, the Messiah offended the chief
priests and elders of the Jews, who perceived that he was talking
about them as the ones who had so rejected the Son sent to them, and
he confirmed he was indeed speaking of them in this parable when he
also said, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be
taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits
thereof" (Matt. 21:43).

Mat 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder,
which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a
winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and
went into a far country:
Mat 21:34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his
servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
Mat 21:35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and
killed another, and stoned another.
Mat 21:36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they
did unto them likewise.
Mat 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They
will reverence my son.
Mat 21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among
themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize
on his inheritance.
Mat 21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and
slew him.
Mat 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will
he do unto those husbandmen?
Mat 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked
men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall
render him the fruits in their seasons.
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures,
The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of
the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our
eyes?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken
from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but
on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Mat 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his
parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Here in John 10, speaking of himself as the shepherd, and his sheep
being the sheep of Israel, the Messiah says he will bring into it
"other sheep I have, which are not of this fold", and they will become
all "one fold" of sheep, with himself as their one and only shepherd.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of
mine.
John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I
lay down my life for the sheep.
John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
one fold, and one shepherd.



Point 4, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "There is only one law
now that Christ has come, and that is love. One must follow the
example of Christ’s sacrifice, and patiently hope that G-d will be
gracious in return."

Here the Messiah summed up the law as the commandment to love God with
all one's heart, soul, and mind, and to love one's neighbor as
oneself:
Mat 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question,
tempting him, and saying,
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets.

Christ's call to all to deny self and follow him:
Matt._16:24, "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow
me."

Christ taught that salvation was God's gracious gift to those who ask
living water (eternal life) of Christ:
John_4:10, "Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift
of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou
wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living
water."


Since Kaplan has published a new translation of the Torah, I certainly
hope that he is infinitely more knowledgeable about the Torah than he
is about the New Testament teachings of the Messiah he also feels
capable of writing about, since Kaplan is either wholly ignorant of
the Messiah's words in the NT (apparently unaware of even the most
famous verses, such as John 3:16-18, and John 10:30), or else Kaplan
is deliberately lying that points 1-4 above are the teachings of Paul
and are NOT the teachings of Christ.

Kaplan also appears to be a man without faith in God who doesn't
believe God can inspire men (as He did the prophets), since he takes
Paul's proclamation that he learned of Christ from the Spirit of
Christ himself (which visitation Paul identified as a "heavenly
vision" in Acts 26:19) to be evidence that Paul concocted Christianity
from his own imagination.

[Linda Lee]

I am still looking at Kaplan's book - wow.

From "The Real Messiah? A Jewish response to Missionaries" by Aryeh

Kaplan, Page 27:

"Nowhere does the Bible predict that the Messiah will be born to a
virgin. In fact, virgins never give birth anywhere in the Bible. This
idea is
to be found only in pagan mythology. To the Jewish mind, the very idea
that G-d would plant a seed in a woman is unnecessary and unnatural.
After all,—what is accomplished by this claim? What positive purpose
does it serve? The claim that Mary did not have natural relations with
her
husband must have made the Jews of that time suspect her of
wrongdoing.
The New Testament (the Christian Bible) admits as much when it
says (Matthew 1,19), “Then Joseph her (Mary’s) husband, being a just
man, and not willing to shame her in public, decided to divorce her
quietly." The whole idea of virgin birth serves no purpose, except to
attract pagans to Christianity." -
http://web.archive.org/web/20080529164304/http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/pdf/RealMessiahBookPages_v4ab.pdf


Kaplan takes verse 19 out of context and fails to cite the verse
before it, and then claims absolving Mary of her wrongdoing was what
was accomplished by the false claim of the virgin birth. It sure
sounds like Kaplan is saying the purpose for claiming a virgin birth
of the Messiah was because he was an illegitimate baby, a "bastard",
and was not even born of the man Mary was betrothed to. The Talmud
teaches this blasphemy that Mary was impure and Christ was an
illegitimate child, as it teaches that Yahashua`/Jesus was born of
fornication outside of marriage.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was
found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing
to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of
the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of
David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted
is, God with us.

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 23, 1:06 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:

You posted this several times; not sure you saw my reply, so
I'm reposting the reply.

> Seeing Aryeh Kaplan being discussed in this thread got me curious

> about him, so I looked him up, and found his book, "The Real Messiah?
> A Jewish response to Missionaries", online.

> For the entire book see -http://web.archive.org/web/20080529164304/http://www.jewsforjudaism.o...

> From "The Real Messiah? A Jewish response to Missionaries" by Aryeh
> Kaplan:

> "Very often, in an attempt to respond to a missionary challenge, one
> can make a number of seemingly logical moves which, in fact, play
> directly into the hands of the missionaries. Therefore a number of
> Jewish communal leaders have prepared these guidelines for dealing on
> the spot with missionaries and their followers.

> A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE MISSIONARY PROBLEM

> 1.) You will not win hearts to Torah by trying to convince people that
> the claims of Christianity are false. Spend your time, learning,
> teaching, and explaining the meaning of Torah and its Mitvos. Better
> still, invite a person who is in search of religious values to a
> Shabbaton, or to your home for Shabbat. Let the truth and beauty of
> Torah and its way of life restore people to the right path.

> 2.) Do not argue with missionaries; do not lend credence or dignity to
> their efforts at soul snatching. There are tens of millions of non-
> practicing Christians in this country who are better targets for their
> efforts.

> 3.) Missionaries are usually close-minded fanatics. They are trained
> to respond to your arguments with pat, almost memorized answers. If
> they can't handle your objection, they will deflect it by raising
> another, and still another point. Even if you win––you lose."

> I have a few questions about this.

I saw you posted this twice, and thought we could engage in discussion
of this.
I read the entire "book" you referenced.
(It's a lot better than dealing with Pete look for "Kaplan's Bible
translation"
by typing "Kaplan Bible and homosexuality" and then complain that
there's probably a lot of advocacy of homosexuality in Kaplan and that
somehow I'm probably a homosexual myself. Other than exposing the
viciousness
of this, I don't really know how to deal with it.)

But if you don't mind, I want to re-order one of your paragraphs, and
deal with your closing paragraph first:

> Kaplan also appears to be a man without faith in God who doesn't
> believe God can inspire men (as He did the prophets), since he takes
> Paul's proclamation that he learned of Christ from the Spirit of
> Christ himself (which visitation Paul identified as a "heavenly
> vision" in Acts 26:19) to be evidence that Paul concocted Christianity
> from his own imagination.

This is invalid reasoning that leads to an unjust conclusion.
It is not valid to jump from the premise that Kaplan disbelieves
that God (through Jesus) inspired Paul to the conclusion that
therefore Kaplan disbelieves that God can inspire *anyone*.

I'm sure there are plenty of other people you don't think are inspired
by God, and the fact that you doubt them doesn't permit me to infer
that you don't think that God can inspire men.

And *a fortiori*, it is certainly not valid for you to jump to the
further conclusion that "Kaplan appears to be a man without faith in
God".

Kaplan was a highly respected Orthodox rabbi and scholar.

In the following, I am going to generally defend Kaplan, because
overall his positions on the difference between Judaism and
Christianity
overlap mine, and especially his views about the "Hebrew Christian"
movement's attempt to draw Jews to Christianity by persuading them
that they become "completed Jews" are similar to mine.

On the other hand, I want you to understand that I don't agree with
Kaplan
about everything, so don't expect me to automatically line up with
everything he thinks and says. For instance: (1) He was Orthodox and I
am Reform;
(2) he believes it's unwise to argue religion with Christian
missionaries
and obviously it's been something of a hobby of mine for over 20 years
to do just that; (3) in some of the later articles in the book you
reference, he is overly polemical against Jesus by interpreting
some ambiguous things he says in the gospel in the worst possible
light.

The other point I want to make is one of context. This so-called
"book" is actually a collection of disjoint essays, some but not all
of which
are by Kaplan, and which are collectively published by Jews for
Judaism.
Jews for Judaism was explicitly created to address the relationship
between
uneducated or wavering Jews and Christian missionaries, and especially
with "messianic" Christian missionaries such as the Jews for Jesus.
So not everything said here is necessarily appropriate to the
relationship
between Jews and Christians generally, or even between Jews
and Christian evangelists generally.

> One, Kaplan is encouraging Jews to
> be missionaries themselves, which is kind of hypocritical given his
> obvious animosity towards Christian missionizing.

I don't think it's correct to say that Kaplan is encouraging
Jews to be missionaries themselves. That's against Jewish
principles, and even more so against Orthodox principles.
You may have been thinking of this passage:
<quote>
Spend your time learning, teaching
and explaining the meaning of the Torah and its Mitzvos. Better still,

invite a person who is in search of religious values to a Shabbaton,
or to
your home for Shabbat. Let the truth and beauty of Torah and its way
of
life restore people to the right path.

</quote>
The title of the section was "A Practical Guide to the Missionary
Problem"
and the abstract was: "Very often, in an attempt to respond to a

missionary challenge,
one can make a number of seemingly logical moves which, in fact, play

directly into the hands of the missionaries. Therefore, a number of

Jewish
communal leaders have prepared these guidelines for dealing on the
spot
with missionaries and their followers."

So this is not about encouraging Jews to go encouraging random
Christians
and seeking to encouraging them to give up their religion for Judaism.
That indeed would be hypocritical for someone opposed to Christian
missionizing,
but it is not what was said or meant. He's talking about what if you
see a Christian missionary try to convert a Jew who is religiously
unfulfilled. You should try to explain -- to the missionary possibly,
but especially to the Jew -- what Jewish principles are and show
by example how living them can be fulfilling. That's a far cry from
seeking out unfulfilled or vulnerable Christians and trying to get
them
to change. The target of your explanation is either a missionary
(who might himself by a "Jew for Jesus") or a confused Jew.

> Two, I thought Jews
> didn't believe in souls in the same way that Christians do, so his
> reference to Christian missionaries being engaged in "soul
> snatching" (see #2 above) is kind of strange in more ways than one.

There are lots of meanings of "soul". Jews may not all believe in
a "soul" that survives death (although most Orthodox do, and so
Kaplan himself probably did), but it's not relevant. In this context,
he's probably referring to "yiddishe neshama", which is usually
translated into English as "Jewish soul", which has nothing to do
with life after death, but instead has to do with the soul you
have when you're alive -- your Jewish identity -- which is in fact
what is "stolen" when you are lured, as my wife's brother and sister
were, into a Christian world.

> 3.) Kaplan acts as if Christian missionaries are 'programmed', i.e.
> brainwashed, and then attempts to program anyone listening to him and
> to train them how to program their young people who may be "confused
> Jewishly" (see #10) and therefore easily 'corrupted' by Christian
> missionaries.

The word "programmed" in the sense of "brainwashed" may have the
same root as the word "program" in the phrase "youth programs", but
that does not justify equating encouraging young dissatisfied Jews to
go to youth
programs to hang out and shmooze with satisfied Jews (the theme of
#10) to
"programming".

If you have been here when Josh Moss posted, you will have read
his own experiences as a Jew for Jesus. The point is that these
folks who join JfJ are "programmed" in a far different way. They are
put
in an all-JfJ world, immediately and early on given a task of
becoming missionaries themselves, given a precise set of rules
and formulas for how to do it. They are also told of how the
outside world including their family and friends are part of
the satanic forces that they must actively resist. They are
given super-love unless they choose to hang out with their
Jewish friends, and then that super-love turns really cold.
This is what is meant by "programming", *not* just "going to
youth *programs*".

> Kaplan says on Page 3, "A small number of Jews seem to be finding the
> teachings of Christianity very attractive", so why the urgency to
> refute it, that he displays so readily elsewhere in his book, if
> Christian missionizing is not being successful anyway?

It's a small number, but for that small number, it's a great tragedy.
(And from the Jewish point of view, it is affecting not just the
Jew but his or her children, and children's children, and so forth.)

It's no different than someone warning a large group of people
from other kinds of hazards (texting while driving, scams,
drugs) even though only a small fraction actually are affected
in a tragic way from it.

...

> Kaplan displays no first-hand knowledge of the NT scriptures; this is
> apparent right away by his false claim that Paul actually started what
> is present-day Christianity.

That is the scholarly consensus, so this is not exactly "Kaplan's
claim".

The main Pauline idea is sola fide, and even sola fide was
not generally accepted until the Protestant movement, because
the NT contains a mixture of some statements implying
sola fide and other statements inconsistent with sola fide.

> I guess he thinks Christians will be less
> offended by Jews blaming their rejection of Christianity on Paul,
> rather than on a rejection of Christ when confronted with Christian
> missionaries. (Lol! Are they in for a shock!)

Let's leave off what Kaplan probably thought, since he's no longer
alive and can't respond.

> Without supplying any proof of his false claim whatsoever, Kaplan

> claims Christ preached a different gospel than Paul.

The essay was not an attempt to be a scholarly dissertation
on the differences. For instance, he doesn't mention the Ebionites
and other movements that were around at that time that
didn't follow Pauline teachings and are now no longer part
of what Vince calls the "billions of Christians who think otherwise".

He didn't say they are unrelated to things Jesus taught,
or that *only* Paul taught these things, but it is
true that the emphasis is different. In particular, original sin,
sola fide, substitutionary sacrifice, and the replacement of the law.
Jesus taught you are judged by your works:
"the angels shall come and separate the evil from the righteous",
not "the angels shall come and separate the faithless from the
faithful".

> let's see where Paul may have gotten these ideas by looking at what

> Christ had to say about each of Kaplan's points, and we will see that
> the Messiah and Paul both taught the same gospel.

> Point 1, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "Jesus was the Messiah or
> Christ predicted by the Prophets of the Bible and awaited by the Jews.
> He is also the Son of G-d, and like any son, is essentially the same
> as his Father."

> Yahashua` the Messiah/Jesus Christ said that he was the Messiah, the
> Christ, awaited by the Jews:

Yes he did. I don't think Kaplan would dispute that Jesus called
himself that.
And elsewhere in the book it says "He clearly thought of himself as
the Messiah of the
Jews and of no one else."

...

> The Messiah said he was one with the Father, and because of this
> statement, he was accused of making himself God:
> John 10:30-33, "I and [my] Father are one.

Yes, but I would have thought it meant that Jesus was saying that what
he teaches
is one with what God teaches, rather than literally that he is God,
and that the listeners were misunderstanding him out of anger,
rather than that they were right.

> The Messiah referred to himself as "the only begotten Son of God":
> John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
> Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
> everlasting life.
> John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
> world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
> believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in
> the name of the only begotten Son of God.

We've been through this before. These words are the words of John,
not of Jesus. The quotation marks end after 3:15.

> Point 2, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "Man is evil and sinful.
> All mankind is damned because of Adam’s sin. The Torah cannot save
> man, since its many commandments make it too difficult to keep. The
> only thing that can prevent man’s utter damnation in hell is the
> belief in Christ."

> Mark 7:20-23, "And he [Christ] said, That which cometh out of the man,
> that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men,
> proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts,
> covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye,
> blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within,
> and defile the man."

Saying that man commits sins, including all those Jesus listed, is
a far cry from saying all mankind is damned because of Adam's sin
and the Torah cannot save man, because it is too difficult.
Original sin is a doctrine of Augustine, based on Pauline
ideas. Jesus' speech in Mark is not the doctrine of
original sin. And of course the Torah explicitly said
that obeying the Torah is *not* too difficult, and Jesus
explicitly endorsed the Torah.

> John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus
> answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye
> should have known my Father also.
> John 8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in
> the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet
> come.
> John 8:21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall
> seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
> John 8:22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith,
> Whither I go, ye cannot come.
> John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from
> above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
> John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins:
> for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

He was talking to a particular group of enemies, not making a general
statement. Just as when he said "ye are of your father the devil".
It doesn't mean everyone born is son of Satan.

> Christ said:
> John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even

> so must the Son of man be lifted up:

> John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
> eternal life.

> John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
> Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
> everlasting life.
> John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
> world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
> believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in
> the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Haven't I seen these exact words before? They don't teach original
sin, and they're not (after 3:15) Jesus' words.

> Point 3, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "The Jews were originally
> G-d’s chosen people, but they were rejected when they refused to
> accept His son, Jesus. The name “Israel,” G-d’s chosen people, is no
> longer carried by the Jew, but by those who accept Jesus as the
> Messiah. Only these share G-d’s love. Everyone else is damned in
> hell."

> Teaching a parable in Matthew 21, the Messiah offended the chief
> priests and elders of the Jews, who perceived that he was talking
> about them as the ones who had so rejected the Son sent to them, and
> he confirmed he was indeed speaking of them in this parable when he
> also said, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be
> taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits
> thereof" (Matt. 21:43).

It doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as the messiah
or (more significantly) as the substitutionary sacrifice is damned
to hell. Jesus didn't say that.

...

> Here in John 10, speaking of himself as the shepherd, and his sheep
> being the sheep of Israel, the Messiah says he will bring into it
> "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold", and they will become
> all "one fold" of sheep, with himself as their one and only shepherd.

> John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of
> mine.
> John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I
> lay down my life for the sheep.
> John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
> also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
> one fold, and one shepherd.

This doesn't mean sola fide. Part of following Jesus, to Jesus,
meant accepting his teachings -- doing good deeds, in particular,
the commandments (as he interpreted them). The Pauline idea
is that the commandments are obsolete and won't save you: belief
saves you. Salvation might *cause* you to do some good deeds,
but the good deeds are the result of salvation, not the other
way around. That's not Jewish.

> Point 4, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "There is only one law
> now that Christ has come, and that is love. One must follow the
> example of Christ’s sacrifice, and patiently hope that G-d will be
> gracious in return."

> Here the Messiah summed up the law as the commandment to love God with
> all one's heart, soul, and mind, and to love one's neighbor as
> oneself:
> Mat 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question,
> tempting him, and saying,
> Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
> Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
> all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
> Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
> Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
> neighbour as thyself.
> Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the
> prophets.

Yes, that's an echo of what Hillel said. (Jesus was likely a
follower of Hillel). Hillel also tried to reduce all the
commandments to a small number of principles. That doesn't
mean the commandments don't exist. It means that the
principles underlying the commandments derive from
either the golden rule (Hillel) or "love thy neighbor" (Jesus),
and of course from the v'ahavta (quoted in 22:37). By no
means did Jesus say the other laws don't apply. He said
"on these two commandments hang all the law", not
"these two commandments supersede the rest". Similarly
Hillel said "The rest is
commentary; Go and study [the Torah]", not "once you
know the golden rule, you don't need to learn the rest".

Whereas Paulines, and some folk here, really *do* think
that the other rules don't apply any more. They
either say that they're nailed to the cross, or that
one need only consult one's conscience, or whatever,
but not that you should study and follow the law".

...

> Christ taught that salvation was God's gracious gift to those who ask
> living water (eternal life) of Christ:
> John_4:10, "Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift
> of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou
> wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living
> water."

Maybe, but again, that didn't mean ignore the commandments. In fact
he said also "if you want eternal life, do the commandments".

> Since Kaplan has published a new translation of the Torah, I certainly
> hope that he is infinitely more knowledgeable about the Torah than he
> is about the New Testament teachings of the Messiah he also feels
> capable of writing about, since Kaplan is either wholly ignorant of
> the Messiah's words in the NT (apparently unaware of even the most

> famous verses, such as John 3:16-17, and John 10:30), or else Kaplan

> is deliberately lying that points 1-4 above are the teachings of Paul
> and are NOT the teachings of Christ.

As I said, it's a matter of emphasis. Christians do teach that
we're damned without a savior. They do teach that whole
substitutionary
sacrifice thing. That the Torah is obsolete, and you should
first get saved and then you don't need to study the law; God
or Jesus will put whatever you need into your heart after. That's
a change. That's un-Jewish. Jews for Judaism doesn't want
Jews to start thinking like that. And that's why Kaplan worked
to write his essays in this book.

Just to make sure, this is completely separate from Kaplan's "Living
Torah",
the translation I was referring to in my discussions with Pete before
he started drifting off into irrelevancies like homosexuality and
reconstructionism.

--
Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 25, 9:47 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> I am still looking at Kaplan's book - wow.
>
> From "The Real Messiah?  A Jewish response to Missionaries" by Aryeh
> Kaplan, Page 27:
>
> "Nowhere does the Bible predict that the Messiah will be born to a
> virgin. In fact, virgins never give birth anywhere in the Bible. This
> idea is
> to be found only in pagan mythology. To the Jewish mind, the very idea
> that G-d would plant a seed in a woman is unnecessary and unnatural.
> After all,—what is accomplished by this claim? What positive purpose
> does it serve? The claim that Mary did not have natural relations with
> her
> husband must have made the Jews of that time suspect her of
> wrongdoing.
> The New Testament (the Christian Bible) admits as much when it
> says (Matthew 1,19), “Then Joseph her (Mary’s) husband, being a just
> man, and not willing to shame her in public, decided to divorce her
> quietly." The whole idea of virgin birth serves no purpose, except to

> attract pagans to Christianity." -http://web.archive.org/web/20080529164304/http://www.jewsforjudaism.o...

>
> Kaplan takes verse 19 out of context and fails to cite the verse
> before it, and then claims absolving Mary of her wrongdoing was what
> was accomplished by the false claim of the virgin birth.  It sure
> sounds like Kaplan is saying the purpose for claiming a virgin birth
> of the Messiah was because he was an illegitimate baby, a "bastard",
> and was not even born of the man Mary was betrothed to.  The Talmud
> teaches this blasphemy that Mary was impure and Christ was an
> illegitimate child, as it teaches that Yahashua`/Jesus was born of
> fornication outside of marriage.

Kaplan didn't say whether Jesus was or wasn't an "illegitimate baby".

He said that the virgin birth reconciled their claim that Jesus wasn't
actually son of Joseph, and explains something that otherwise would
have made people look down on *Mary* (not Jesus). (It isn't blasphemy
to claim that Jesus would have been illegitimate, since had he
been illegitimate, it wouldn't have been his fault, right?)

So the way 18-20 reads is that 18 says that "she was found with child
of the Holy Ghost". But of course that's an odd way to say something,
since it's impossible to "find" when a woman is pregnant who the
father is. So the way to read it is that (according to Matthew),
Mary *was* with child of the Holy Ghost, but Joseph didn't know it at
the time. Hence verse 19 says that Joseph was preparing her to
divorce her but spare her the public shame (of being pregnant not
by him). And then verse 20 says that an angel of the Lord had
to come to him in a dream and talk him out of it by explaining
that the child is "conceived of the Holy Ghost".

So Kaplan's explanation really isn't that much different from yours.
Jesus is supposedly a product of Mary and the Holy Ghost, but
Joseph doesn't know this right away, and would have divorced her,
had not an angel stepped in to intervene.

Not a bad story, but of course I don't believe it.

And of course it doesn't get around the fact that verses 21-23
are totally bogus, as Kaplan points out (and I concur).

First of all, the prophet didn't say "a virgin shall be with child",
he said "a *young woman* *is* with child". "Almah" means "young
woman".
And calling the child Jesus doesn't fulfill a prophecy that
says his name shall be called Emmanuel. And Emmanuel more
accurately means "God *is* with us" (like many languages,
Hebrew lacks an explicit verb for locutions like this).

>
> Mat 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
> mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was
> found with child of the Holy Ghost.
> Mat 1:19  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing
> to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
> Mat 1:20  But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of
> the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of
> David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
> conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
> Mat 1:21  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
> name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
> Mat 1:22  Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
> spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
> Mat 1:23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
> a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted
> is, God with us.

--
Rob Strom

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Lu 16:31 -And he said unto him,
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead.

Who Moved The Stone? [Paperback]
Frank Morison (Author)


For Seekers & Skeptics, July 27, 1999
By StLuke...@aol.com (Dublin, Oh) - This review is from: Who Moved
the
Stone? (Paperback)
I've read many books on the historical reliability (and
unreliability)
of the New Testament; I've seen many educated opinions varying in
every way; I done studies many resurrections-centered topics; but
I've
never seen a book quite like this! Morrison takes nothing for
granted.
He trusts his instincts, and, though coming shy of any kind of
Biblical-Christian opinion, he beautifully defends the resurrection
in
this short examination. As a doubter I find it difficult to swallow
what many Christians take for granted in their own faith. This book
is
not like most. However, as a believer I was thrown by Morrison into
the last week of Jesus' life (and the following weeks) as I never
have
by any lecture or writing. Morrison brings to light many historical
details missed my so many people (including myself). He is easy to
read and difficult to put down.
To the skeptics: I was once a skeptic. It was not a brief reading of
one or two apologetic works that convinced me; instead, it was months
and months of hard research, with this book as one of the many
highlights. I encourage all to read this.


Morrison's book will forever remain one of my personal favorites.


Luke Gilkerson


http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/1850786747


The Case for the Resurrection:
A First-Century Investigative Reporter
Probes History's Pivotal Event [Paperback]
Lee Strobel (Author)


A Mighty Case for the Risen Christ, August 10, 2010
By Mike Robinson "Mike A Robinson: Apologetic An... (USA) -(TOP 1000
REVIEWER) (REAL NAME) This review is from: The Case for the
Resurrection: A First-Century Investigative Reporter Probes History's
Pivotal Event (Paperback)
Lee Strobel's "The Case for the Resurrection: A First-Century
Investigative Reporter Probes History's Pivotal Event," is a power-
packed booklet (almost 100 pages) that offers compelling evidence for
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. "The Case for the Resurrection" is
helpful and readable and makes a great evidential introduction for
this essential truth of Christianity.


This New book features:
Fresh insights from Lee Strobel's new "The Case for Christ Study
Bible," as the author covers the story of Christ rising from the
grave
from the Gospel of Luke with outstanding notes from "The Case for
Christ Study Bible." The proof is potent, the writing is engaging,
and
the author has a true passion for the subject.


Remember that the Apostles saw the risen Christ, touched the risen
Christ, and died tortuous deaths proclaiming its truth when all thy
had to do was deny it; yes many people die for lies, but no
collective, diverse group of people die for what they Know is a
complete lie.


Furthermore all known ancient documents that refer to the subject
report an empty tomb. Even though the manner in which one accepts or
rejects the evidence on the historicity of the ancient documents and
other papyrus is controlled by one's presuppositions, the facts are
mighty; the evidence is there, and is impressive, but there is an
important distinction between proof and persuasion.


Note the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is:
- 100's of eyewitnesses testified under the threat of death that they
saw the risen Jesus including 500 people at one time. All the
apostles, except one, died a horrible death knowing they saw Jesus
alive from the dead. 100's more died because they would not recant
the
fact that they saw the risen Jesus. Not one Apostle recanted to save
himself from a torturous death.


- Only Christianity offers over three hundred predictions written
down
before Christ came and fulfilled exactly, most of which could not
have
been self-fulfilled.
Only Christ offers a confirmed resurrection of a Savior to
demonstrate
His authority. (Greek & other pseudo-resurrection gods were not
historical figures, the only documents we have concerning the false
gods/myths are documents dated 100's of years after Christianity.


- The resurrection was proclaimed in Jerusalem where the trial,
crucifixion. and resurrection took place. If Jesus had not risen from
the dead, his enemies only had to produce this body and this new
religion that they hated would be terminated before it started.


- The conversion of Jesus' opponents to Christianity, including many
Jewish Priests and Pharisees can best be explained by the
resurrection
of Christ. The risen Jesus converted many of those who executed Him
because of the overwhelming evidence of His resurrection and His many
appearances through God's grace (Acts 6:7 & Acts 15:5).


- Jesus' tomb was secured and guarded by well trained Jewish and
Roman
guards. The tomb had a Roman seal on it to prevent tampering with the
threat of execution for breaking the seal, yet the tomb was empty.
Every ancient historical source that discusses the subject verifies
the tomb was empty.


- Ancient hostile sources and extra-Biblical writers record the same
facts of Christ's death and empty tomb. Additionally, the continuous
defense of the resurrection in front of Roman government officials
from Paul to Tertullian was unchallenged by Rome and all ancient
historians.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310949890/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_...

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 25, 1:52 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"

<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Lu 16:31 -And he said unto him,
> If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
> neither will they be persuaded,
> though one rose from the dead.
>
> Who Moved The Stone? [Paperback]
> Frank Morison (Author)
>

...

Are you saying that he addresses Kaplan's issues?

If not, what does that have to do with what we're talking about?

And if so, can you summarize them?

--
Rob Strom

[Sam Taylor]

"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:7b92953b-e9cd-4462...@w2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

The Actual Meaning of Emmanuel is "With Our G-D" or with us.....OF G-D,
Emma Manu El the "EL meaning G-D
Sam
>
> --
> Rob Strom
>

["ooomm.-"]

"Kaplan also lied.....
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

A verse the Jews like to forget about."

Here we have us one of them there teachable moments.

The verse above is from the greek LXX translation version used by those in
the NT. The OT had been translated because hebrew was no longer a language
of daily use but greek was. Greek and the LXX were widely used by the
widely spread jews all around the med. sea and middle east areas.

The author of Matt. writing in greek used that greek translation when he
quoated the verse above. In the hebrew the Is. verse has maid and not
virgin. That is the source for the jewish argument. There are counter
arguments available but not relevant here as to why virgin is fine.

["aammm.-"]

"When the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was first published, the
Hebrew word almah was translated "young woman," with "virgin" in the
footnotes f course, it should have been reversed. Their argument was that
almah meant only a young woman. While it is true that there are places in
the Scriptures where it is translated "young woman," it is evident that it
means "virgin."
For example, when Abraham's servant went to Haran in search of a bride for
Isaac and he prayed that God would direct him to the right girl, this is
how Rebekah was described: "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a
virgin, neither had any man known her (Gen_24:16). The word damsel is
the Hebrew word naarah, meaning "young woman," but that she was a virgin
was made clear also. Then when the servant was rehearsing this experience
of praying for God's guidance, he said, "Behold, I stand by the well of
water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw
water (Gen_24:43), the Hebrew word almah is translated "virgin." I don't
think that anyone could misunderstand what is being said here. When the
word almah was used, it referred to a virgin young woman, that is, one who
had had no sexual relationship with a man."

Ah, the teachable moment continues. All uses of virgin mentioned are from
the kjv. The kjv used greek sources for the bible. Those sources used the
greek LXX translation the jews of Christ's time used. In hebrew sources
the word maid is used where the LXX has virgin.

['"iiimmm.-"]

Concerning the use of maid or virgin in bible translation:

> Ah, the teachable moment continues. All uses of virgin mentioned are
from
> the kjv. The kjv used greek sources for the bible. Those sources used
the
> greek LXX translation the jews of Christ's time used. In hebrew sources
> the word maid is used where the LXX has virgin.

"Only Fool would say something so ignorant."

the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was
translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the
Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the

Yup, the wiki page on it.

I was half right, and stand other wise corrected. The NT of the kjv was of
greek sources and the word used was virgin because of the LXX use of it.
If it appears in the OT it would appear to reflect the translators wish to
promote the christian doctrine. This is why knowing full well the hebrew
was maid they inserted virgin to that end.

[Terry Cross]

On Oct 25, 3:21 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> Only Fool would say something so ignorant.
>

> The KJV uses ...
> James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new
> version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal
> structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9]
> The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the
> Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the
> period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was
> translated from Hebrew text,

From WHAT Hebrew text? From the Jewish Hebrew sources? That would be
odd. But there was no other OT Hebrew text available, and the
Massoretic text of the Jews was suspect, and the verse numbering was
different.

TCross

["wwwmmm.-"]

> odd. But there was no other OT Hebrew text available, and the
> Massoretic text of the Jews was suspect, and the verse numbering was
> different.
>
> TCross

"Another nooby. There was no verse numbering."

In the copies the translators of the kjv had theywere numbered. Those
copies were from erasmus who included the standard numbering a couple of
centuries previously.

7. The Isaiah Scroll, found relatively intact, is 1000 years older than any
previously known copy of Isaiah. In fact, the scrolls are the oldest group
of Old Testament manuscripts ever found.

10. The Scrolls are for the most part, written in Hebrew, but there are
many written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the common language of the Jews of
Palestine for the last two centuries B.C. and of the first two centuries
A.D. The discovery of the Scrolls has greatly enhanced our knowledge of
these two languages. In addition, there are a few texts written in Greek.


http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

Sure, the dead sea material. The 1000 year mention is before the present.
We don't have original material from the time when the Massoretic version
was compiled from various families of hebrew text some centuries after
Christ. .

The Is. schroll is almost exactly like the Massoretic sources which come
several centuries after Christ. The Is. and the Massoretic use maid where
the translators of the kjv used virgin in the same places.

The kjv used greek sources for the NT which has virgin when quoating the
OT. Probably for reasons of doctrine they choose to use virgin where the
hebrew had maid.

Now who said "nooby"?

[Terry Cross]

On Oct 25, 4:42 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> Another nooby. There was no verse numbering.
>

> 7. The Isaiah Scroll, found relatively intact, is 1000 years older than any
> previously known copy of Isaiah. In fact, the scrolls are the oldest group
> of Old Testament manuscripts ever found.

That scroll was not available to the translators of the KJV, so the
statement is irrelevant.

> 10. The Scrolls are for the most part, written in Hebrew, but there are
> many written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the common language of the Jews of
> Palestine for the last two centuries B.C. and of the first two centuries
> A.D. The discovery of the Scrolls has greatly enhanced our knowledge of
> these two languages. In addition, there are a few texts written in Greek.

That statement is also irrelevant because those scrolls were not
available to the translators of the KJV.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Oct 25, 5:49 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> I did Fool, I posted the info to counteract the idea that there was no
> Hebrew text to draw from.

There WAS no Hebrew text available to the translators of the KJV.

I warn you that "thou raca" is blasphemy.


> You are sticking your nose it and changing things
> around and still don't have your facts straight. There was no mention of
> Christ in those documents and the people that put them there were present
> at the time He was alive. Why do you think that was? You are great at
> making up stories that only nooby's and haters would bite into.

You are the only person using foul language, calling people names, and
getting upset. You call others drunk on hate, but you are the only
drinker at the table.

TCross

[Zev]

On Oct 25, 11:24 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2012 20:46:27 GMT, ooomm.- wrote:

> H5959
> עלמה
> ‛almâh
> al-maw'
> Feminine of H5958; a lass (as veiled or private): - damsel, maid, virgin.
>
> The original word in Hebrew, not Greek (as veiled or private) IE something
> kept out of sight connoting a virgin.
> This is the Hebrew text coverted to English Text of today. The author of
> Matthew was inspired of the Holy Spirit of God.
>
> The fact that the angel quotes this prophecy in Isa_7:14 to Joseph as an
> explanation for Mary's being with child before her marriage to him is
> satisfactory evidence that the prophecy referred to an unmarried woman who
> had a son without physical contact with any man. The word used by Matthew
> (see Mat_1:23) is the Greek word parthenos, which definitely means
> "virgin." The same Greek word was used for the Parthenon, the Greek temple
> to the goddess Athena, which the Greeks characterized as being a virgin.

>
> When the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was first published, the
> Hebrew word almah was translated "young woman," with "virgin" in the

> footnotes—of course, it should have been reversed. Their argument was that

> almah meant only a young woman. While it is true that there are places in
> the Scriptures where it is translated "young woman," it is evident that it
> means "virgin."
> For example, when Abraham's servant went to Haran in search of a bride for
> Isaac and he prayed that God would direct him to the right girl, this is
> how Rebekah was described: "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a
> virgin, neither had any man known her …" (Gen_24:16). The word damsel is
> the Hebrew word naarah, meaning "young woman," but that she was a virgin
> was made clear also. Then when the servant was rehearsing this experience
> of praying for God's guidance, he said, "Behold, I stand by the well of
> water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to
> draw
> water …" (Gen_24:43), the Hebrew word almah is translated "virgin."

How do you know he knew she was virgin?
Why do you think he would tell her family he knew,
even if he did?
Think about the situation the Bible is describing,
you've just shown that "almah" does indeed mean lass, not virgin.

> I don't
> think that anyone could misunderstand what is being said here. When the
> word almah was used, it referred to a virgin young woman, that is, one who
> had had no sexual relationship with a man.
>

> Only a Fool would deny the virgin birth.

Btulah means virgin, only.
Almah means lass, who would be expected to be virgin.
If the sign of Isaiah 7:14 is a miraculous virgin pregnancy,
it wouldn't make sense to use Almah.

But it's worse than that.
A "sign" is something you can see,
indicating something you can't.
How could a virginity *accepted on faith* be a sign to anything?

Isaiah 7:14 is a "second best" for a king
who didn't want to be bothered by Isaiah's signs.
It doesn't look like an announcement to the world,
with dramatic implications, centuries later.

[Ed Form]

On 25/10/2012 18:18:17, Rob Strom wrote:

> In this context, he's probably referring to "yiddishe neshama",
> which is usually translated into English as "Jewish soul",
> which has nothing to do with life after death, but instead has
> to do with the soul you have when you're alive -- your Jewish
> identity -- which is in fact what is "stolen" when you are lured,
> as my wife's brother and sister were, into a Christian world.

Oooooo! That's quite a misleading generalisation, Rob. The idea that *a*
Jewish soul is individually eternal, and individually superior to a gentile
soul, has been expressed by Jews in this forum many times. You are almost the
only person here who postulates the idea that a Jew living a good Jewish life
is a blessing to the human race and forms a major fulfilment of the promise
to Abraham that in his seed all nations of the earth will be blessed.

Ed Form

[Zev]

On Oct 26, 10:34 am, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> Gods love was His people, the signs were for a people He loved and cared
> for. All along it was to His people first. This sign was but one of over
> 315 signs of the Messiah. He came for His people first, but the denied Him
> that was sent. With all the Jewish men that are mathematicians how many
> have stated the fact that there is overwhelming fact that Jesus is the
> Messiah?
>
> Now as to lass, I showed whoever cared to look that one of the words was
> virgin just as easily as it is lass, the root word here that was mentioned
> is for a mail virgin. There are many other signs in Isaiah of the Redeemer
> to come. And no mere man could do what Jesus did while He was alive one
> this planter.

Genesis 24:43 shows that "almah" doesn't mean virgin,
as explained above.
Unexamined virginity couldn't be a sign.
The idea of a dramatic prophesy doesn't match the topic of Isaiah 7.

No wonder you're begining to talk about *other* signs.

[Ed Form]

On 26/10/2012 09:19:43, Zev wrote:

> Btulah means virgin, only.
> Almah means lass, who would be expected to be virgin.
> If the sign of Isaiah 7:14 is a miraculous virgin pregnancy,
> it wouldn't make sense to use Almah.

Zev, you've failed to take into consideration the fact that the prophet was
delivering a sign to the Ahaz the king immediately after that despicable
monster pretended piety...

'I will not put the Lord to the test by making
such a request.

Isaiah's words in verse 13 are very obviously spoken in bitter
exasperation...

Is it not enough that you are driving men to
disgust? will you do the same to my God?

Then Isaiah turned to the assembled court and told them to listen
carefully...

Give ear now, O family of David'

..and then addressed Ahaz directly...

For this cause the Lord himself will give you a
sign; *that* young woman is now with child,
and she will give birth to a son, and she will
give him the name Immanuel.'

It was perfectly correct for Isaiah to use the word 'almah' since the girl in
question was not a virgin: Ahaz had already got her in the pudding club. You
were careful to use the words 'Almah means lass, who would be expected to be
virgin' and that expectation is used with biting irony by the prophet -
*That* lass, who should be a virgin, is actually pregnant and she's going to
have a son. - I've picked up the presence of the definite article in the text
and, like most of the commentators, concluded that Isaiah pointed his finger
at a girl who was present in the party at the spring where Ahaz was
inspecting public works aimed at providing a secure source of water during
sieges. The chronology is fairly secure since the Bible and Assyrian court
writings can be tied together at this point, so the events appear to have
taken place immediately before Ahaz took Abijah, the daughter of Zechariah as
his second wife and the boy who would be born was Hezekiah. Contrary to the
endless speculation of the commentators, the verses that follow, with their
terrible promise of an Assyrian invasion and long term occupation, do not
form the sign that Isaiah promised. The sign - which was provided for Ahaz -
was that God's prophet knew what he had done to Abijah behind closed doors -
it was provided so that Ahaz would know he was in the presence of a prophet
with the power of God and so that the prophecy Isaiah then delivered would
frighten him. In those circumstances the word 'almah' was definitely the
correct word to use; you don't describe a pregnant girl as a virgin.

Then you wrote...

> But it's worse than that.
> A "sign" is something you can see,
> indicating something you can't.

> How could a virginity accepted on faith be a sign to anything?

>
> Isaiah 7:14 is a "second best" for a king
> who didn't want to be bothered by Isaiah's signs.
> It doesn't look like an announcement to the world,
> with dramatic implications, centuries later.

You seem to have missed the fact that Matthew didn't cite the bit about Ahaz
getting a sign - why should he cite it? It was not relevant to his use of
Isaiah's words. Matthew had no assembled court of the house of David before
him and he had no need to shock a wicked king into listening to his prophecy
by revealing that he knew something that the King had done in secret. All
Matthew was interested in was the fact that some of Isaiah's words were
prophetic of another event, distant in time from Isaiah's day, but relevant
to the birth of Jesus. That's why he changed Isaiah's words to emphasise the
altered circumstances...

1. He used definitely future verb tenses where Isaiah's tenses were
non-specific. Isaiah said ' the lass *is* in the club and *bears* a son'
which can legitimately be read as either present or future but are usually
read as one of each - 'the lass *is* in the pudding club and *will bear* a
son'. Matthew said: 'Isaiah told us that a virgin *will be* in the pudding
club and *will bear* a son. Both of his tenses are future.

2. He changed the universal word 'almah', with its expectation of virginity,
to the specific word 'parthenos' which actually means 'virgin', contrasting
Isaiah's irony over the despoilation of Abijah with the unblemished condition
of Mary - Ahaz's cruel solution to the problem of providing the next King
with God's provision of an everlasting king.

These changes are characteristic of a common New Testament approach to
citations from the Hebrew Scriptures - a scholarly friend of mine calls the
approach 'Complementary Difference' - where the New Testament writer changes
the wording of the citation to suit the circumstances - Paul's citation of
Isaiah 29:14 with Habakkuk 1:5 in the Synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia is
another striking example. [Acts 13:41]

Ed Form

["aaammm.-"]

> That statement is also irrelevant because those scrolls were not

> available to the translators of the KJV.
>

> TCross

"They confirmed the translators from Hebrew to English. You have a lot to
learn. You make yourself look bad."

Correction, they do not confirm any such thing. The dead sea schroll of
Isaiah and later hebrew compiled versions both use the word for maid or
young woman or similar.

The kjv Matt. quotation of the Isaiah uses virgin because that was the word
used in the greek. The translators used virgin in the OT also to match the
Nt not because it was obviously in the hebrew Isaiah. This was as much a
matter of doctrine then of translation.

[Ed Form]

On 25/10/2012 18:34:07, Rob Strom wrote:

> First of all, the prophet didn't say "a virgin shall be with child",

> he said "a young woman is with child". "Almah" means "young
> woman".

Since the girl he specifically referred to , who was present as he spoke
[hence *the* young woman in the text], was not a virgin, Isaiah would hardly
have used the word for a virgin. Prophets always spoke about things that
would occur in their own time and the future aspect of their words was always
a second meaning.

> And calling the child Jesus doesn't fulfill a prophecy that
> says his name shall be called Emmanuel. And Emmanuel more

> accurately means "God is with us" (like many languages,

> Hebrew lacks an explicit verb for locutions like this).

Where does Matthew say that the instruction to Joseph to call the baby
'Jesus' was a fulfilment of the prophecy that *they* would call him Emmanuel?
It's an easy assumption from the Matthew text, but not a necessary one.

Ed Form

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 26, 9:59 am, "Ed Form" <ed.f...@workgroupsolutions.co.uk>
wrote:

Well, we have all read Lewis Carroll and the other logicians who
distinguish among (1) what the name of the White Knight's song is,
(2) what the name of the White Knight's song is *called*, (3) what
the White Knight's song is *called*, and (4) what the song *is*.

You are right that the prophecy says that the boy's name will be
*called* Emmanuel, not that the boy's name would *be* Emmanuel.

But I don't think that was the intention of the prophet: to foretell
that the boy's name would *be* Jesus, but that his name would be
*called*
Emmanuel. That was a later idea of the logicians, and I'm sure
there's evidence that people used "He is called X" as a synonym
for "his name is", just as is the case in English and Hungarian today
(although neither English nor Hungarian says "his name is called X").

Nor is there any evidence that during Jesus' lifetime either the name
Jesus or the man named Jesus was ever called "Emmanuel".

--
Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 26, 5:31 am, "Ed Form" <ed.f...@workgroupsolutions.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 25/10/2012 18:18:17, Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > In this context, he's probably referring to "yiddishe neshama",
> > which is usually translated into English as "Jewish soul",
> > which has nothing to do with life after death, but instead has
> > to do with the soul you have when you're alive -- your Jewish
> > identity -- which is in fact what is "stolen" when you are lured,
> > as my wife's brother and sister were, into a Christian world.
>
> Oooooo! That's quite a misleading generalisation, Rob.

How can you use the term "generalization" to describe my opinion
about what a specific use of a word in a specific context means?

I was referring to a point Linda brought up, which was about
how Kaplan suggested in a specific sentence in a specific essay,
that missionizing Christians "steal Jewish souls".

> The idea that *a*
> Jewish soul is individually eternal, and individually superior to a gentile
> soul, has been expressed by Jews in this forum many times.

Now that *is* a generalization!

I think it behooves you to give a number of examples of this,
especially
the part about "individually superior to a gentile soul".

> You are almost the
> only person here who postulates the idea that a Jew living a good Jewish life
> is a blessing to the human race and forms a major fulfilment of the promise
> to Abraham that in his seed all nations of the earth will be blessed.
>

And I think it behooves you to suggest that these other Jewish posters
*don't*
think that a Jew living a good Jewish life is a blessing to the human
race
and a fulfilment of the promise to Abraham that in his seed all

nations
of the earth will be blessed.

--
Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

I would suggest that this expectation only held if
the almah was unmarried.

I have pointed out before that in many languages, including
English, the words for "maiden" have taken on the meaning
"virgin" when they originally meant simply "young woman".

"Maiden" is one example.
"Jungfrau" is another (in German).
In both cases you can still see that etymologically they mean "young
woman".
Which is what "almah" etymologically means also.

I have read that parthenos didn't always mean "virgin" either (but I
am
not knowledgeable in Greek, so don't really care to argue this).

...

--
Rob Strom

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://carm.org/isaiah-7-14-virgin

Isaiah 7:14, in Hebrew means maiden, not virgin. Therefore, it is not
a prophecy.
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin
will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name
Immanuel," (Isaiah 7:14).

Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin will bear a son. The problem is dealing
with the Hebrew word for virgin, which is "almah." According to the
Strong's Concordance it means, "virgin, young woman 1a) of
marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word
"almah" does not always mean virgin. The word "occurs elsewhere in
the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (”maiden“); Exodus 2:8
(”girl“); Psalm 68:25 (”maidens“); Proverbs 30:19 (”maiden“); Song of
Songs 1:3 (”maidens“); 6:8 (”virgins“)."1 Additionally, there is a
Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean
virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?

The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. This
translation was made around 200 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scholars. In Isaiah
7:14, they translated the word "almah" into the Greek word
"parthenos." According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,2 parthenos means
"virgin." This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary
(Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt.
25:1, 7, 11). If the Hebrews translated the Hebrew word "alma" into
the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text
meant here.

Why would Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It
was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would
also be a young woman. Is it still a prophecy? Of course.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/questions/Virginbirth.htm

Question / Comment - Isaiah 7:14 Is About Hezekiah, Not Jesus!
Isaiah 7:14 is about Hezekiah. We have proof in the Bible this verse
is about Hezekiah…You will notice that Isaiah’s statement in 7:14
describes the child as one not two children. “Therefore the Lord
Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the young woman shall conceive
and bear a son.”… Can you point out to me how this child is a duality
from this sentence?

Reply



Concerning Isa 7:14 you may the following quote interesting -
“RASHI also came to the conclusion that the Immanuel prophecy could
not refer to Hezekiah, because ‘if you count up the years of Hezekiah
you will find that Hezekiah was born nine years before his father
[Ahaz] ascended the throne.’ Hence, Hezekiah was born nine years
before the prophecy was given, and yet the prophet says: ‘Behold the
virgin shall (future tense) conceive...’ ” (Rachmiel Frydland, What
the Rabbis Know About the Messiah- A Study of Genealogy and Prophecy
[Cincinnati Ohio; Messianic Publishing Co., 1993] P40)



Isaiah 7:14 is not about Hezekiah as Rashi pointed out. Concerning the
‘duality’ in this passage, here are some comments which may help. The
following are extracts from Arnold Fruchtembaum’s books ‘Messianic
Christology’ and ‘Jesus was a Jew’.



The Sign to the House of David (7:13-14)



In verse 13, Isaiah turns from addressing Ahaz as an individual and
addresses the entire house of David. The English language does not
distinguish between “you” addressed to one person and “you” addressed
too many people. In Hebrew there is a difference, and there is a clear
change between the singular :you” of verses 9,11,16,17 and the plural
“you” of verses 13-14. The sign therefore is not just for Ahaz, but
for the whole house of David. This becomes clear if we state the
passage again with the singular [s] and the plural [pl] words
indicated:



“10 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign for
yourself [s] from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as
heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!”
13 Then he said “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a
thing for you [pl] to try the patience of men, that you [pl] will try
the patience of my God as well? 14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will
give you [pl] a sign: Behold, a virgin shall be with child and bear a
son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15 “He will eat curds and
honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16
“For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good,
the land whose two kings you [s] dread will be forsaken. 17 The Lord
will bring on you [s], on your people, and on your father’s house such
days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from
Judah, the King of Assyria.”



In verse 14, the Hebrew word for ‘behold’ is a word which draws
attention to an event which could be past, present, or future.
However, grammatically, whenever “behold” is used with the Hebrew
present particle, it always refers to a future event. That is the case
here. Not only is the birth future, but the very conception is future.
The key point of this should not be missed. God is promising that the
House of David cannot be deposed or lose its identity until the birth
of a virgin-born son. Again, this requires that Messiah be born prior
to the destruction of the temple and its genealogical records in
70AD.



Having concluded that Isaiah 7:12-14 is a long range prophecy
concerning the birth of Messiah (my comment – this is after far more
proof in his book which I have not included here), that still leaves a
problem. What about Ahaz? An event 700 years in the future is of
little significance to him. There is however a second sihn in verses
15-17, and this time is specifically for Ahaz (Note: from the above
passage this portion is in the singular meaning a sign for Ahaz
himself as opposed to the sign to the house of David in the plural of
verses 13 and 14). Before Isaiah’s son is old enough to make moral
distinctions between right and wrong, the kings of Israel and Syria
will be deposed and their threat removed. This was fulfilled within
three years. Isaiah again uses the definitive article before the term
“boy”. The boy of verse 16 cannot be the son of verse 14 but refers
back to Isaiah’s son in verse 3. Why else was Isaiah commanded to take
him?



ALMAH and Virgin



Arnold Fruchtembaum also states that the term “virgin” is required by
both the Hebew vocabulary and the context. The birth of the son in
Isaiah 7:14 is said to be a sign from God. The Lord told Ahaz that the
sign could be as high as Heaven or deep as Sheol. You think that the
extent of this “sign” from God was a young woman giving birth. Ooooh
what a sign! Bet that hasn’t happened before! How small is your God
that when He specifically tell us that He is going to give a sign
(which can be something as high as Heaven), it turns out to be
something that happens everyday and doesn’t need God to fulfill it!
Furthermore, Fruchtenbaum states that even Rashi said the word ALMAH
in Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8 means virgin! Fruchtembaum continues
stating “A far more authoritive source than Rashi is the judgement of
the seventy Jewish Rabbis who translated the Greek version of the Old
Testament, known as the Septuagint, in about 250BC. These men lived
far close to the time of Isaiah than Rashi (by about 1300 years)… and
these seventy rabbis all made ALMAH to read parthenos, which is the
simple Greek word for “virgin”.



You mentioned in your email that your Rabbi wrote:


"There is no scriptural authority to support the idea of the virgin
birth in the New Testament. I can perhaps explain how it happened
though. The earliest translation of

the Tenach, the Septuagint, renders alma as "virgin" because there is
no distinction in Greek between a young woman and a true virgin. So
the New Testament, being in the Greek language would naturally render
it as virgin."



This is simply not true!



The word ‘neanis’ is the Greek word for ‘young woman’ (what you think
Isaiah is saying) and the 70 Jewish scholars who worked on the
Septuagint were VERY careful to use the correct word. Look at the
following facts:



“The OT uses the word almah only seven times: Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8; Prov
30:19; Ps 68:26; Songs 1:3 and 6:8, plus, of course Isaiah 7:14. Out
of these only Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14 seemed clear enough to the
Septuagint translators that they rendered it by parthenos, which, of
course, definitely means virgin. In Gen 24:43 Isaac is on his way to
find a bride for himself. He then proposes to God that he will stand
by the well of water, and asks that the almah who comes out to draw
water, and who offers water for both him and his camels may be the one
he should take as a bride. Exodus 2:8 tells how the daughter of
Pharaoh told the sister of the infant Moses to get a Hebrew woman to
nurse him. We would think likely that the sister was a virgin, since
she seems to be still living with her mother. But the Septuagint was
being quite careful: it used the broader word neanis, young woman. “



I say it again!!! These scholars were VERY careful to use the right
word and didn’t even use 'parthenos' to describe Moses sister. They
used ‘neanis’.



Please ask your Rabbi for me why he wrote such a thing.



Your Rabbi also said that “the Hebrew word harah, rendered in this
verse in the KJV is not a verb but is rather an adjective meaning
pregnant, not 'shall conceive'. Christian translators have also messed
with the meaning of this word to suit their purposes.”



I'm not sure why he says this as the Jewish Publication Society's
version (Jewish, not Christian) uses ‘shall conceive’ as well. Here it
is ‘behold, the young woman shall conceive…’ JPS Version.



The virgin birth then, is the explanation of the mystery of Genesis
3:15. Messiah would be reckoned after the seed of a woman because He
would have no father. Because of a virgin birth (a real sign that
needs God!) he could only be traced through His mother and not his
father. Thus Isaiah 7:14 clarifies the meaning of Gen 3:15.



This also answers your, and your Rabbis, objections to Jesus’
genealogy very well. Gen 3:15 is the first Messianic prophecy in
scripture and it declares that it is the seed of the women that will
crush the serpents head (Satan). Not the seed of a man which is the
usual way of tracing a genealogy as you know. Messiah was always going
to be different!!! The seed of a women but not of a man and therefore,
as Luke genealogy shows us, the Messiah Jesus was of the tribe of
David through Mary His mother.



May God Bless.

[Ed Form]

On 26/10/2012 15:15:33, Rob Strom wrote:

> You are right that the prophecy says that the boy's name will be

> called Emmanuel, not that the boy's name would be Emmanuel.

>
> But I don't think that was the intention of the prophet: to foretell

> that the boy's name would be Jesus, but that his name would be
> called Emmanuel.

There is zero evidence that Hezekiah was ever called Emmanuel but that's who
the prophet spoke about.

Ed Form

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 26, 11:19 am, "Ed Form" <ed.f...@workgroupsolutions.co.uk>
wrote:

Possibly, but the evidence you need is not that Hezekiah was called
Emmanuel, but rather that his *name* was called Emmanuel.

--
Rob Strom

[Terry Cross]

On Oct 26, 4:31 am, "Ed Form" <ed.f...@workgroupsolutions.co.uk>
wrote:

That is amazing, Ed. Thank you.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

In some of those societies, the young girls were so closely watched
that the loss of virginity prior to marriage was impossible. They did
not date, and were never left alone with males who were not
relatives. Even the word "virginis" in Latin originally meant only
"young woman."

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Oct 25, 10:18 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:

> I don't think it's correct to say that Kaplan is encouraging
> Jews to be missionaries themselves.  That's against Jewish
> principles, and even more so against Orthodox principles.

Not true. Missionizing is only against Jewish policies, from the long
centuries when Jews lived as minorities among Christians and Muslims.

Principles is something else.

TCross

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 1:18 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 1:06 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> You posted this several times; not sure you saw my reply, so
> I'm reposting the reply.

No, I missed your reply.

>
> > Seeing Aryeh Kaplan being discussed in this thread got me curious
> > about him, so I looked him up, and found his book, "The Real Messiah?
> > A Jewish response to Missionaries", online.
> > For the entire book see -http://web.archive.org/web/20080529164304/http://www.jewsforjudaism.o...
> > From "The Real Messiah?  A Jewish response to Missionaries" by Aryeh
> > Kaplan:
> > "Very often, in an attempt to respond to a missionary challenge, one
> > can make a number of seemingly logical moves which, in fact, play
> > directly into the hands of the missionaries. Therefore a number of
> > Jewish communal leaders have prepared these guidelines for dealing on
> > the spot with missionaries and their followers.
> > A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE MISSIONARY PROBLEM
> > 1.) You will not win hearts to Torah by trying to convince people that
> > the claims of Christianity are false. Spend your time, learning,
> > teaching, and explaining the meaning of Torah and its Mitvos. Better
> > still, invite a person who is in search of religious values to a
> > Shabbaton, or to your home for Shabbat. Let the truth and beauty of
> > Torah and its way of life restore people to the right path.
> > 2.) Do not argue with missionaries; do not lend credence or dignity to
> > their efforts at soul snatching. There are tens of millions of non-
> > practicing Christians in this country who are better targets for their
> > efforts.
> > 3.) Missionaries are usually close-minded fanatics. They are trained
> > to respond to your arguments with pat, almost memorized answers. If
> > they can't handle your objection, they will deflect it by raising
> > another, and still another point. Even if you win––you lose."
> > I have a few questions about this.
>
> I saw you posted this twice, and thought we could engage in discussion
> of this.
> I read the entire "book" you referenced.
> (It's a lot better than dealing with Pete look for "Kaplan's Bible
> translation"
> by typing "Kaplan Bible and homosexuality" and then complain that
> there's probably a lot of advocacy of homosexuality in Kaplan and that
> somehow I'm probably a homosexual myself.  Other than exposing the
> viciousness
> of this, I don't really know how to deal with it.)

It was strange. I don't know why he took such offense at you.
Although sometimes I find you annoying myself - mainly when you tell
me what I should say. ;-) I almost said something, but hadn't time
to look back in the thread to see what started it, so I just stayed
out of it. We all take the risk of coming under unjust attack when we
post here. The homosexuality smear is always meant to be insulting and
is unwarranted if someone has never said they're gay. I'm sorry you
were subjected to it.


>
> But if you don't mind, I want to re-order one of your paragraphs, and
> deal with your closing paragraph first:
>
> > Kaplan also appears to be a man without faith in God who doesn't
> > believe God can inspire men (as He did the prophets), since he takes
> > Paul's proclamation that he learned of Christ from the Spirit of
> > Christ himself (which visitation Paul identified as a "heavenly
> > vision" in Acts 26:19) to be evidence that Paul concocted Christianity
> > from his own imagination.
>
> This is invalid reasoning that leads to an unjust conclusion.
>

Every complaint you're making about my attitude is the same complaint
I had for Kaplan's writings.

> It is not valid to jump from the premise that Kaplan disbelieves
> that God (through Jesus) inspired Paul to the conclusion that
> therefore Kaplan disbelieves that God can inspire *anyone*.

Perhaps, but that is what I think Kaplan does himself. Kaplan does
seem to doubt that Christ (the Spirit of Christ/the Holy Spirit)
appeared to Paul, and he has no more reason to doubt that than he does
the Holy Spirit appearing to the prophets. Kaplan just doubts the
validity of anything in the NT - period.

>
> I'm sure there are plenty of other people you don't think are inspired
> by God, and the fact that you doubt them doesn't permit me to infer
> that you don't think that God can inspire men.
>
> And *a fortiori*, it is certainly not valid for you to jump to the
> further conclusion that "Kaplan appears to be a man without faith in
> God".
>
> Kaplan was a highly respected Orthodox rabbi and scholar.
>
> In the following, I am going to generally defend Kaplan, because
> overall his positions on the difference between Judaism and
> Christianity
> overlap mine,

Had you read his book before you developed your positions, or is it
just coincidental that I recognized several things you've said in the
past in his book?

> and especially his views about the "Hebrew Christian"
> movement's attempt to draw Jews to Christianity by persuading them
> that they become "completed Jews" are similar to mine.

He is unfair to them, I believe, calling them fanatics. Why are they
fanatics because of their belief, but he's not a fanatic because of
his belief? I find it interesting he's aware that many young Jews find
no spirituality in Judaism. I find Christianity very fulfilling, and
have had quite a few spiritual experiences that I would not have
missed for anything in the world.


>
> On the other hand, I want you to understand that I don't agree with
> Kaplan
> about everything, so don't expect me to automatically line up with
> everything he thinks and says. For instance: (1) He was Orthodox and I
> am Reform;
> (2) he believes it's unwise to argue religion with Christian
> missionaries
> and obviously it's been something of a hobby of mine for over 20 years
> to do just that; (3) in some of the later articles in the book you
> reference, he is overly polemical against Jesus by interpreting
> some ambiguous things he says in the gospel in the worst possible
> light.

Of course, #3 is what I objected to the most.

>
> The other point I want to make is one of context.  This so-called
> "book" is actually a collection of disjoint essays, some but not all
> of which
> are by Kaplan, and which are collectively published by Jews for
> Judaism.
> Jews for Judaism was explicitly created to address the relationship
> between
> uneducated or wavering Jews and Christian missionaries, and especially
> with "messianic" Christian missionaries such as the Jews for Jesus.
> So not everything said here is necessarily appropriate to the
> relationship
> between Jews and Christians generally, or even between Jews
> and Christian evangelists generally.
>
> > One, Kaplan is encouraging Jews to
> > be missionaries themselves, which is kind of hypocritical given his
> > obvious animosity towards Christian missionizing.

>
> I don't think it's correct to say that Kaplan is encouraging
> Jews to be missionaries themselves.

When he says to invite people to a Shabbaton, I don't see how that is
true he is not encouraging missionizing. It's like, try it; you'll
like it.

> That's against Jewish
> principles, and even more so against Orthodox principles.

> You may have been thinking of this passage:
> <quote>
> Spend your time learning, teaching
> and explaining the meaning of the Torah and its Mitzvos. Better still,
> invite a person who is in search of religious values to a Shabbaton,
> or to
> your home for Shabbat. Let the truth and beauty of Torah and its way
> of
> life restore people to the right path.
> </quote>

Right.

> The title of the section was "A Practical Guide to the Missionary
> Problem"
> and the abstract was: "Very often, in an attempt to respond to a
> missionary challenge,
> one can make a number of seemingly logical moves which, in fact, play
> directly into the hands of the missionaries.

See language like that is insulting; 'playing into their hands' like
they're deliberately devious and dangerous when they are simply
preaching what they believe.

> Therefore, a number of
> Jewish
> communal leaders have prepared these guidelines for dealing on the
> spot
> with missionaries and their followers."
> So this is not about encouraging Jews to go encouraging random
> Christians
> and seeking to encouraging them to give up their religion for Judaism.

No, he's speaking specifically of missionizing the missionizers.

> That indeed would be hypocritical for someone opposed to Christian
> missionizing,
> but it is not what was said or meant.  He's talking about what if you
> see a Christian missionary try to convert a Jew who is religiously
> unfulfilled.  You should try to explain -- to the missionary possibly,

Yes, "to the missionary" was the impression one got.

> but especially to the Jew -- what Jewish principles are and show
> by example how living them can be fulfilling.  That's a far cry from
> seeking out unfulfilled or vulnerable Christians and trying to get
> them
> to change.  The target of your explanation is either a missionary
> (who might himself by a "Jew for Jesus") or a confused Jew.
>
> >  Two, I thought Jews
> > didn't believe in souls in the same way that Christians do, so his
> > reference to Christian missionaries being engaged in "soul
> > snatching" (see #2 above) is kind of strange in more ways than one.
>
> There are lots of meanings of "soul".  Jews may not all believe in
> a "soul" that survives death (although most Orthodox do, and so
> Kaplan himself probably did),

Oh. From what I'd heard here, I didn't think any branch of Judaism
believed in a soul that lived on after the earthly life.

> but it's not relevant.  In this context,

> he's probably referring to "yiddishe neshama", which is usually
> translated into English as "Jewish soul", which has nothing to do
> with life after death,

How do you know that when he's an orthodox Jew and you say Orthodox
Jews believe in a soul remaining after death?

> but instead has to do with the soul you
> have when you're alive -- your Jewish identity -- which is in fact
> what is "stolen" when you are lured, as my wife's brother and sister
> were, into a Christian world.

To a Christian, it sounds like he's saying they're trying to get them
damned to Hell.

>
> > 3.) Kaplan acts as if Christian missionaries are 'programmed', i.e.
> > brainwashed, and then attempts to program anyone listening to him and
> > to train them how to program their young people who may be "confused
> > Jewishly" (see #10) and therefore easily 'corrupted' by Christian
> > missionaries.
>
> The word "programmed" in the sense of "brainwashed" may have the
> same root as the word "program" in the phrase "youth programs", but
> that does not justify equating encouraging young dissatisfied Jews to
> go to youth
> programs to hang out and shmooze with satisfied Jews (the theme of
> #10) to
> "programming".

Neither is it fair to act as if everyone in the 'Jews for Jesus'
movement have been programmed and are fanatics, and that is what
Kaplan does.

>
> If you have been here when Josh Moss posted, you will have read
> his own experiences as a Jew for Jesus.  The point is that these
> folks who join JfJ are "programmed" in a far different way.  They are
> put
> in an all-JfJ world, immediately and early on given a task of
> becoming missionaries themselves, given a precise set of rules
> and formulas for how to do it.  They are also told of how the
> outside world including their family and friends are part of
> the satanic forces that they must actively resist.  They are
> given super-love unless they choose to hang out with their
> Jewish friends, and then that super-love turns really cold.
> This is what is meant by "programming", *not* just "going to
> youth *programs*".

I imagine it is a matter of opinion how much 'love' they receive under
different conditions, the rest of it could be called a consistent
system also, rather than programming; programming implies
brainwashing.

>
> > Kaplan says on Page 3, "A small number of Jews seem to be finding the
> > teachings of Christianity very attractive", so why the urgency to
> > refute it, that he displays so readily elsewhere in his book, if
> > Christian missionizing is not being successful anyway?
>
> It's a small number, but for that small number, it's a great tragedy.

In Kaplan's and your opinion, not in my opinion.

> (And from the Jewish point of view, it is affecting not just the
> Jew but his or her children, and children's children, and so forth.)
>
> It's no different than someone warning a large group of people
> from other kinds of hazards (texting while driving, scams,
> drugs) even though only a small fraction actually are affected
> in a tragic way from it.

That's a ridiculous attempt at an analogy, Rob. Why would you compare
Christianity to things that cause death?

>
> ...
>
> > Kaplan displays no first-hand knowledge of the NT scriptures; this is
> > apparent right away by his false claim that Paul actually started what
> > is present-day Christianity.
>
> That is the scholarly consensus, so this is not exactly "Kaplan's
> claim".

Any 'scholars' who believe that are ignorant of the NT. As I showed,
point by point, everything Kaplan said came from Paul was based on
actual quotes of the Messiah. I've seen plenty of 'scholars'
commenting on Christianity on TV documentaries who had many, many
things wrong.

>
> The main Pauline idea is sola fide,

No it isn't. It is Christ's gospel that it is only through faith in
him that a believer is saved; faith alone saves, but to be proven a
real believer, one must follow what Christ said to do; love God, love
one's neighbor, have compassion on people, etc. Both Christ and Paul
taught that.

> and even sola fide was
> not generally accepted until the Protestant movement,

That's false too. There are five 'solae' in Protestant Christianity;
faith is only one of them, and scripture alone covers obeying what the
Messiah said to do.

"The Five solae are five Latin phrases that emerged during the
Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers' basic theological
beliefs in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic
Church of the day. The Latin word sola means "alone" or "only" in
English. The five solae articulated five fundamental beliefs of the
Protestant Reformation, pillars which the Reformers believed to be
essentials of the Christian life and practice. All five implicitly
rejected or countered the teachings of the then-dominant Catholic
Church, which the Reformers claimed had usurped divine attributes or
qualities for the Church and its hierarchy, especially its head, the
Pope.

1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
2 Sola fide ("by faith alone")
3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
4 Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ
alone")
5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas


I might as well be arguing with Kaplan, as you don't understand
Christianity any better than he does.




> because
> the NT contains a mixture of some statements implying
> sola fide and other statements inconsistent with sola fide.

You just don't understand them, Rob. Just because every time the
Messiah told believers how they must act, he didn't mention faith in
him every time, does not negate what he said about anyone not
believing in him being already condemned, before they do any good or
evil (John 3:14-18); how they would die with their sins unforgiven if
they didn't believe in him (John 8:24).




>
> > I guess he thinks Christians will be less
> > offended by Jews blaming their rejection of Christianity on Paul,
> > rather than on a rejection of Christ when confronted with Christian
> > missionaries.  (Lol! Are they in for a shock!)
>
> Let's leave off what Kaplan probably thought, since he's no longer
> alive and can't respond.

He would not be responding here even if he were alive.

>
> > Without supplying any proof of his false claim whatsoever, Kaplan
> > claims Christ preached a different gospel than Paul.
>
> The essay was not an attempt to be a scholarly dissertation
> on the differences.

Yet the 'proofs' Kaplan offered were ALL wrong, every one of them. I
countered each of his claims that Paul had originated certain
teachings with quotes from the Messiah agreeable to those teachings.

> For instance, he doesn't mention the Ebionites
> and other movements that were around at that time that
> didn't follow Pauline teachings and are now no longer part
> of what Vince calls the "billions of Christians who think otherwise".
>
> > Kaplan says on Page 3, "Soon after the death of Jesus, we find a
> > marked change in the teachings of his followers. Christianity as we
> > know it began during this period in the work of Paul of Tarsus. Paul,
> > or as he was earlier known, Saul, was a disciple of the great
> > Talmudist Rabbi Gamliel, and he began his career by actively opposing
> > the early Christians. In a dramatic incident on the road to Damascus,
> > Paul converted to Christianity, and later became one of its foremost
> > leaders. Although he had never seen Jesus alive, he claimed to have
> > spoken to him in spirit. Under Paul's leadership, many of the
> > distinctive doctrines of Christianity were first proclaimed, and for
> > the most part, they have never changed. His teachings are recorded in
> > his Epistles, which form the second part of the New Testament. Among
> > Paul’s major teachings, we find the following:
> > 1) Jesus was the Messiah or Christ predicted by the Prophets of the
> > Bible and awaited by the Jews. He is also the Son of G-d, and like any
> > son, isessentially the same as his Father.
> > 2) Man is evil and sinful. All mankind is damned because of Adam’s
> > sin. The Torah cannot save man, since its many commandments make it
> > too difficult to keep. The only thing that can prevent man’s utter
> > damnation in hell is the belief in Christ.
> > 3) The Jews were originally G-d’s chosen people, but they were
> > rejected when they refused to accept His son, Jesus. The name
> > “Israel,” G-d’s chosen people, is no longer carried by the Jew, but by
> > those who accept Jesus as the Messiah. Only these share G-d’s love.
> > Everyone else is damned in hell.
> > 4) There is only one law now that Christ has come, and that is love.
> > One must follow the example of Christ’s sacrifice, and patiently hope
> > that G-d will be gracious in return."
> > <END QUOTE>
> > Kaplan claims these are Paul's, and NOT the Messiah's teachings, so
>
> He didn't say they are unrelated to things Jesus taught,
> or that *only* Paul taught these things,

He said they originated with Paul, Rob, and that's impossible because
the Messiah was gone before Paul began to preach.

> but it is
> true that the emphasis is different.

That is false.

> In particular, original sin,

I already went over that in my original post in this thread; Christ
taught that the heart of man was evil and that evil deeds originated
within.

> sola fide, substitutionary sacrifice, and the replacement of the law.

All false. Didn't you read my post?

> Jesus taught you are judged by your works:

He also taught that if one doesn't believe in him, they are "condemned
already" before they ever do any works.

> "the angels shall come and separate the evil from the righteous",
> not "the angels shall come and separate the faithless from the
> faithful".

People who do good works, but reject Christ are not among the
righteous. In Matthew Seven, first they are divided sheep (real
believers) from goats (unbelievers and false believers), then their
actions are judged. Real believers will do what Christ said and be
compassionate and loving to their fellow man.

>
> > let's see where Paul may have gotten these ideas by looking at what
> > Christ had to say about each of Kaplan's points, and we will see that
> > the Messiah and Paul both taught the same gospel.
> > Point 1, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "Jesus was the Messiah or
> > Christ predicted by the Prophets of the Bible and awaited by the Jews.
> > He is also the Son of G-d, and like any son, is essentially the same
> > as his Father."
> > Yahashua` the Messiah/Jesus Christ said that he was the Messiah, the
> > Christ, awaited by the Jews:
>
> Yes he did.  I don't think Kaplan would dispute that Jesus called
> himself that.

Yes he did; he said Paul originated that idea. Have you read his
book? Did you read my post where I quote him saying Paul originated
the idea that Yahashua`/Jesus was the Jewish Messiah?

> And elsewhere in the book it says "He clearly thought of himself as
> the Messiah of the
> Jews and of no one else."

Yes, Kaplan contradicts himself; first he makes the claim Paul
originated certain ideas, later he attributes them to Christ as a
false prophet. Or perhaps he was not the author of later parts of his
book, as yo said. I countered the first part of his book, which he did
author, where he claimed Paul thought up all of this stuff.

>
> ...
>
> > The Messiah said he was one with the Father, and because of this
> > statement, he was accused of making himself God:
> > John 10:30-33, "I and [my] Father are one.
>
> Yes, but I would have thought it meant that Jesus was saying that what
> he teaches
> is one with what God teaches, rather than literally that he is God,

The Jews of his time are reported in the NT to have accused him of
trying to make himself God. That was my point. What you might think
now is not applicable to the argument.

>
> and that the listeners were misunderstanding him out of anger,
> rather than that they were right.
>
> > The Messiah referred to himself as "the only begotten Son of God":
> > John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
> > Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
> > everlasting life.
> > John 3:17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
> > world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> > John 3:18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
> > believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in
> > the name of the only begotten Son of God.
>
> We've been through this before.  These words are the words of John,
> not of Jesus.  The quotation marks end after 3:15.

That is false. Are you going to make the same claim about John 8:24
where Christ said you will die in your sins if you believe not he is
who he said he was (the Son of God was who he said he was).

>
> > Point 2, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "Man is evil and sinful.
> > All mankind is damned because of Adam’s sin. The Torah cannot save
> > man, since its many commandments make it too difficult to keep. The
> > only thing that can prevent man’s utter damnation in hell is the
> > belief in Christ."
> > Mark 7:20-23, "And he [Christ] said, That which cometh out of the man,
> > that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men,
> > proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts,
> > covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye,
> > blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within,
> > and defile the man."
>
> Saying that man commits sins, including all those Jesus listed, is
> a far cry from saying all mankind is damned because of Adam's sin
> and the Torah cannot save man, because it is too difficult.

This refers to all but believers being damned:
Joh 8:23 And he [Christ] said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am
from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins:
for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

> Original sin is a doctrine of Augustine, based on Pauline
> ideas.  Jesus' speech in Mark is not the doctrine of
> original sin.  And of course the Torah explicitly said
> that obeying the Torah is *not* too difficult, and Jesus
> explicitly endorsed the Torah.

He did not endorse obedience to all the law of Moses; he said to love
God and love thy neighbor were the principles upon which the law hung.

>
> > John 8:19  Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus
> > answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye
> > should have known my Father also.
> > John 8:20  These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in
> > the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet
> > come.
> > John 8:21  Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall
> > seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
> > John 8:22  Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith,
> > Whither I go, ye cannot come.
> > John 8:23  And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from
> > above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
> > John 8:24  I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins:
> > for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
>
> He was talking to a particular group of enemies, not making a general
> statement.

John 8:24 applies to anyone and everyone, Jew or Gentile (he was
speaking to Jews).

> Just as when he said "ye are of your father the devil".
> It doesn't mean everyone born is son of Satan.

It means all evil people have remained children of Satan, rather than
becoming children of God, so yes is does mean what you say it doesn't
mean.

>
> > Christ said:
> > John 3:14  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even
> > so must the Son of man be lifted up:
> > John 3:15  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
> > eternal life.
> > John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
> > Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
> > everlasting life.
> > John 3:17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
> > world; but that the world through him might be saved.
> > John 3:18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
> > believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in
> > the name of the only begotten Son of God.
>
> Haven't I seen these exact words before?  They don't teach original
> sin,

If everyone who does not believe in him is condemned, of course it
teaches original sin.

> and they're not (after 3:15) Jesus' words.

That's false. Christ often spoke of himself in the third person,
especially when he was alluding to himself as the Son of God, etc.

>
> > Point 3, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "The Jews were originally
> > G-d’s chosen people, but they were rejected when they refused to
> > accept His son, Jesus. The name “Israel,” G-d’s chosen people, is no
> > longer carried by the Jew, but by those who accept Jesus as the
> > Messiah. Only these share G-d’s love. Everyone else is damned in
> > hell."
> > Teaching a parable in Matthew 21, the Messiah offended the chief
> > priests and elders of the Jews, who perceived that he was talking
> > about them as the ones who had so rejected the Son sent to them, and
> > he confirmed he was indeed speaking of them in this parable when he
> > also said, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be
> > taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits
> > thereof" (Matt. 21:43).
>
> It doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as the messiah
> or (more significantly) as the substitutionary sacrifice is damned
> to hell.  Jesus didn't say that.

Yes, he did. However, when he returns, many who did not believe may
come to be believers.

>
> ...
>
> > Here in John 10, speaking of himself as the shepherd, and his sheep
> > being the sheep of Israel, the Messiah says he will bring into it
> > "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold", and they will become
> > all "one fold" of sheep, with himself as their one and only shepherd.
> > John 10:14  I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of
> > mine.
> > John 10:15  As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I
> > lay down my life for the sheep.
> > John 10:16  And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
> > also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
> > one fold, and one shepherd.
>
> This doesn't mean sola fide.

It means the church will become part of the sheep of Israel. One fold,
one shepherd.

> Part of following Jesus, to Jesus,
> meant accepting his teachings -- doing good deeds, in particular,

That's right.

> the commandments (as he interpreted them).  The Pauline idea
> is that the commandments are obsolete and won't save you:  belief
> saves you.  Salvation might *cause* you to do some good deeds,
> but the good deeds are the result of salvation, not the other
> way around.  That's not Jewish.

You are wrong; that is not just the gospel of Paul; that's the gospel
of Christ, that he is the vine and it is only because they abide in
the vine that the branches can bear any fruit (love, deeds of love),
that without him, we can do nothing - nothing that pleases God.

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away:
and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring
forth more fruit.
Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto
you.
Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit
of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye
abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me,
and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for WITHOUT ME YE
CAN DO NOTHING.
Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and
is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and
they are burned.
Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask
what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Joh 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so
shall ye be my disciples.

I'm sorry Rob, but you just don't understand the Messiah's gospel any
better than Kaplan does.

>
> > Point 4, Kaplan wrote that only Paul taught, "There is only one law
> > now that Christ has come, and that is love. One must follow the
> > example of Christ’s sacrifice, and patiently hope that G-d will be
> > gracious in return."
> > Here the Messiah summed up the law as the commandment to love God with
> > all one's heart, soul, and mind, and to love one's neighbor as
> > oneself:
> > Mat 22:35  Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question,
> > tempting him, and saying,
> > Mat 22:36  Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
> > Mat 22:37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
> > all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
> > Mat 22:38  This is the first and great commandment.
> > Mat 22:39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
> > neighbour as thyself.
> > Mat 22:40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the
> > prophets.
>
> Yes, that's an echo of what Hillel said.  (Jesus was likely a
> follower of Hillel).  Hillel also tried to reduce all the
> commandments to a small number of principles.  That doesn't
> mean the commandments don't exist.  It means that the
> principles underlying the commandments derive from
> either the golden rule (Hillel) or "love thy neighbor" (Jesus),
> and of course from the v'ahavta (quoted in 22:37).  By no
> means did Jesus say the other laws don't apply.

He said elsewhere they didn't apply, as when he said it is what comes
out of a man that defiles him, not what goes into him.

> He said
> "on these two commandments hang all the law", not
> "these two commandments supersede the rest".  Similarly
> Hillel said "The rest is
> commentary; Go and study [the Torah]", not "once you
> know the golden rule, you don't need to learn the rest".
>
> Whereas Paulines, and some folk here, really *do* think
> that the other rules don't apply any more.  They
> either say that they're nailed to the cross, or that
> one need only consult one's conscience, or whatever,
> but not that you should study and follow the law".

If they really think they're now allowed to kill and steal and commit
adultery, etc. because they profess belief in Christ, then they're
evil; they're not real believers and they're not saved. And deep down,
they know they're evil and that they're trying to get over on God.

>
> ...
>
> > Christ taught that salvation was God's gracious gift to those who ask
> > living water (eternal life) of Christ:
> > John_4:10, "Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift
> > of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou
> > wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living
> > water."
>
> Maybe, but again, that didn't mean ignore the commandments.  In fact
> he said also "if you want eternal life, do the commandments".

You're wearing me out, Rob. He also said in Matt. 19 that men should
also had to follow him and give to the poor to obtain eternal life,
and his apostles exclaimed "Who then can be saved", and he replied
that with men this is impossible, but with God (i.e. with Christ whom
God sent) all things are possible. See John 15:1-8 again. But I don't
think you'll ever understand this, and will just offer the same
objections again. This has been going on long before I began posting
here over six years ago.


>
> > Since Kaplan has published a new translation of the Torah, I certainly
> > hope that he is infinitely more knowledgeable about the Torah than he
> > is about the New Testament teachings of the Messiah he also feels
> > capable of writing about, since Kaplan is either wholly ignorant of
> > the Messiah's words in the NT (apparently unaware of even the most
> > famous verses, such as John 3:16-17, and John 10:30), or else Kaplan
> > is deliberately lying that points 1-4 above are the teachings of Paul
> > and are NOT the teachings of Christ.
>
> As I said, it's a matter of emphasis.  Christians do teach that
> we're damned without a savior.  They do teach that whole
> substitutionary
> sacrifice thing.  That the Torah is obsolete, and you should
> first get saved and then you don't need to study the law; God
> or Jesus will put whatever you need into your heart after.  That's
> a change. That's un-Jewish.

It is however the teachings of Christ, and is what is said the new
covenant would be like (Jer. 31:31-34).

> Jews for Judaism doesn't want
> Jews to start thinking like that.  And that's why Kaplan worked
> to write his essays in this book.
>
> Just to make sure, this is completely separate from Kaplan's "Living
> Torah",
> the translation I was referring to in my discussions with Pete before
> he started drifting off into irrelevancies like homosexuality and
> reconstructionism.
>
> --
> Rob Strom

[Ed Form]

There is no evidence that the name Emmanuel was ever associated with Hezekiah
in any way - even the idea that his character revealed that God was with the
people which is what the Hebrew idiom 'his name is called' means. The only
reference to the connection is Isaiah's promise.

Ed Form

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 26, 7:31 am, "Ed Form" <ed.f...@workgroupsolutions.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>

> These changes are characteristic of a common New Testament approach to
> citations from the Hebrew Scriptures - a scholarly friend of mine calls the
> approach 'Complementary Difference' - where the New Testament writer changes
> the wording of the citation to suit the circumstances - Paul's citation of
> Isaiah 29:14 with Habakkuk 1:5 in the Synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia is
> another striking example. [Acts 13:41]
>
> Ed Form

Acts 13:41 is very much like Hab. 1:5, but how is Acts 13:41 tied to
Isa. 29:14?

Isa. 29:14, "Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work
among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom
of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent
men shall be hid."

In Isa. 29:14, the word "work" is from Heb. 6381
pâlâ'
A primitive root; properly perhaps to separate, that is, distinguish
(literally or figuratively); by implication to be (causatively make)
great, difficult, wonderful.

In Isa. 29:14, the word "wonder" is from Heb. 6382
pele'
From H6381; a miracle.

Hab. 1:5, "Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder
marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not
believe, though it be told you."

Here in Hab. 1:5, the word "work" is from Heb. 6467
pô‛al
From H6466; an act or work (concretely).

Here in Hab. 1:5, the word "wonder" is from Heb. 8539
tâmahh
A primitive root; to be in consternation:- [translated] be amazed, be
astonished, marvel (-lously), wonder.

Acts 13:41, "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work
a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though
a man declare it unto you."

I don't see the connection between Isa. 29:14 and Acts 13:41,
especially since to be in consternation, to be amazed (wonder - Hab.
1:5) is to find it impossible to believe. Paul appears to be referring
only to Hab. 1:5.

Merriam-Webster:
Definition of CONSTERNATION
: amazement or dismay that hinders or throws into confusion <the two …
stared at each other in consternation, and neither knew what to do —
Pearl Buck>

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 1:34 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 9:47 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am still looking at Kaplan's book - wow.

>
> > From "The Real Messiah?  A Jewish response to Missionaries" by Aryeh

> > Kaplan, Page 27:
>
> > "Nowhere does the Bible predict that the Messiah will be born to a
> > virgin. In fact, virgins never give birth anywhere in the Bible. This
> > idea is
> > to be found only in pagan mythology. To the Jewish mind, the very idea
> > that G-d would plant a seed in a woman is unnecessary and unnatural.
> > After all,—what is accomplished by this claim? What positive purpose
> > does it serve? The claim that Mary did not have natural relations with
> > her
> > husband must have made the Jews of that time suspect her of
> > wrongdoing.
> > The New Testament (the Christian Bible) admits as much when it
> > says (Matthew 1,19), “Then Joseph her (Mary’s) husband, being a just
> > man, and not willing to shame her in public, decided to divorce her
> > quietly." The whole idea of virgin birth serves no purpose, except to
> > attract pagans to Christianity." -http://web.archive.org/web/20080529164304/http://www.jewsforjudaism.o...
>
> > Kaplan takes verse 19 out of context and fails to cite the verse
> > before it, and then claims absolving Mary of her wrongdoing was what
> > was accomplished by the false claim of the virgin birth.  It sure
> > sounds like Kaplan is saying the purpose for claiming a virgin birth
> > of the Messiah was because he was an illegitimate baby, a "bastard",
> > and was not even born of the man Mary was betrothed to.  The Talmud
> > teaches this blasphemy that Mary was impure and Christ was an
> > illegitimate child, as it teaches that Yahashua`/Jesus was born of
> > fornication outside of marriage.
>
> Kaplan didn't say whether Jesus was or wasn't an "illegitimate baby".
>
> He said that the virgin birth reconciled their claim that Jesus wasn't
> actually son of Joseph, and explains something that otherwise would
> have made people look down on *Mary* (not Jesus).  (It isn't blasphemy
> to claim that Jesus would have been illegitimate, since had he
> been illegitimate, it wouldn't have been his fault, right?)
>
> So the way 18-20 reads is that 18 says that "she was found with child
> of the Holy Ghost".  But of course that's an odd way to say something,
> since it's impossible to "find" when a woman is pregnant who the
> father is.  So the way to read it is that (according to Matthew),
> Mary *was* with child of the Holy Ghost, but Joseph didn't know it at
> the time.  Hence verse 19 says that Joseph was preparing her to
> divorce her but spare her the public shame (of being pregnant not
> by him).  And then verse 20 says that an angel of the Lord had
> to come to him in a dream and talk him out of it by explaining
> that the child is "conceived of the Holy Ghost".
>
> So Kaplan's explanation really isn't that much different from yours.
> Jesus is supposedly a product of Mary and the Holy Ghost, but
> Joseph doesn't know this right away, and would have divorced her,
> had not an angel stepped in to intervene.
>
> Not a bad story, but of course I don't believe it.
>
> And of course it doesn't get around the fact that verses 21-23
> are totally bogus, as Kaplan points out (and I concur).

How would you or Kaplan know that?

>
> First of all, the prophet didn't say "a virgin shall be with child",
> he said "a *young woman* *is* with child".  "Almah" means "young
> woman".

And unless they were concubines, young unmarried women were virgins.

> And calling the child Jesus doesn't fulfill a prophecy that
> says his name shall be called Emmanuel.

The people said when the Messiah was born, that God is with us. This
is what Matthew said.

> And Emmanuel more
> accurately means "God *is* with us"

What's the difference?

> (like many languages,
> Hebrew lacks an explicit verb for locutions like this).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Mat 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
> > mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was
> > found with child of the Holy Ghost.
> > Mat 1:19  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing
> > to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
> > Mat 1:20  But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of
> > the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of
> > David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
> > conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
> > Mat 1:21  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
> > name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
> > Mat 1:22  Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
> > spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
> > Mat 1:23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
> > a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted
> > is, God with us.
>
> --
> Rob Strom

[Linda Lee]

> First of all, the prophet didn't say "a virgin shall be with child",
> he said "a *young woman* *is* with child".  "Almah" means "young
> woman".

> And calling the child Jesus doesn't fulfill a prophecy that

> says his name shall be called Emmanuel.  And Emmanuel more
> accurately means "God *is* with us" (like many languages,

> Hebrew lacks an explicit verb for locutions like this).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mat 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
> > mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was
> > found with child of the Holy Ghost.
> > Mat 1:19  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing
> > to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
> > Mat 1:20  But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of
> > the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of
> > David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
> > conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
> > Mat 1:21  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
> > name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
> > Mat 1:22  Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
> > spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
> > Mat 1:23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
> > a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted
> > is, God with us.
>
> --
> Rob Strom

How did this get so off the subject of Kaplan being wrong about all
the doctrines he said originated with Paul to you offering your
opinion on the entire NT? Kaplan was wrong about what I said he was
wrong about.

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 6:21 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> On 25 Oct 2012 21:52:42 GMT, aammm.- wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "When the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was first published, the
> > Hebrew word almah was translated "young woman," with "virgin" in the

> > footnotes f course, it should have been reversed. Their argument was that

> > almah meant only a young woman. While it is true that there are places in
> > the Scriptures where it is translated "young woman," it is evident that it
> > means "virgin."
> > For example, when Abraham's servant went to Haran in search of a bride for
> > Isaac and he prayed that God would direct him to the right girl, this is
> > how Rebekah was described: "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a
> > virgin, neither had any man known her   (Gen_24:16). The word damsel is
> > the Hebrew word naarah, meaning "young woman," but that she was a virgin
> > was made clear also. Then when the servant was rehearsing this experience
> > of praying for God's guidance, he said, "Behold, I stand by the well of
> > water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw

> > water   (Gen_24:43), the Hebrew word almah is translated "virgin." I don't

> > think that anyone could misunderstand what is being said here. When the
> > word almah was used, it referred to a virgin young woman, that is, one who
> > had had no sexual relationship with a man."
>

> > Ah, the teachable moment continues.  All uses of virgin mentioned are from
> > the kjv.  The kjv used greek sources for the bible.  Those sources used the
> > greek LXX translation the jews of Christ's time used.  In hebrew sources
> > the word maid is used where the LXX has virgin.
>
> Only Fool would say something so ignorant.

Many times when the Messiah or Paul or someone else quoted the OT,
they were citing the Septuagint (the LXX), which the dispersed Jews of
that time knew well because many only spoke Greek.

The Hebrew Scriptures they have now were compiled by the Masoretes
between the seventh to tenth centuries A.D. The Greek Septuagint is
much older than that. So it is really silly for anyone to argue that
the Hebrew Scriptures as they are now negate anything in the NT, as
the NT does not cite the Hebrew Scriptures we have now; they cite the
OT from the Septuagint. (However, the KJV does take its OT from the
Masoretic text, but still references to the OT in the NT in the KJV
are referring to the Septuagint version of them.)


>
> The KJV uses ...
> James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new
> version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal
> structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9]
> The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the
> Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the
> period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was
> translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the
> Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the
> Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and
> Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[11] By
> the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively
> unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant
> churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version
> supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for
> English speaking scholars. Today, the most used edition of the King James
> Bible, and often identified as plainly the King James Bible or King James
> Version, especially in the United States, remains the standard text of
> 1769, edited by Benjamin Blayney and Francis Sawyer Parris at Oxford.
>
> Taken from WIKI for ease.
> OT = Hebrew
> NT = Koine Greek
>
> Strongs Concordance indexed and based on KJV...
> A favorite for decades, Strong's numbering system is cross-referenced to
> many other important study tools. Now it's even easier to use! Newly
> typeset for clearer readability, it includes reorganized main entries;
> updated and improved Hebrew and Greek dictionaries; and handy indexing.
>
> There is an inaccurate GO bible as you suggest.
>
> --
> Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it.
> And a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 26, 2:39 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> This is going to be my last comment on this subject. I initially asked if
> he were a homo due to the stuff on the net related to this reconsructionist
> Judaism that Kaplan proposed and instituted as far as the women and men
> sitting together in a temple.

I saw your post on that, and it confused me that you thought men and
women sitting together indicated homosexuality; I'd think it indicated
heterosexuality. In fact, the whole interchange was confusing, so I
didn't get involved, but I saw some of it. Even if someone named
Kaplan was into homosexuality, what does that have to with Rob?

>
> Fact is everything I asked him, ROB, was because at the first few attempts
> at finding out who Kaplan was I was confronted with all the crap I
> mentioned to him. He turned it around as an accusation, on all of it, no
> matter how many times I protested about it.

Well, sometimes we all take offense when we shouldn't.

> He may have been offended when
> I asked him who he was and where was his home group because I never heard
> of him, shrug, who knows.

He hasn't posted as much here lately as he used to do.

>
> Whether Rob is a homosexual I may never know, he never answered, like many
> who are ashamed of it.

Sounds like you're still implying he's homosexual. I have been called
a lesbian here; I am not; in fact it's pretty laughable, but if I
don't reply to every accusation with a denial of it, that does not
mean that I am. If we had to deny every accusation here, and otherwise
it meant they were true, we wouldn't get anything else said. There is
no evidence from silence. In fact, the best answer to unwarranted
attacks is silence, but it is hard not to retaliate sometimes.

> I offer an apology to him if he isn't, but if he is
> I wanted him to know it is a sin against God and His nature and all such
> practing men and wome will not enter heaven.
>
> From reading a little of the post below this final snip, I can see the
> cause for his rage and hatred.

You're still confusing me. What is the reason you see? He is Jewish,
if that is what you mean.

> Yet he is not justified in any of it.

You shouldn't be too surprised that Jews (or Gentile followers of
Judaism) still reject Christ.

> Neither as a christian nor a Jew.

Rob's a Jew.

>
> >major snippage<
>
> No reply necessary.

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 26, 1:08 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 1:18 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>

... [snipped my diversion about Pete's behavior]

>
> > But if you don't mind, I want to re-order one of your paragraphs, and
> > deal with your closing paragraph first:
>
> > > Kaplan also appears to be a man without faith in God who doesn't
> > > believe God can inspire men (as He did the prophets), since he takes
> > > Paul's proclamation that he learned of Christ from the Spirit of
> > > Christ himself (which visitation Paul identified as a "heavenly
> > > vision" in Acts 26:19) to be evidence that Paul concocted Christianity
> > > from his own imagination.
>
> > This is invalid reasoning that leads to an unjust conclusion.
>
> Every complaint you're making about my attitude is the same complaint
> I had for Kaplan's writings.

I'm talking about your *reasoning*, not about your attitude or your
beliefs.

>
> > It is not valid to jump from the premise that Kaplan disbelieves
> > that God (through Jesus) inspired Paul to the conclusion that
> > therefore Kaplan disbelieves that God can inspire *anyone*.
>
> Perhaps, but that is what I think Kaplan does himself.

It's not a good analogy. Kaplan may think Christians are
wrong about whether Paul's story of being led by
"the spirit of Jesus" is true, but he doesn't make
unfair generalizations about Christians merely
because they believe something he doesn't, the way
you made an unfair generalization about Kaplan
because he didn't believe God inspired Paul.

You basically said, "Kaplan doesn't believe God
inspires Paul, therefore Kaplan doesn't believe
God can inspire *anyone*, therefore Kaplan has
no faith in God".

The analogy would be if Kaplan were to have said
"Paulines believe, without evidence, that Jesus spoke to Paul,
therefore Paulines are gullible people who will believe
*anything* without evidence".

> Kaplan does
> seem to doubt that Christ (the Spirit of Christ/the Holy Spirit)
> appeared to Paul, and he has no more reason to doubt that than he does
> the Holy Spirit appearing to the prophets.

He has as much reason to doubt it as to accept it -- it's
a matter of faith. And since he *does* believe the prophets,
and since he thinks that Paul contradicts the prophets,
by teaching away from the Torah, he finds his skepticism
justified. (He also brings up other non-faith-based
evidence against other parts of Paul's story -- in particular,
why would Paul have started out as such a fanatical
*anti-Christian* if he were really one of Rabbi Gamaliel's
best students, given that Rabbi Gamaliel was among those
inclined to a more tolerant view towards Christians.)

> Kaplan just doubts the
> validity of anything in the NT - period.

I'm not sure of that, but remember that regardless of
your viewpoint about whether Paul and Jesus were in
harmony, what they were in harmony *about* was a religious
viewpoint opposed to the Jewish one.

The major emphasis in this book -- not in *all* of Kaplan's
life work, but in this particular book, published
by Jews for Judaism, a leading critic of the Hebrew-Christian
movement -- is that it is misleading for a Hebrew-Christian
missionary to try to persuade a Jew that by accepting
the Christian religion, he can remain religiously Jewish.

So the book will focus on the difference between the two
religions, not on the similarities.

I agree. I can't accept Christianity and Judaism at the same
time. I could just barely accept 90% of a hypothetical religion
that included just the 4 gospels, and especially that included
just the 3 synoptic gospels.

...

>
> > In the following, I am going to generally defend Kaplan, because
> > overall his positions on the difference between Judaism and
> > Christianity
> > overlap mine,
>
> Had you read his book before you developed your positions, or is it
> just coincidental that I recognized several things you've said in the
> past in his book?

No. I own Kaplan's Torah translation. I may have read
some of Kaplan's anti-missionary essays, since I
support Jews for Judaism.

But there are lots and lots of books on the differences between
Judaism
and Christianity. I bought quite a few of them to teach my children
around the time they were growing up. Remember, I think it was
my wife's parents' lack of teaching this topic to their children
that contributed to two of them succumbing to missionaries. (More
precisely, the older one at age 20 succumbed and was then turned
around to preach to his vulnerable and frightened 12-year-old sister
-- yuck!)

These books all pretty much say the same things:
For a Jew, God is One, not Three. There is a
*temptation* to sin (yetzer hara), not an
original, inherited sin, and we have the ability
to overcome it. Righteousness is not a binary
all-or-nothing choice between (impossible) perfect
compliance, where one failure would be equivalent
to total depravity. Repentance comes from within,
not from blood sacrifices, whether done on an altar,
or whether done vicariously via belief in a savior.
What does God want of us? By the
liturgy: study, service, and acts of loving kindness.
By the prophet Micah: to do justice, love mercy, and walk
humbly with God. By the holiness code: Do not oppress
your neighbor; judge your neighbor in righteousness;
do not put a stumbling block before the blind; do not
go out as a talebearer; the leavings of the field
are to be left for the poor and the
stranger; do not oppress the stranger. God does
not want a theology test: "better they forget Me
and remember My commandments".

>
> > and especially his views about the "Hebrew Christian"
> > movement's attempt to draw Jews to Christianity by persuading them
> > that they become "completed Jews" are similar to mine.
>
> He is unfair to them, I believe, calling them fanatics. Why are they
> fanatics because of their belief, but he's not a fanatic because of
> his belief?

No, Christians are absolutely not fanatics because of their belief.
I don't think Kaplan said that.

But some missionaries, such as the Jews for Jesus, and the folks from
the Assemblies of God who converted my brother-in-law long ago,
*are* fanatics. Anyone who takes a new convert and thrusts
them in a house filled with other converts and makes them, while
they're still learning, become a missionary himself is a fanatic.
Anyone who would tell a young girl of 12 that she'd better say right
away
"I accept Jesus", because she might die in an accident tomorrow
and if she did and hadn't done it, she'd suffer burning in hell
the next day is a fanatic. I saw my brother in law after his
conversion and he was definitely a fanatic -- writing "Jesus saves"
all over the mirrors and tiles in his parents house where he
was still living. And then doing this thing with his sister.

> I find it interesting he's aware that many young Jews find
> no spirituality in Judaism. I find Christianity very fulfilling, and
> have had quite a few spiritual experiences that I would not have
> missed for anything in the world.

There are many young people in virtually *any* religion, particularly
if they had a poor education in religion, and particularly if they've
encountered hypocrites who professed their religion and acted quite
opposite to that, who will find no spirituality in their religion
and who will become quite cynical. It happens in Judaism, and given
the very public hypocrisy of many leading political figures who
profess Christianity while ignoring the poor and/or their
personal marriage vows, I can well see it happening in Christianity.

>
>
>
> > On the other hand, I want you to understand that I don't agree with
> > Kaplan
> > about everything, so don't expect me to automatically line up with
> > everything he thinks and says. For instance: (1) He was Orthodox and I
> > am Reform;
> > (2) he believes it's unwise to argue religion with Christian
> > missionaries
> > and obviously it's been something of a hobby of mine for over 20 years
> > to do just that; (3) in some of the later articles in the book you
> > reference, he is overly polemical against Jesus by interpreting
> > some ambiguous things he says in the gospel in the worst possible
> > light.
>
> Of course, #3 is what I objected to the most.

I don't like polemics. If a verse is ambiguous, it's ambiguous. I
wouldn't
go out of my way to give either the most favorable or the most
unfavorable
reading of it.

I don't like that verse from Luke about Jesus' asking to bring his
enemies before him to be killed. I don't like anti-missionaries
using that against Jesus, but conversely I don't like it when
Vince uses that same verse to show the fate of non-Christians.

...

>
> > > One, Kaplan is encouraging Jews to
> > > be missionaries themselves, which is kind of hypocritical given his
> > > obvious animosity towards Christian missionizing.
>
> > I don't think it's correct to say that Kaplan is encouraging
> > Jews to be missionaries themselves.
>
> When he says to invite people to a Shabbaton, I don't see how that is
> true he is not encouraging missionizing. It's like, try it; you'll
> like it.

I'm not sure if you were around when we had that big debate about the
Southern Baptist church in Texas that invited a 12-year-old Jewish boy
to a *party*
run by the church, and it turned out that they asked him to
ask Jesus to wipe away his sins. The Christians were saying "the
parents
should have known that *any* Baptist activity is a missionary
opportunity".
I was astounded that this would be true even of a *party*, but whether
that is really the case about Baptists or not, that is not true of a
Shabbaton.

So:
1. First of all, the context was not going out into the Christian
community
and asking their children to come to a Shabbaton -- much less that
they would
be asked to confess Judaism there. It was about talking to somebody
from
the Christian community *who has already come to us*. That's not
missionizing;
it's response to people who are missionizing *you*.
2. And the person being invited is probably Jewish himself -- either
because
he's the one the missionary's trying to convert, or because the
missionary
is a "Jew for Jesus", so they're talking about getting somebody who's
already been missionized to return back. Remember this is in the
context
of a book reacting to the Hebrew Christian movement.
3. And in any case, Kaplan's words are "to invite a person in search
of
religious values". Missionaries are by definition people who go out
seeking people to change their religion; Kaplan is talking about
responding to people who come to you.

...

>
> > The title of the section was "A Practical Guide to the Missionary
> > Problem"
> > and the abstract was: "Very often, in an attempt to respond to a
> > missionary challenge,
> > one can make a number of seemingly logical moves which, in fact, play
> > directly into the hands of the missionaries.
>
> See language like that is insulting; 'playing into their hands' like
> they're deliberately devious and dangerous when they are simply
> preaching what they believe.

The term "play into X's hands" doesn't imply venality of X. It just
implies
that you and X have conflicting agendas, so don't do anything that
advances
X's agendas more than yours.

>
> > Therefore, a number of
> > Jewish
> > communal leaders have prepared these guidelines for dealing on the
> > spot
> > with missionaries and their followers."
> > So this is not about encouraging Jews to go encouraging random
> > Christians
> > and seeking to encouraging them to give up their religion for Judaism.
>
> No, he's speaking specifically of missionizing the missionizers.

As I said, the missionizers in this context are typically Jews
themselves,
and in any case, he's not missionizing them, since a Shabbaton is not
a revival tent. He's counteracting the assumption that Judaism
is spiritually unsatisfying by showing them an experience which
is spiritually satisfying and yet Jewish.

>
> > That indeed would be hypocritical for someone opposed to Christian
> > missionizing,
> > but it is not what was said or meant. He's talking about what if you
> > see a Christian missionary try to convert a Jew who is religiously
> > unfulfilled. You should try to explain -- to the missionary possibly,
>
> Yes, "to the missionary" was the impression one got.

Both, but remember that in this context the missionary himself is a
Jew (for Jesus).
...

>
> > There are lots of meanings of "soul". Jews may not all believe in
> > a "soul" that survives death (although most Orthodox do, and so
> > Kaplan himself probably did),
>
> Oh. From what I'd heard here, I didn't think any branch of Judaism
> believed in a soul that lived on after the earthly life.

I'm assuming that you've read a basic book on Judaism (e.g. Milton
Steinberg's "Basic Judaism") that would have told you otherwise.

>
> > but it's not relevant. In this context,
> > he's probably referring to "yiddishe neshama", which is usually
> > translated into English as "Jewish soul", which has nothing to do
> > with life after death,
>
> How do you know that when he's an orthodox Jew and you say Orthodox
> Jews believe in a soul remaining after death?

Because as I said there are multiple meanings of soul, and orthodox
Jews also understand the concept of a yiddishe neshama.

>
> > but instead has to do with the soul you
> > have when you're alive -- your Jewish identity -- which is in fact
> > what is "stolen" when you are lured, as my wife's brother and sister
> > were, into a Christian world.
>
> To a Christian, it sounds like he's saying they're trying to get them
> damned to Hell.

But not to you, because you know that we don't believe in that kind of
Hell,
and in any case, it sounds odd to say in any religious context that a
person
can "try to get" another person damned to Hell.

It doesn't make sense for a Christian to assume that other religions
have the same concept of Hell as they do.

Not to say that destroying a yiddishe neshama is not a severe sin --
it is.
Deuteronomy 13 speaks strongly against it.

...

>
> > The word "programmed" in the sense of "brainwashed" may have the
> > same root as the word "program" in the phrase "youth programs", but
> > that does not justify equating encouraging young dissatisfied Jews to
> > go to youth
> > programs to hang out and shmooze with satisfied Jews (the theme of
> > #10) to
> > "programming".
>
> Neither is it fair to act as if everyone in the 'Jews for Jesus'
> movement have been programmed and are fanatics, and that is what
> Kaplan does.

There is some evidence that they are fanatics, but even if only a
percentage
of them are, it's the ones that are that are dangerous because they
are going to lure you. And saying we would counter with youth
programs
to their fanaticism is not a tu quoque [a "you do it too" argument].

...

>
> I imagine it is a matter of opinion how much 'love' they receive under
> different conditions, the rest of it could be called a consistent
> system also, rather than programming; programming implies
> brainwashing.

It's very fanatical to grab somebody who's just done this major
change and then stick them in this new environment where they're
to go out morning through night doing conversions. It's a
fine semantic point where this crosses the line into "brainwashing",
but it's not a good thing to do.

>
>
>
> > > Kaplan says on Page 3, "A small number of Jews seem to be finding the
> > > teachings of Christianity very attractive", so why the urgency to
> > > refute it, that he displays so readily elsewhere in his book, if
> > > Christian missionizing is not being successful anyway?
>
> > It's a small number, but for that small number, it's a great tragedy.
>
> In Kaplan's and your opinion, not in my opinion.

Yes. But I have answered your question, which was: if the number
is so small, why is there such an urgency to counter it?

>
> > (And from the Jewish point of view, it is affecting not just the
> > Jew but his or her children, and children's children, and so forth.)
>
> > It's no different than someone warning a large group of people
> > from other kinds of hazards (texting while driving, scams,
> > drugs) even though only a small fraction actually are affected
> > in a tragic way from it.
>
> That's a ridiculous attempt at an analogy, Rob. Why would you compare
> Christianity to things that cause death?

Drugs and scams don't always cause death. I was saying that the
effects were tragic (even if not fatal). That was the analogy.
I considered what happened to my wife's siblings tragic, even
though they didn't die.

>
>
>
> > ...
>
> > > Kaplan displays no first-hand knowledge of the NT scriptures; this is
> > > apparent right away by his false claim that Paul actually started what
> > > is present-day Christianity.
>
> > That is the scholarly consensus, so this is not exactly "Kaplan's
> > claim".
>
> Any 'scholars' who believe that are ignorant of the NT. As I showed,
> point by point, everything Kaplan said came from Paul was based on
> actual quotes of the Messiah. I've seen plenty of 'scholars'
> commenting on Christianity on TV documentaries who had many, many
> things wrong.

I don't know about TV documentaries; I'm talking about scholarly
books.

Debating what in Christianity is from Paul and what is from Jesus
is another thread. My purpose here was much more limited: namely
to show that this is not some crazy idea unique to Kaplan. Many
others have said this, before and since.

>
>
>
> > The main Pauline idea is sola fide,
>
> No it isn't. It is Christ's gospel that it is only through faith in
> him that a believer is saved; faith alone saves, but to be proven a
> real believer, one must follow what Christ said to do; love God, love
> one's neighbor, have compassion on people, etc. Both Christ and Paul
> taught that.

I don't believe that sola fide is Jesus' gospel.

Even Paul didn't *always* teach sola fide. Like Romney, Paul
sometimes taught one of 3 different variations, depending on his
audience:
1. once one became a believer, one becomes *incapable* of sinning.
2. once one became a believer, one becomes *forgiven* even if one does
sin
3. once one became a believer, one still has the obligation to avoid
sin.

Prior to the Reformation, the view was more like (3); after it, more
like (1) or (2).

Jesus definitely taught non-sola-fide things: mercy to the merciful,
eternal life to those who help the needy and visit the sick.

He definitely didn't teach: "if you don't believe I was born of a
virgin,
and that my death is the new sacrifice, you're going to hell, and if
you do believe these, you're going to heaven regardless of what else
you do".

>
> > and even sola fide was
> > not generally accepted until the Protestant movement,
>
> That's false too. There are five 'solae' in Protestant Christianity;
> faith is only one of them, and scripture alone covers obeying what the
> Messiah said to do.
>
> "The Five solae are five Latin phrases that emerged during the
> Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers' basic theological
> beliefs in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic
> Church of the day. The Latin word sola means "alone" or "only" in
> English. The five solae articulated five fundamental beliefs of the
> Protestant Reformation, pillars which the Reformers believed to be
> essentials of the Christian life and practice. All five implicitly
> rejected or countered the teachings of the then-dominant Catholic
> Church, which the Reformers claimed had usurped divine attributes or
> qualities for the Church and its hierarchy, especially its head, the
> Pope.
>
> 1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
> 2 Sola fide ("by faith alone")
> 3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
> 4 Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ
> alone")

> 5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

>
> I might as well be arguing with Kaplan, as you don't understand
> Christianity any better than he does.

Uh, Christianity is not equal to conservative Protestantism.
Conservative Protestantism is *one branch* among many in Christianity.

>
> > because
> > the NT contains a mixture of some statements implying
> > sola fide and other statements inconsistent with sola fide.
>
> You just don't understand them, Rob. Just because every time the
> Messiah told believers how they must act, he didn't mention faith in
> him every time, does not negate what he said about anyone not
> believing in him being already condemned, before they do any good or
> evil (John 3:14-18); how they would die with their sins unforgiven if
> they didn't believe in him (John 8:24).
>

John 3:16-18 are not words of Jesus, and John 8:24 do not apply to all
people, and in particular, those words don't apply to me.

...

>
> > > Without supplying any proof of his false claim whatsoever, Kaplan
> > > claims Christ preached a different gospel than Paul.
>
> > The essay was not an attempt to be a scholarly dissertation
> > on the differences.
>
> Yet the 'proofs' Kaplan offered were ALL wrong, every one of them. I
> countered each of his claims that Paul had originated certain
> teachings with quotes from the Messiah agreeable to those teachings.

You countered them, but didn't refute them. I countered some of your
counters. Remember Kaplan's main point wasn't to show how much
of Christianity comes from Paul versus Jesus; it was to show
how this viewpoint is un-Jewish. Even if you're totally right
and he's totally wrong about all these things, it doesn't
undercut his main point.

...

>
> > He didn't say they are unrelated to things Jesus taught,
> > or that *only* Paul taught these things,
>
> He said they originated with Paul, Rob, and that's impossible because
> the Messiah was gone before Paul began to preach.

He said that the main ideas of Christianity were formulated by Paul
and I think that's correct. Paul has to put all the things in the
background that
Jesus taught about visiting the sick and how one should
follow the words (though not the deeds) of the Pharisees.

>
> > but it is
> > true that the emphasis is different.
>
> That is false.

Then why doesn't Paul say "If you should have eternal life, follow the
commandments"?
Why didn't Paul say, "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven
is my brother, and sister, and mother."

>
> > In particular, original sin,
>
> I already went over that in my original post in this thread; Christ
> taught that the heart of man was evil and that evil deeds originated
> within.

In Matthew he taught:
" The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the
evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil."

>
> > sola fide, substitutionary sacrifice, and the replacement of the law.
>
> All false. Didn't you read my post?

I did. I don't think Jesus taught the law was replaced, or
substitutionary sacrifice, or sola fide.

>
> > Jesus taught you are judged by your works:
>
> He also taught that if one doesn't believe in him, they are "condemned
> already" before they ever do any works.

That's not in the synoptics, and if you write "also taught", you
agree that he taught you are judged by your works, which contradicts
the "sola" in sola fide.

>
> > "the angels shall come and separate the evil from the righteous",
> > not "the angels shall come and separate the faithless from the
> > faithful".
>
> People who do good works, but reject Christ are not among the
> righteous. In Matthew Seven, first they are divided sheep (real
> believers) from goats (unbelievers and false believers), then their
> actions are judged. Real believers will do what Christ said and be
> compassionate and loving to their fellow man.

But in Matthew 25, everybody, Christians and non-Christians are
separated into sheep and goats, and the basis is not belief
but the specific things the parable talks about.

...>

> > Yes he did. I don't think Kaplan would dispute that Jesus called
> > himself that.
>
> Yes he did; he said Paul originated that idea. Have you read his
> book? Did you read my post where I quote him saying Paul originated
> the idea that Yahashua`/Jesus was the Jewish Messiah?

Jesus may have called himself Messiah, but I think that at the cross
he realized he had failed. What Kaplan was saying is that Paul
taught a new definition of Messiah such that Jesus' death didn't
constitute failing.

>
> > And elsewhere in the book it says "He clearly thought of himself as
> > the Messiah of the
> > Jews and of no one else."
>
> Yes, Kaplan contradicts himself; first he makes the claim Paul
> originated certain ideas, later he attributes them to Christ as a
> false prophet. Or perhaps he was not the author of later parts of his
> book, as yo said. I countered the first part of his book, which he did
> author, where he claimed Paul thought up all of this stuff.

I don't think he said Paul thought it all up. Jesus said some things
that support your positions, but he also said things that refute it.
What Paul did was create a theology that pushes all the things
supporting
his position to the forefront and tries to explain away all the things
seeming to contradict it, whether it's "the law will not pass until
everything is accomplished" or "the sheep and the goats are separated
based upon how they acted towards the neediest and most helpless
people",
or "if you will get eternal life, do the commandments". If Jesus said
something X that contradicted a Pauline position Y, the Paulines teach
that we should reinterpret X to match Y, but never reinterpret Y to
match X.

>
>
>
> > ...
>
> > > The Messiah said he was one with the Father, and because of this
> > > statement, he was accused of making himself God:
> > > John 10:30-33, "I and [my] Father are one.
>
> > Yes, but I would have thought it meant that Jesus was saying that what
> > he teaches
> > is one with what God teaches, rather than literally that he is God,
>
> The Jews of his time are reported in the NT to have accused him of
> trying to make himself God. That was my point. What you might think
> now is not applicable to the argument.

Yes, but generally speaking the gospels argue that many of the Jews
of his time made unjust and inaccurate accusations against Jesus;
here you're trying to argue that they were right.

...

>
> > We've been through this before. These words are the words of John,
> > not of Jesus. The quotation marks end after 3:15.
>
> That is false.

You can go to the RSV and look for yourself where the quotation marks
end.
This is not just something that I'm making up to attack Christianity.

> Are you going to make the same claim about John 8:24
> where Christ said you will die in your sins if you believe not he is
> who he said he was (the Son of God was who he said he was).

John 8:24 was spoken to the Pharisees who were seeking to kill him,
not to me.

...

>
> > Saying that man commits sins, including all those Jesus listed, is
> > a far cry from saying all mankind is damned because of Adam's sin
> > and the Torah cannot save man, because it is too difficult.
>
> This refers to all but believers being damned:
> Joh 8:23 And he [Christ] said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am
> from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
> Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins:
> for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

He wasn't talking to "all mankind" here.

>
> > Original sin is a doctrine of Augustine, based on Pauline
> > ideas. Jesus' speech in Mark is not the doctrine of
> > original sin. And of course the Torah explicitly said
> > that obeying the Torah is *not* too difficult, and Jesus
> > explicitly endorsed the Torah.
>
> He did not endorse obedience to all the law of Moses; he said to love
> God and love thy neighbor were the principles upon which the law hung.

He endorsed obedience to all the law of Moses in many places.

He did so in Matthew 5:17-19, and again in Matthew 19:17.

...

>
> > He was talking to a particular group of enemies, not making a general
> > statement.
>
> John 8:24 applies to anyone and everyone, Jew or Gentile (he was
> speaking to Jews).

It does not apply to me. A few lines down, he said "You are of your
father the devil".
Do you think that line applies to anyone and everyone too?

>
> > Just as when he said "ye are of your father the devil".
> > It doesn't mean everyone born is son of Satan.
>
> It means all evil people have remained children of Satan, rather than
> becoming children of God, so yes is does mean what you say it doesn't
> mean.

You're being circular. To accept this I already have to accept your
assumption that "nonbelievers" equates to "evil people".

...

>
> > Haven't I seen these exact words before? They don't teach original
> > sin,
>
> If everyone who does not believe in him is condemned, of course it
> teaches original sin.

I don't believe that everyone who does not believe in him is
condemned.

It's absurd to think that God would send me to Hell because I don't
believe
some stories about Jesus!

And in any case, what does that have to do with original sin?

You're totally throwing away the Biblical notion "do justice",
by saying that everyone's a sinner, therefore being just
or unjust in relative terms matters nothing, only
accepting the exemption from punishment that you get
by being a believer matters.

>
> > and they're not (after 3:15) Jesus' words.
>
> That's false. Christ often spoke of himself in the third person,
> especially when he was alluding to himself as the Son of God, etc.
>

Some of the most famous scholars of Christendom disagree with you
that Jesus was speaking here.

...

>
> > It doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as the messiah
> > or (more significantly) as the substitutionary sacrifice is damned
> > to hell. Jesus didn't say that.
>
> Yes, he did.

Where did he say you have to believe in the doctrine of the
substitutionary
sacrifice and that this and not justice was the gating factor for
heaven or hell?

> However, when he returns, many who did not believe may
> come to be believers.

By saying he will return, you are admitting that "all" is not
accomplished,
even if you narrow the meaning of the word "all" to mean "all that is
written of the messiah in the prophets".

I don't believe that he will return.

...

>
> > This doesn't mean sola fide.
>
> It means the church will become part of the sheep of Israel. One fold,
> one shepherd.

It still doesn't mean sola fide.

>
> > Part of following Jesus, to Jesus,
> > meant accepting his teachings -- doing good deeds, in particular,
>
> That's right.

That's not sola fide either, in the Protestant sense.

I interpret "abide in me" to mean "follow my teachings", i.e.
"do the commandments", not "believe in the virgin birth
and in the homo-ousious and in the Incarnation and
inn the substitutionary sacrifice" and all this other stuff.

>
> I'm sorry Rob, but you just don't understand the Messiah's gospel any
> better than Kaplan does.

For the purpose of this discussion, we need merely show that Judaism
is different from Christianity, not that it's right. Which is right
is a matter of faith. The fact that they teach different things is
a matter of analysis. Kaplan and I do the analysis mostly in the
same way.

...

>
> > Yes, that's an echo of what Hillel said. (Jesus was likely a
> > follower of Hillel). Hillel also tried to reduce all the
> > commandments to a small number of principles. That doesn't
> > mean the commandments don't exist. It means that the
> > principles underlying the commandments derive from
> > either the golden rule (Hillel) or "love thy neighbor" (Jesus),
> > and of course from the v'ahavta (quoted in 22:37). By no
> > means did Jesus say the other laws don't apply.
>
> He said elsewhere they didn't apply, as when he said it is what comes
> out of a man that defiles him, not what goes into him.

I don't think that means the commandments don't exist.

Anti-Christians would argue that letting the adulteress go
meant that Jesus disapproved of the commandment against
adultery; I don't think that is true either.

>
> > He said
> > "on these two commandments hang all the law", not
> > "these two commandments supersede the rest". Similarly
> > Hillel said "The rest is
> > commentary; Go and study [the Torah]", not "once you
> > know the golden rule, you don't need to learn the rest".
>
> > Whereas Paulines, and some folk here, really *do* think
> > that the other rules don't apply any more. They
> > either say that they're nailed to the cross, or that
> > one need only consult one's conscience, or whatever,
> > but not that you should study and follow the law".
>
> If they really think they're now allowed to kill and steal and commit
> adultery, etc. because they profess belief in Christ, then they're
> evil; they're not real believers and they're not saved. And deep down,
> they know they're evil and that they're trying to get over on God.

Then you aren't sola fide -- you expect certain laws like not killing
and not stealing and so forth to be obeyed as laws, and that
even if one *professes* belief, one must obey these laws to
be reckoned as righteous. If that's so, then it's merely
a matter of a dispute about which Torah laws are valid
and which ones aren't, (and possibly which laws are valid
that were left out of the Torah). Once you accept that
there's a Christian law code, you reject sola fide and
now it's just a matter of wanting to be vaguer about
what's in the law code than the "legalistic" Jews want to be.

>
>
>
> > ...
>
> > > Christ taught that salvation was God's gracious gift to those who ask
> > > living water (eternal life) of Christ:
> > > John_4:10, "Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift
> > > of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou
> > > wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living
> > > water."
>
> > Maybe, but again, that didn't mean ignore the commandments. In fact
> > he said also "if you want eternal life, do the commandments".
>
> You're wearing me out, Rob. He also said in Matt. 19 that men should
> also had to follow him and give to the poor to obtain eternal life,
> and his apostles exclaimed "Who then can be saved", and he replied
> that with men this is impossible, but with God (i.e. with Christ whom
> God sent) all things are possible. See John 15:1-8 again. But I don't
> think you'll ever understand this, and will just offer the same
> objections again. This has been going on long before I began posting
> here over six years ago.

If you say "He also said ..." you are agreeing that he said what I
said he said, namely "do the commandments". Jesus wanted you to
do the commandments. He may have nitpicked about how some
leaders of his day interpreted them (as Reform Jews today do),
but he still believed that there were commandments, and whatever
they were, you had to do them.

...

>
> > As I said, it's a matter of emphasis. Christians do teach that
> > we're damned without a savior. They do teach that whole
> > substitutionary
> > sacrifice thing. That the Torah is obsolete, and you should
> > first get saved and then you don't need to study the law; God
> > or Jesus will put whatever you need into your heart after. That's
> > a change. That's un-Jewish.
>
> It is however the teachings of Christ, and is what is said the new
> covenant would be like (Jer. 31:31-34).

Jer. 31 doesn't teach a substitutionary sacrifice at all.


--
Rob Strom

[Terry Cross]

Ancient Hebrew had neither a future tense nor a verb meaning "to be".
Hence, Rob's language quibble is null. And void, too.

TCross

[dolf]

I have several of Aryeh Kaplan's books. He advocates a #15 to #369
emanation as preceding the Kabbalah geometric view.

I agree with ostensibly but I do not participate in Jewish or Christian
asceticism

Dolf

[dolf]

Quite possibly the geometric perspective is the grounds for the golden calf
statement associated with Israel's 40 years in the wilderness which is
recorded in ACTS

[Terry Cross]

What is the source on that, Linda? I thought the Masoretic text was
not available to the Christians during the time of the KJV
translation.

> but still references to the OT in the NT in the KJV
> are referring to the Septuagint version of them.)

Thanks.

TCross

[Linda Lee]

This is what I could find on the subject. I was looking for an article
I saw a few years ago that stated the Masoretes changed names
beginning with Yah to Yeho, but could not find it again.

The Masoretic text is the source for most translations of the Hebrew
Scriptures and the Old Testament in Christian bibles (including the
KJV Bible). The Masoretes added the vowel points to the Hebrew
Scriptures (which can really change the meaning), and changed the yah
prefixes of names to yeho (most likely due to that old taboo about
pronouncing God's name YHH/YAHH or YHWH). The Strong's Concordance's
Hebrew lexicon use the spelling of the Masoretic text, which I wish
they had not done, as even the Messiah's Hebrew name is changed from
Yahashua` to Yehowshuwa` therein. The Masoretes developed the
'traditional Jewish name for God', which is "Yehovah", according to
dictionaries.

"MASORETIC (adjective)
Sense 1 Masoretic
Meaning:
Of or relating to the Masorah
Classified under:
Relational adjectives (pertainyms)
Pertainym:
Masorah (a vast body of textual criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures
including notes on features of writing and on the occurrence of
certain words and on variant sources and instructions for
pronunciation and other comments that were written between AD 600 and
900 by Jewish scribes in the margins or at the end of texts)" -
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/masoretic.htm


Here are two Septuagint versions of Isa. 7:14 to confirm what is said
in the following article by V. S. Herrell concerning Isa. 7:14.

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a
virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and
thou shalt call his name Emmanuel." - English translation of the
Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton (1807-1862) originally
published in 1851.

Isa 7:14 On account ofG1223 this,G3778 [3will giveG1325 1 the lord
G2962 2himself]G1473 to youG1473 a sign;G4592 behold,G2400 theG3588
virginG3933 [2inG1722 3 the wombG1064 1will conceive],G2983 andG2532
shall bearG5088 a son,G5207 andG2532 you shall callG2564 G3588 his
nameG3686 G1473 Immanuel.G*
From:
"Apostolic Bible Polyglot
Copyright 1996 Charles Van der Pool.
The Apostolic Bible Polyglot is a Greek-English Interlinear of the
Greek Septuagint and New Testament coded to Strong's numbers.
Free printable PDF's of the Apostolic Bible Polyglot may be downloaded
and printed editions may be purchased at www.apostolicbible.com.
Greek words which appear in the Septuagint but not in the New
Testament are inserted with decimal points, such as G303.1. Proper
names are numbered with an asterisk, such as G*."

(NOTE: the following article by V. S. Herrell is obviously very
biased, but no more than Kaplan's book, which is being discussed in
this thread. It is inevitable that Jews and Christians will be biased
in favor of their own belief system.)

"The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament
By V. S. Herrell
The Masoretic Text, other than the Dead Sea Scrolls, is the only
existing representation of the Old Testament in Hebrew. The oldest
fragments date from the 9th century AD, but the oldest complete texts
come from the 10th and 11th centuries AD. However, the Hebrew text
that it contains is clearly not the original Hebrew, nor even the
Hebrew that was in use in the 1st century AD. The Hebrew of the 1st
century AD was closely akin to the Greek Septuagint that we have
today; this is clear because, although the Hebrew was little used,
when it was used in ancient writing it was clearly in agreement with
the Greek Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text. For example,
although Philo and Josephus both used the Greek Septuagint, it is
believed by most scholars that they frequently had access to a Hebrew
Bible and even consulted it on a few occasions. It is through evidence
like this that we see that the then current Hebrew disagreed with the
Hebrew Masoretic Text of today. In the 1st century, the Christians and
all other Greek speaking Israelites, including 1,000,000 of them who
lived in Alexandria, Egypt, used the Greek Septuagint. Jesus and His
Apostles wrote in Greek and quoted the Greek Septuagint. Of this there
can be no doubt. This is a fact that can be confirmed in any
encyclopedia or scholarly book on the subject. As we have already
pointed out, we know this because the quotations of the Greek New
Testament are exactly aligned with the Greek Septuagint, but in sharp
opposition to the Hebrew Masoretic Text. There is, however, no reason
to believe that they were in disagreement with the Hebrew that was
current in the 1st century AD.

What we do know is that toward the end of the 1st century AD and into
the 2nd century, the Talmudic, Edomite Jews were actively attacking
the Greek Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. They felt
that they could discredit the Christians merely for the reason that
they used Greek, and at the same time, they began twisting the Hebrew
Scriptures to try and disprove that Jesus was the true Messiah. This
controversy roared on until at least the 4th and 5th centuries AD. We
have already noted how the early Catholics attacked the Vulgate
translation of Jerome because it was the first to be based upon
Hebrew, and they continued for a very long time to use the Old Latin
because it was based upon the Greek Septuagint. One of the most famous
examples of how the Jews attacked the Greek Septuagint regarded the
word virgin. The particular verse in question is Isaiah 7:14, which
reads in the Greek Septuagint:
"Therefore, the Master Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin
will conceive in the womb, and will bring forth a Son, and you will
call His Name Emmanuel."
In the Greek, the word for virgin is parthenos, and it literally means
a virgin. In the Masoretic Text, however, the word is almah which
means a young girl. The usual Hebrew word for virgin, and the word in
every case translated virgin in the Revised Version, is bethuwlah.
This verse is quoted from Isaiah in the Christian Scriptures in
Matthew 1:23. The Jews attacked the Septuagint from the beginning
because they claimed that it had been corrupted by the Christians and
that the Christians changed the word in the Septuagint to read virgin
instead of young woman so that it would support the reading in
Matthew. Of course, the Edomite Jews did not believe that Jesus was
the true Messiah; this was why they were attacking the Septuagint. The
Jews are the ones who changed the Hebrew, replacing the word virgin
with young woman. The early motive of the Edomite Jews was to destroy
Christianity, not just the Septuagint. But the Christians did not give
in, so the Jews changed their strategy. They instead decided to
corrupt the Old Testament and gain control of the Christians by giving
them a corrupted Old Testament. By the 3rd century they began
collecting every Hebrew manuscript they could, and this was easy to do
because the Christians used the Greek Septuagint and cared little for
the Hebrew. They then began revising the Hebrew documents to support
their Jewish contentions. By the time of Jerome, they began taking the
soft approach and gave Jerome their new Hebrew for him to use in his
translation. But, as we said before, the Christians at first rejected
the Vulgate. So the Jews continued working on their text. From the 1st
century to the middle of the 5th century, they called themselves
Talmudists; from the 5th century to the completion of their text in
the 10th-11th centuries, they called themselves Masoretes.

At the end of this time, all other Hebrew manuscripts except for the
Masoretic Text disappeared. The fact is that they were destroyed by
the same people who had gathered them up - the Talmudic, Masoretic
Jews. Then the Jews began presenting themselves as the diligent
preservers of the Hebrew Bible and began deceiving Christians. They no
longer blatantly attacked the Septuagint but rather touted themselves
as being faithful servants of God. To this end, when the Masoretic
Text was finished, they counted every letter and word and contrived
mechanisms to insure that the manuscripts would be faithfully
transmitted, but they did not bother to account for the editing and
corruption that they themselves had been doing for the previous
600-700 years. The early English translations of the Bible were based
upon the Latin Vulgate, but the Jews intended to deceive the
Christians into translating their Bibles from the Hebrew Masoretic
Text. So their new strategy was to win over the stupid Christians, but
the old motives were always there. At this time, they had to do an
about-face on the issue of virgin. They had learned that the
Christians would not accept the Hebrew as long as such blatant
blasphemies were contained in it. This deception on the part of the
mongrel, Talmudic Jews can be seen in an early Spanish translation of
the Masoretic Text. Geddes MacGregor, in his book, The Bible in the
Making (pg. 279) writes:
Translations of the Hebrew Bible into various languages, began to
appear about that time. In 1422 Rabbi Moses Arragel translated the
Scriptures from the Hebrew into Spanish, for the Christian Church and
with the assistance of Franciscan scholars, and it is upon that
version that the Ferrara Bible, printed in 1553, was based. This
famous Spanish Bible was intended to serve the needs of both Jews and
Christians. Certain deviations were made in the copies intended for
Christian readers. For example, where the copies intended for Jews
read 'young woman,' the copies set aside for Christian use put
'virgin.'
Through this means of deception, the atheistic Jews pulled off the
grand deception when they convinced the translators of the KJV to use
the Masoretic Text instead of the Latin or Greek. Today, the so-called
"Christian" world believes in the lie of the Hebrew Bible, even though
all Christians for the first four centuries of Christianity
universally used the Greek Septuagint or a translation of it,
including the Master Jesus the Anointed and His Ambassadors.

When this so-called controversy is examined from a purely textual
point-of-view, then we find that the undisputed facts are the
following, and I say 'undisputed' because these facts are admitted
even by the most staunch supporters of the Masoretic Text.

In regards to the Masoretic Text, the manuscripts date from around
AD1000. The manuscripts are admittedly altered from their original
form, for vowel symbols have been added and the text has been revised
in light of Talmudic tradition. The Masoretic Text is based upon the
Hebrew which was rejected by the early Christians, who were the true
Israel of God.

In regards to the Septuagint, the oldest manuscripts date to around
AD325-350 (though fragments are much older). It was never purposely
changed or edited, but the oldest texts of the Septuagint represent
the oldest surviving descendants of an ancient translation made of the
Hebrew in the 3rd century BC which was considered divinely inspired by
most Judeans at that time. It was universally accepted by the early
Christians for the first 400 years of Christianity and was used and
quoted from by Jesus and His Apostles, who quoted from it under divine
inspiration.

Again, the above facts are admitted even by the supporters of the
Masoretic Text. What logic, then, is used to justify the use and
preferment of the Masoretic Text? Those who use it believe that the
Talmudic, Edomite Jews who murdered Jesus Christ are the chosen people
of God and therefore the chosen preservers of God's Word. However, we
are told the following by Jesus in John 8 regarding these same Edomite
Jews who wrote the Talmud and created the Masoretic Text:

"You neither know Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, then you
would have known My Father also. ...Where I go, you are not able to
come ... You are from below; I am from above. You are from this world,
I am not from this world. ... If you were children of Abraham, you
would do the works of Abraham. ... You do the works of your
father. ... If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I went
forth and have come from God. For I have not come from Myself, but
that one sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are
not able to hear My Word.. You are of your father the Diabolical One,
and the lusts of your father you wish to do. That one was a murderer
from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth because there is
no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because
he is a liar, and the father of it" (AST).

Notice that Jesus said that these Edomite Talmudists were not capable
of hearing His Word, they were not capable of doing anything but the
works of their father, who was a liar from the beginning. Now this
means that in no way were these Talmudic Jews, who later called
themselves Masoretes, capable of being divinely inspired "preservers"
of God's Word. Because of the Words of Jesus, we must assume this to
be a blatant lie.

But even beyond these points, from a purely objective, scientific
point-of-view, when we apply the science of Textual Criticism to this
controversy, we must again decide in favor of the Greek Septuagint. We
remember that the fundamental rule of Textual Criticism is usually
that the older the text, the better, and the complete Septuagint
version of the Old Testament outdates the complete Masoretic Text
version by 650-700 years.

The second rule that we must implement is that not all manuscripts are
of the same value. Again, this value issue is clear for these two
witnesses: the Septuagint is representative of a 3rd century BC Hebrew
text; the Masoretic is representative of a 7th-9th century AD revision
of the Hebrew.

Thus, there can be no doubt as to which text is to be preferred. The
Septuagint is superior in every way to the Judaized Masoretic Text (V.
S. Herrell, The History of the Bible, p. 51-57).

Adam Clark's Commentary
Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the
work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been
integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that
the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different
from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old
Covenant Scripture was originally written.

In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published
in 1810, Clarke writes:

"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that
nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented
by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; THEIR VOWEL
POINTS, AND PROSAIC AND METRICAL ACCENTS, &C., GIVE EVERY WORD TO
WHICH THEY ARE AFFIXED A PECULIAR KIND OF MEANING, WHICH IN THEIR
SIMPLE STATE, MULTITUDES OF THEM CAN BY NO MEANS BEAR. The vowel
points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is
one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever
written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible
that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence.
This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our
Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not
commence before the 5th century A.D."

EVEN WITHOUT ADDING TO, DELETING FROM, OR CHANGING A SINGLE LETTER OF
THE ANCIENT HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS OF SCRIPTURE, POINTING GAVE THE
MASORETE POWER TO DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE MEANING OF ALMOST ANY GIVEN
PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE, FOR THE PREROGATIVE OF SELECTING VOWELS, IS, TO
A LARGE EXTENT, THE PREROGATIVE OF SELECTING WORDS! As a crude
example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be
changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" – a
substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels.

Clarke appears to be one of the few commentators who have seen fully
the significance of the Masoretic Text – namely, that it is a new
"version" of the Scripture, written in a new language. Obviously,
Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact. They should have called
attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of
the Masoretes, and should have differentiated the two, by use of names
such as Ancient Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. However, the majority of
Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be
objective and candid regarding such a matter.

Louis Cappel, Hebrew Scholar:
One of the first scholars to investigate the matter was Louis Cappel,
a French Huguenot divine and scholar who lived from 1585 to 1658.
Consider the following excerpt from the article, "CAPPEL, LOUIS,"
found in the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

"As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents
were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete
Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century AD, and that the
primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the
more ancient at the time of the captivity. . . The various readings in
the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient
versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of
the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted
to an attack upon the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter,
however, as was the opposition, it was not long before his results
were accepted by scholars."" - http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masorete.htm


"Masoretic text,  (from Hebrew masoreth, “tradition”), traditional
Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified,
and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation.
This monumental work was begun around the 6th century ad and completed
in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and
Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the original
text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to interpret
the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations
the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and
whatever oral traditions were available to them.
The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word
and every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they
called attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted
discrepancies in various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted
vowels in writing, the Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee
correct pronunciation. Among the various systems of vocalization that
were invented, the one fashioned in the city of Tiberias, Galilee,
eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs for stress and pause
were added to the text to facilitate public reading of the Scriptures
in the synagogue.
When the final codification of each section was complete, the
Masoretes not only counted and noted down the total number of verses,
words, and letters in the text but further indicated which verse,
which word, and which letter marked the centre of the text. In this
way any future emendation could be detected. The rigorous care given
the Masoretic text in its preparation is credited for the remarkable
consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts since that time. The
Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600 years, and experts
have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest printed version
(late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late 9th
century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic
Hebrew Bible." - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/368081/Masoretic-text


"The Masoretic Text is a copy of the Hebrew Bible that was written by
the Masoretes between the 6th and 10th centuries.The Masoretic Text is
an authority because it is the source for most translations of the
Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament.
Standardisation
Before the first century CE, there were some small differences between
copies of the Hebrew Bible. During first century CE, Jewish Bible
specialists agreed on the same words, a process called
standardisation.
Between about 100 and 300 CE, a group of Jewish Bible specialists
called the Tannaim copied this Hebrew Bible. Then between about 300
and 500 CE, another group of Jewish Bible specialists called the
Amoraim continued the work of the Tannaim. The Masoretes then
continued the Amoraim's work for the next 500 years.
The Masoretes' Work
The Masoretes were very careful when they copied the Bible. When they
thought there was a mistake in the work of the Amoraim or the other
specialists, they wrote a note in the side of the book, rather than
change the book. After they copied a book, they counted the verses,
words and letters in each book to make sure there were no mistakes.
The Masoretes also added vowel points to make the Bible easier to read
because the Hebrew writing does not show vowels.
There were two main places where Masoretes worked: Babylon and Israel.
The Masoretes also wrote book about the Bible called the Masorah.”
From http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text



"Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek
translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in
Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used
among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because
many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their
Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also
gave many non-jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient
document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72
Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term
“Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the
credit of these 70 scholars.
Septuagint - Influence on Christianity
The Septuagint was also a source of the Old Testament for early
Christians during the first few centuries AD. Many early Christians
spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation
for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New
Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority
of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly
from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek
church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even
today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its
Old Testament teachings. Some modern Bible translations also use the
Septuagint along side Hebrew manuscripts as their source text.
Septuagint - What Does It Contain?
The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament
canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term "Apocrypha" was
coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally
refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period
between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the
arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit,
Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and
Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of
Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical
and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant
Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God). Most
reformed teachers will point out that the New Testament writers never
quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apocrypha was never
considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture. However, the Roman
Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches include the Apocrypha in
their Bible (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of
Manasseh).
Read Septuagint Page 2 Now!

Septuagint: Part 2. (Read Part 1 First!)
Septuagint - Is it a Reliable Translation?
Since the Septuagint is a translation, scholars speculate if it
accurately reflects the Hebrew scriptures of the 2nd century BC. A
close examination of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text (the early
Hebrew text of the Old Testament) show slight variations. Were these
errors in translation, or are the Septuagint and Masoretic Text based
on slightly different Hebrew manuscripts? The discovery of the Dead
Sea Scrolls has helped to shed light on this question. Discovered in
the Qumran region near the Dead Sea beginning in 1947, these scrolls
are dated to as early as 200 BC and contain parts of every book in the
Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to
the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are
differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,
approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are
shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Does this mean
that the Septuagint is unreliable and that our Old Testament is
wrought with contradictory sources? No. It is imperative to note that
these “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors,
spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning
of sentences and paragraphs. (An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in
which the actual passages are arranged differently.) None of the
differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or
doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead
Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded
theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and
conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question
the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original
documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and
are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying
(Hebrew scribal rules attest to how exacting scribes were). Even then,
the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant
is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that
makes a point unclear, it would be clarified in several other places
in scripture.
Septuagint - Dramatic Evidence for the Credibility of Messianic
Prophecy
The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls establish a very dramatic
piece of evidence for Christianity – that the Old Testament prophecies
of the coming Messiah unquestionably predated the time that Jesus
Christ walked the earth. All theories of 1st Century AD conspiracies
and prophecy manipulation go out the door when we realize that
prophetic scripture like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 were fixed in written
form at least 100 years before Christ, and probably many more. Again,
despite time, persecution, and the incredibly minor instances of
scribal mistakes, the Septuagint is just another example of how the
Biblical text has remained faithful in its message and theme. The Holy
Bible is truly a divinely inspired and preserved letter from God that
is deserving of our time and attention.

“The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God
stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)" - http://www.septuagint.net/septuagint.htm

"The name of the Israelite deity YHWH (usually shortened to Yah or
Yahu, and Yeho or Yo) appears as a prefix or suffix in many theophoric
names of the First Temple Period. For example, Yirme-yahu (Jeremiah),
Yesha-yahu (Isaiah), Netan-yah, Yedid-yah, Adoni-yah, Nekhem-yah, Yeho-
natan (Jonathan), Yeho-chanan, Yeho-shua (Joshua), Yeho-tzedek,
Zekharya (Zechariah).

"Yahū" or "Yah" is the abbreviation of YHWH when used as a suffix in
Hebrew names; as a prefix it appears as "Yehō-", or "Yo". It was
formerly thought to be abbreviated from the Masoretic pronunciation
"Yehovah". There is an opinion[2] that, as Yahweh is likely an
imperfective verb form, "Yahu" is its corresponding preterite or
jussive short form: compare yiŝtahaweh (imperfective), yiŝtáhû
(preterit or jussive short form) = "do obeisance".

However, the name Judah (Yehūdah) is not an example: here the ye- is a
verb imperfective prefix, and the name means "He adds [a son to my
family]". Some other examples of "y-" in biblical Hebrew names are
also verb imperfectives.

In the table below, 13 theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes have
corresponding forms (in bold type) where the letters "eh"' have been
omitted. There is a theory by Christian Ginsburg that this is due to
Hebrew scribes omitting the "h", changing Jeho (יְהוֹ) into Jo (יוֹ),
to make the start of "Yeho-" names not sound like an attempt to
pronounce the Divine Name.[3][4]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophoric_name#Yahweh

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 26, 7:11 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> Women and men sitting together rather than on opposite sides was
> Kaplans Ideas.
>
> I really need to ask you this. Do you really think that men and women
> sitting together has anything to do with being a homo?

No, but now you're saying again that this was Kaplan's idea, and that
he's a homosexual.

> Is that what common
> sense tells you? What I wrote just above here did you read it?

Yes, I read it before, and just reread it.

> Or did you
> slough it off for some particular reasoning?

I think you are not making yourself clear.

> Really, read my last post here
> on this subject, then tell me the honest truth about your reasons why I do
> what I do.

I have no idea what led to this whole thing.

>
> >> Fact is everything I asked him, ROB, was because at the first few attempts
> >> at finding out who Kaplan was I was confronted with all the crap I
> >> mentioned to him. He turned it around as an accusation, on all of it, no
> >> matter how many times I protested about it.
>
> > Well, sometimes we all take offense when we shouldn't.
>

> But the same thing three times in a row. Asking a normal person once is
> normally more than sufficient.

Asking what? If the Kaplan you found was the one he was talking
about?

> Asking a hater twice might start making
> inroads as to why he keeps repeating the same thing

Repeating what same things?

> in spite of anothers
> protest. Three times and they obviously never cared and it is time to cease
> communication.

>
>
>
> >> He may have been offended when
> >> I asked him who he was and where was his home group because I never heard
> >> of him, shrug, who knows.
>
> > He hasn't posted as much here lately as he used to do.
>
> >> Whether Rob is a homosexual I may never know, he never answered, like many
> >> who are ashamed of it.
>
> > Sounds like you're still implying he's homosexual.
>

> See how you are taking it?

Of course, because you said "he never answered, like many who are
ashamed of it". Declining to answer does not imply guilt, nor does it
confirm anything. If someone asked me ridiculous questions repeatedly,
and I perceived they were just attempting to harass me, hopefully I
would not answer them, and would not get into an argument with them
about it (although I have failed to 'not answer' before).


I don't see what led you to ask that. So someone named Kaplan is
supposedly related to homosexuality; so what? I've never seen Rob even
hint that he's a homosexual.

>
> > I have been called
> > a lesbian here; I am not; in fact it's pretty laughable, but if I
> > don't reply to every accusation with a denial of it, that does not
> > mean that I am. If we had to deny every accusation here, and otherwise
> > it meant they were true, we wouldn't get anything else said. There is
> > no evidence from silence. In fact, the best answer to unwarranted
> > attacks is silence, but it is hard not to retaliate sometimes.
>

> I asked and am still waiting. A question is not an unwarranted attack, even
> tho some take it that way.

A question like that, which is not based on anything the person has
said, does not deserve an answer. Do I have to answer, no, I am not a
lesbian, to every idiot like Ike who says things like that, or else
I'm agreeing their accusation, sometimes in the form of a question, is
true? No, I don't. Suppose I ask you if you're a homosexual, and you
don't even see my post, or that part of my post, and don't answer it
(or see it and don't care to respond), does that mean you ARE a
homosexual. I don't think so. More likely, you'd see it as an attempt
to give you a bad reputation here so no one would listen to you.

>
> >> I offer an apology to him if he isn't, but if he is
> >> I wanted him to know it is a sin against God and His nature and all such
> >> practing men and wome will not enter heaven.
>
> >> From reading a little of the post below this final snip, I can see the
> >> cause for his rage and hatred.
>
> > You're still confusing me. What is the reason you see?  He is Jewish,
> > if that is what you mean.
>

> His rabid bitterness against Christianity. The "theft" of loved ones, and I
> don't remember what all he wrote beneath my snip. It was not important to
> me.

I find that pretty normal with Jews, but yes, it's annoying. The real
irony is that some think they understand the NT when they don't, any
more than they understand the OT. The idea is, if it is "a Jewish
idea", then the Messiah (who is really "not the Messiah") taught it;
if it is not "a Jewish idea", then he could not have done so. The
Jesus Seminar uses the same silly criteria, silly since Christ did not
accept Pharisaic Judaism, so of course he said things which don't
agree with present-day Jewish ideas.

>
> >> Yet he is not justified in any of it.
>
> > You shouldn't be too surprised that Jews (or Gentile followers of
> > Judaism) still reject Christ.
>

> I'm not. I realize the source.

>
> >> Neither as a christian nor a Jew.
>
> > Rob's a Jew.
>

> He isn't really, he is a pretender. When has he sacrificed and stood in the
> courtyard of the Gentiles. Yes I know that is a hard statement.

>
>
>
> >>>major snippage<
>
> >> No reply necessary.
>

[Zev]

On Oct 26, 1:31 pm, "Ed Form" <ed.f...@workgroupsolutions.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 26/10/2012 09:19:43, Zev wrote:
>

> > Btulah means virgin, only.
> > Almah means lass, who would be expected to be virgin.

I understood that what the boy would be called is also a sign,
so the presence of others hearing this wouldn't make sense,
but I don't see anything wrong with the above.

> Then you wrote...
> > But it's worse than that.
> > A "sign" is something you can see,
> > indicating something you can't.
> > How could a virginity accepted on faith be a sign to anything?
>
> > Isaiah 7:14 is a "second best" for a king
> > who didn't want to be bothered by Isaiah's signs.
> > It doesn't look like an announcement to the world,
> > with dramatic implications, centuries later.
>
> You seem to have missed the fact that Matthew didn't cite the bit about Ahaz
> getting a sign - why should he cite it? It was not relevant to his use of
> Isaiah's words. Matthew had no assembled court of the house of David before
> him and he had no need to shock a wicked king into listening to his prophecy
> by revealing that he knew something that the King had done in secret. All
> Matthew was interested in was the fact that some of Isaiah's words were
> prophetic of another event, distant in time from Isaiah's day, but relevant
> to the birth of Jesus. That's why he changed Isaiah's words to emphasise the
> altered circumstances...

I've used this "sign" argument several times,
I've never seen a decent retort.
Here, you demolish it with a wave of the hand!

> 1. He used definitely future verb tenses where Isaiah's tenses were
> non-specific. Isaiah said ' the lass *is* in the club and *bears* a son'
> which can legitimately be read as either present or future but are usually
> read as one of each - 'the lass *is* in the pudding club and *will bear* a
> son'. Matthew said: 'Isaiah told us that a virgin *will be* in the pudding
> club and *will bear* a son. Both of his tenses are future.
>
> 2. He changed the universal word 'almah', with its expectation of virginity,
> to the specific word 'parthenos' which actually means 'virgin', contrasting
> Isaiah's irony over the despoilation of Abijah with the unblemished condition
> of Mary - Ahaz's cruel solution to the problem of providing the next King
> with God's provision of an everlasting king.
>

> These changes are characteristic of a common New Testament approach to
> citations from the Hebrew Scriptures - a scholarly friend of mine calls the
> approach 'Complementary Difference' - where the New Testament writer changes
> the wording of the citation to suit the circumstances - Paul's citation of
> Isaiah 29:14 with Habakkuk 1:5 in the Synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia is
> another striking example. [Acts 13:41]

This has me confused.
You agree that Isaiah is talking about a local event,
that he's not talking about a virgin,
yet you accept Matthew's claim that
Isaiah is talking about Mary and Jesus.

[Linda Lee]

Same with pronouns, and verbs, all of which leave many things open to
interpretation.

[Zev]

On Oct 26, 6:22 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:15:43 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 10:34 am, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:19:41 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:
> >>> On Oct 25, 11:24 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> >>>> When the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was first published, the
> >>>> Hebrew word almah was translated "young woman," with "virgin" in the

> >>>> footnotes—of course, it should have been reversed. Their argument was that

> >>>> almah meant only a young woman. While it is true that there are places in
> >>>> the Scriptures where it is translated "young woman," it is evident that it
> >>>> means "virgin."
> >>>> For example, when Abraham's servant went to Haran in search of a bride for
> >>>> Isaac and he prayed that God would direct him to the right girl, this is
> >>>> how Rebekah was described: "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a
> >>>> virgin, neither had any man known her …" (Gen_24:16). The word damsel is
> >>>> the Hebrew word naarah, meaning "young woman," but that she was a virgin
> >>>> was made clear also. Then when the servant was rehearsing this experience
> >>>> of praying for God's guidance, he said, "Behold, I stand by the well of
> >>>> water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to
> >>>> draw
> >>>> water …" (Gen_24:43), the Hebrew word almah is translated "virgin."
>

> >>> How do you know he knew she was virgin?
> >>> Why do you think he would tell her family he knew,
> >>> even if he did?
> >>> Think about the situation the Bible is describing,

> >>> you've just shown that "almah" does indeed mean lass, not virgin.

>
> >>>> I don't
> >>>> think that anyone could misunderstand what is being said here. When the
> >>>> word almah was used, it referred to a virgin young woman, that is, one who
> >>>> had had no sexual relationship with a man.
>

> >>>> Only a Fool would deny the virgin birth.
>

> >>> Btulah means virgin, only.
> >>> Almah means lass, who would be expected to be virgin.
> >>> If the sign of Isaiah 7:14 is a miraculous virgin pregnancy,
> >>> it wouldn't make sense to use Almah.
>

> >>> But it's worse than that.
> >>> A "sign" is something you can see,
> >>> indicating something you can't.

> >>> How could a virginity *accepted on faith* be a sign to anything?

>
> >>> Isaiah 7:14 is a "second best" for a king
> >>> who didn't want to be bothered by Isaiah's signs.
> >>> It doesn't look like an announcement to the world,
> >>> with dramatic implications, centuries later.
>

> >> Gods love was His people, the signs were for a people He loved and cared
> >> for. All along it was to His people first. This sign was but one of over
> >> 315 signs of the Messiah. He came for His people first, but the denied Him
> >> that was sent. With all the Jewish men that are mathematicians how many
> >> have stated the fact that there is overwhelming fact that Jesus is the
> >> Messiah?
>
> >> Now as to lass, I showed whoever cared to look that one of the words was
> >> virgin just as easily as it is lass, the root word here that was mentioned
> >> is for a mail virgin. There are many other signs in Isaiah of the Redeemer
> >> to come. And no mere man could do what Jesus did while He was alive one
> >> this planter.
>
> > Genesis 24:43 shows that "almah" doesn't mean virgin,
> > as explained above.
> > Unexamined virginity couldn't be a sign.
> > The idea of a dramatic prophesy doesn't match the topic of Isaiah 7.
>
> > No wonder you're begining to talk about *other* signs.
>
> The other signs were unrelated to this, so why knock them until you study
> all of them?

I'm knocking only your inabilty to defend the claim you made.

> When one reads the verse in Isaiah it starts off, "Therefore the Lord
> himself shall give you a sign;" Does your common sense tell you that God is
> going to tell you that a lass is going to have a baby called Immanuel? How
> many "lasses" have had a baby boy called Immanuel has there been over the
> eons? and why would all those be a sign? Are you laughing at God? Does He
> make boo boo's?

See Ed Form's take on this.
It's in a recent post in this thread.

> The fact that the angel quotes this prophecy in Isa 7:14 to Joseph as an

> explanation for Mary's being with child before her marriage to him is
> satisfactory evidence that the prophecy referred to an unmarried woman who

> had a son without physical contact with any man. Matthew was not yet
> written and the angel used the word Parthenon.

Arguments from authority convince only
those who accept the authority.

> There are two other places where it is used as virgin.

> For example, when Abraham's servant went to Haran in search of a bride for
> Isaac and he prayed that God would direct him to the right girl, this is
> how Rebekah was described: "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a
> virgin, neither had any man known her …" (Gen_24:16). The word damsel is
> the Hebrew word naarah, meaning "young woman," but that she was a virgin
> was made clear also. Then when the servant was rehearsing this experience
> of praying for God's guidance, he said, "Behold, I stand by the well of
> water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw
> water …" (Gen_24:43), the Hebrew word almah is translated "virgin." I don't
> think that anyone could misunderstand what is being said here. When the
> word almah was used, it referred to a virgin young woman, that is, one who
> had had no sexual relationship with a man.

I assume you're copying this from somewhere,
without really knowing which verse makes what point.
As I said before, one of these verses
shows that almah does *not* mean virgin.
One of them has an argument in your favor,
but I have retorts ready.
Do your homework and think for yourself.

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 26, 5:32 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 1:08 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:> On Oct 25, 1:18 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> ... [snipped my diversion about Pete's behavior]
>
>
>
> > > But if you don't mind, I want to re-order one of your paragraphs, and
> > > deal with your closing paragraph first:
>
> > > > Kaplan also appears to be a man without faith in God who doesn't
> > > > believe God can inspire men (as He did the prophets), since he takes
> > > > Paul's proclamation that he learned of Christ from the Spirit of
> > > > Christ himself (which visitation Paul identified as a "heavenly
> > > > vision" in Acts 26:19) to be evidence that Paul concocted Christianity
> > > > from his own imagination.
>
> > > This is invalid reasoning that leads to an unjust conclusion.
>
> > Every complaint you're making about my attitude is the same complaint
> > I had for Kaplan's writings.
>
> I'm talking about your *reasoning*, not about your attitude or your
> beliefs.

In my opinion, Kaplan's reasoning is faulty because it is based on the
premise that everything in the NT is false.

>
>
>
> > > It is not valid to jump from the premise that Kaplan disbelieves
> > > that God (through Jesus) inspired Paul to the conclusion that
> > > therefore Kaplan disbelieves that God can inspire *anyone*.
>
> > Perhaps, but that is what I think Kaplan does himself.
>
> It's not a good analogy.  Kaplan may think Christians are
> wrong about whether Paul's story of being led by
> "the spirit of Jesus" is true, but he doesn't make
> unfair generalizations about Christians merely
> because they believe something he doesn't, the way
> you made an unfair generalization about Kaplan
> because he didn't believe God inspired Paul.

He makes many unfair generalizations.

>
> You basically said, "Kaplan doesn't believe God
> inspires Paul, therefore Kaplan doesn't believe
> God can inspire *anyone*, therefore Kaplan has
> no faith in God".

What reason does he have to deny that Paul was inspired? It is simply
his opinion.

>
> The analogy would be if Kaplan were to have said
> "Paulines believe, without evidence, that Jesus spoke to Paul,
> therefore Paulines are gullible people who will believe
> *anything* without evidence".

He implies that very thing by falsely claiming (without bothering to
even try to provide any evidence from the Scriptures) that all of the
doctrines of Christianity originated with Paul when they originated
with the Messiah himself. He simply goes by 'that's not a Jewish
idea', so it couldn't have come from Jesus the Jew, when Paul himself
was a Jew, so it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Face it, he's
prejudiced against Christianity.

>
> > Kaplan does
> > seem to doubt that Christ (the Spirit of Christ/the Holy Spirit)
> > appeared to Paul, and he has no more reason to doubt that than he does
> > the Holy Spirit appearing to the prophets.
>
> He has as much reason to doubt it as to accept it -- it's
> a matter of faith.  And since he *does* believe the prophets,
> and since he thinks that Paul contradicts the prophets,
> by teaching away from the Torah, he finds his skepticism
> justified.  (He also brings up other non-faith-based
> evidence against other parts of Paul's story -- in particular,
> why would Paul have started out as such a fanatical
> *anti-Christian* if he were really one of Rabbi Gamaliel's
> best students, given that Rabbi Gamaliel was among those
> inclined to a more tolerant view towards Christians.)

See, there's another assumption on his part, and on your part -
because Kaplan said it. That is no proof at all. There is no evidence
that Gamaliel had a "tolerant view" of the Christians; the only thing
even hinting at "tolerance" is him advising the Sanhedrin not to kill
the apostles because they'd been through all this before with others.

Act 5:33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took
counsel to slay them.
Act 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named
Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people,
and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
Act 5:35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to
yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
Act 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to
be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined
themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were
scattered, and brought to nought.
Act 5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the
taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and
all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
Act 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them
alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to
nought:
Act 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye
be found even to fight against God.
Act 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the
apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak
in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
Act 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council,
rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

>
> > Kaplan just doubts the
> > validity of anything in the NT - period.
>
> I'm not sure of that, but remember that regardless of
> your viewpoint about whether Paul and Jesus were in
> harmony, what they were in harmony *about* was a religious
> viewpoint opposed to the Jewish one.
>
> The major emphasis in this book -- not in *all* of Kaplan's
> life work, but in this particular book, published
> by Jews for Judaism, a leading critic of the Hebrew-Christian
> movement -- is that it is misleading for a Hebrew-Christian
> missionary to try to persuade a Jew that by accepting
> the Christian religion, he can remain religiously Jewish.

It isn't deliberately misleading. You act as if they think what they
believe is wrong when they're sincere, even though you think they are
wrong.

>
> So the book will focus on the difference between the two
> religions, not on the similarities.
>
> I agree.  I can't accept Christianity and Judaism at the same
> time.  I could just barely accept 90% of a hypothetical religion
> that included just the 4 gospels, and especially that included
> just the 3 synoptic gospels.

If you understood it, you wouldn't accept any of it.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > In the following, I am going to generally defend Kaplan, because
> > > overall his positions on the difference between Judaism and
> > > Christianity
> > > overlap mine,
>
> > Had you read his book before you developed your positions, or is it
> > just coincidental that I recognized several things you've said in the
> > past in his book?
>
> No.  I own Kaplan's Torah translation.  I may have read
> some of Kaplan's anti-missionary essays, since I
> support Jews for Judaism.
>
> But there are lots and lots of books on the differences between
> Judaism
> and Christianity.  I bought quite a few of them to teach my children
> around the time they were growing up.  Remember, I think it was
> my wife's parents' lack of teaching this topic to their children
> that contributed to two of them succumbing to missionaries.  (More
> precisely, the older one at age 20 succumbed and was then turned
> around to preach to his vulnerable and frightened 12-year-old sister
> -- yuck!)

>
> These books all pretty much say the same things:
> For a Jew, God is One, not Three.

Then they begin with a false premise. There is only one God in
Christianity, not three gods.

> There is a
> *temptation* to sin (yetzer hara), not an
> original, inherited sin, and we have the ability
> to overcome it.  Righteousness is not a binary
> all-or-nothing choice between (impossible) perfect
> compliance, where one failure would be equivalent
> to total depravity.  Repentance comes from within,
> not from blood sacrifices, whether done on an altar,

Why would they teach that when the law of Moses required sacrifices?

> or whether done vicariously via belief in a savior.
> What does God want of us? By the
> liturgy: study, service, and acts of loving kindness.
> By the prophet Micah: to do justice, love mercy, and walk
> humbly with God.

By the prophet David, Psa. 2:7 & 11-12, to kiss the Son of God in
order to be blessed.

Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou
art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash
them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges
of the earth.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way,
when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put
their trust in him.

>
> By the holiness code:  Do not oppress
> your neighbor; judge your neighbor in righteousness;
> do not put a stumbling block before the blind; do not
> go out as a talebearer; the leavings of the field
> are to be left for the poor and the
> stranger; do not oppress the stranger.  God does
> not want a theology test:

> "better they forget Me
> and remember My commandments".

WHO said that? God said to love him and remember his name. Is that
Kaplan's version of a verse in the Hebrew Scriptures, by any chance?

>
>
>
> > >  and especially his views about the "Hebrew Christian"
> > > movement's attempt to draw Jews to Christianity by persuading them
> > > that they become "completed Jews" are similar to mine.
>
> > He is unfair to them, I believe, calling them fanatics. Why are they
> > fanatics because of their belief, but he's not a fanatic because of
> > his belief?
>
> No, Christians are absolutely not fanatics because of their belief.
> I don't think Kaplan said that.

I did not say he said that. _I_ was referring to the Christian
missionaries; that is who Kaplan is unfair to. See above.

That is the judgment of God.

> and asking their children ...
>
> read more »

[Zev]

On Oct 27, 9:41 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:44:43 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 6:22 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:15:43 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:
> >>> On Oct 26, 10:34 am, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> >>> No wonder you're begining to talk about *other* signs.
>
> >> The other signs were unrelated to this, so why knock them until you study
> >> all of them?
>
> > I'm knocking only your inabilty to defend the claim you made.
>

> OK, Although I stipulated a few times here the meaning and usage of the
> word, I agree with you in that it requires the Faith of God to believe it.

>
> >> When one reads the verse in Isaiah it starts off, "Therefore the Lord
> >> himself shall give you a sign;" Does your common sense tell you that God is
> >> going to tell you that a lass is going to have a baby called Immanuel? How
> >> many "lasses" have had a baby boy called Immanuel has there been over the
> >> eons? and why would all those be a sign? Are you laughing at God? Does He
> >> make boo boo's?
>
> > See Ed Form's take on this.
> > It's in a recent post in this thread.
>

> I have responded several times. When one looks at the greater picture there
> is far less reason to believe Judaism then Christianty do to the
> reliability of documents.

Strangely enough, you didn't use this argument.

> >> The fact that the angel quotes this prophecy in Isa 7:14 to Joseph as an
> >> explanation for Mary's being with child before her marriage to him is
> >> satisfactory evidence that the prophecy referred to an unmarried woman who
> >> had a son without physical contact with any man. Matthew was not yet
> >> written and the angel used the word Parthenon.
>
> > Arguments from authority convince only
> > those who accept the authority.
>

> Which can be used by sane and insane alike. However, if that is your
> standard why argue with anyone? Just accept what they say as their truth,
> like you accept your truth as truth. You have just reduced or enhanced all
> knowledge to equal stupidity or everyones truth is brilliant. How amazing.

Actually, I've done the opposite.

> Yet you deny that premise by your existence.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> There are two other places where it is used as virgin.
> >> For example, when Abraham's servant went to Haran in search of a bride for
> >> Isaac and he prayed that God would direct him to the right girl, this is
> >> how Rebekah was described: "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a
> >> virgin, neither had any man known her …" (Gen_24:16). The word damsel is
> >> the Hebrew word naarah, meaning "young woman," but that she was a virgin
> >> was made clear also. Then when the servant was rehearsing this experience
> >> of praying for God's guidance, he said, "Behold, I stand by the well of
> >> water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw
> >> water …" (Gen_24:43), the Hebrew word almah is translated "virgin." I don't
> >> think that anyone could misunderstand what is being said here. When the
> >> word almah was used, it referred to a virgin young woman, that is, one who
> >> had had no sexual relationship with a man.
>
> > I assume you're copying this from somewhere,
> > without really knowing which verse makes what point.
> > As I said before, one of these verses
> > shows that almah does *not* mean virgin.
> > One of them has an argument in your favor,
> > but I have retorts ready.
> > Do your homework and think for yourself.
>

> My homework has been done, years ago.
>
> However, as you have already stated. You do not accept the authority of the
> Word of God, as in John 1:1 so any discussion is futile.
>
> If you are interested in reading about what happens with the Mosaic Law
> being disannulled, and the replacement of its covenant I would suggest
> reading Galatians. All of it. It is only 6 chapters. :)

I read Galations 4 once.
I learned two things from it.
The difference between Paul the Pharisee and the others,
and why learned Jews didn't convert.

> I am not looking for disputes, especially those with preloaded conceptions.

Again, after presenting arguments and failing to defend them,
you abandon them as if they were sour grapes.

> I have wasted too much time on them. I believe in God through Jesus Christ
> and all eternal life is through Him Only.

But here you are, wasting your time on these posts,
just like the rest of us.

> Do not take this as a slam on
> your person you appear to be a nice person.

Thanks.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that
called "The Septuagint"

(about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars.


it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith. A revision
in the sense of the canonical Jewish text was necessary. This revision
was made by a proselyte, Aquila, who lived during the reign of Hadrian
(117-138).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations


Gee, I wonder why the translation before Christ has virgin and the
one 100 years after Christ has young woman?
I guess the Jews before were biased towards Christianity<grin>?

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 26, 5:32 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 1:08 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:> On Oct 25, 1:18 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> ... [snipped

What a very long post you wrote...

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > The title of the section was "A Practical Guide to the Missionary
> > > Problem"
> > > and the abstract was: "Very often, in an attempt to respond to a
> > > missionary challenge,
> > > one can make a number of seemingly logical moves which, in fact, play
> > > directly into the hands of the missionaries.
>
> > See language like that is insulting; 'playing into their hands' like
> > they're deliberately devious and dangerous when they are simply
> > preaching what they believe.
>
> The term "play into X's hands" doesn't imply venality of X.  It just
> implies
> that you and X have conflicting agendas, so don't do anything that
> advances
> X's agendas more than yours.

It is used of people who would do one harm.

No, I don't have any interest in Judaism.

>
>
>
> > > but it's not relevant.  In this context,
> > > he's probably referring to "yiddishe neshama", which is usually
> > > translated into English as "Jewish soul", which has nothing to do
> > > with life after death,
>
> > How do you know that when he's an orthodox Jew and you say Orthodox
> > Jews believe in a soul remaining after death?
>
> Because as I said there are multiple meanings of soul, and orthodox
> Jews also understand the concept of a yiddishe neshama.

I think he meant the soul of the afterlife when he said they snatched
souls.

>
>
>
> > > but instead has to do with the soul you
> > > have when you're alive -- your Jewish identity -- which is in fact
> > > what is "stolen" when you are lured, as my wife's brother and sister
> > > were, into a Christian world.
>
> > To a Christian, it sounds like he's saying they're trying to get them
> > damned to Hell.
>
> But not to you, because you know that we don't believe in that kind of
> Hell,

If they believe in a soul that survives the afterlife, it sounds like
Orthodox Jews think there is a hell also.

Christianity considers that unbelievers could be compared to someone
on fatal drugs, etc. because that will be fatal.

>
>
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > Kaplan displays no first-hand knowledge of the NT scriptures; this is
> > > > apparent right away by his false claim that Paul actually started what
> > > > is present-day Christianity.
>
> > > That is the scholarly consensus, so this is not exactly "Kaplan's
> > > claim".
>
> > Any 'scholars' who believe that are ignorant of the NT.  As I showed,
> > point by point, everything Kaplan said came from Paul was based on
> > actual quotes of the Messiah. I've seen plenty of 'scholars'
> > commenting on Christianity on TV documentaries who had many, many
> > things wrong.
>
> I don't know about TV documentaries; I'm talking about scholarly
> books.

These documentaries had 'renowned scholars' in them.

>
> Debating what in Christianity is from Paul and what is from Jesus
> is another thread.  My purpose here was much more limited: namely
> to show that this is not some crazy idea unique to Kaplan.  Many
> others have said this, before and since.

Yes, and people seem to believe if you repeat the same falsehoods many
times, maybe someone else will believe them. It doesn't matter if he
had a unique idea; the idea is false.

>
>
>
> > > The main Pauline idea is sola fide,
>
> > No it isn't.  It is Christ's gospel that it is only through faith in
> > him that a believer is saved; faith alone saves, but to be proven a
> > real believer, one must follow what Christ said to do; love God, love
> > one's neighbor, have compassion on people, etc.  Both Christ and Paul
> > taught that.
>
> I don't believe that sola fide is Jesus' gospel.

It certainly is; you just reject the verses where he says you're
condemned if you don't believe in him.

>
> Even Paul didn't *always* teach sola fide.  Like Romney, Paul
> sometimes taught one of 3 different variations, depending on his
> audience:

No. Romney, yes; he is the biggest liar. I hope I don't have to look
at his rat-like face for four years.

> 1. once one became a believer, one becomes *incapable* of sinning.
> 2. once one became a believer, one becomes *forgiven* even if one does
> sin
> 3. once one became a believer, one still has the obligation to avoid
> sin.
>
> Prior to the Reformation, the view was more like (3); after it, more
> like (1) or (2).
>
> Jesus definitely taught non-sola-fide things:  mercy to the merciful,
> eternal life to those who help the needy and visit the sick.

That is covered under the first sola; 1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture
alone"). The Scriptures are true; do as the Messiah said.

I did refute them; if the Messiah is quoted uttering things which
support things Paul taught, that is a refutation of Kaplan's claims.

>  I countered some of your
> counters.

And didn't refute them.

> Remember Kaplan's main point wasn't to show how much
> of Christianity comes from Paul versus Jesus; it was to show
> how this viewpoint is un-Jewish.  Even if you're totally right
> and he's totally wrong about all these things, it doesn't
> undercut his main point.

Lol! Both the Messiah and Paul were JEWS, so it isn't affected by that
one way or another.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > He didn't say they are unrelated to things Jesus taught,
> > > or that *only* Paul taught these things,
>
> > He said they originated with Paul, Rob, and that's impossible because
> > the Messiah was gone before Paul began to preach.
>
> He said that the main ideas of Christianity were formulated by Paul
> and I think that's correct.

That's baloney. I disproved everything he said originated with Paul in
my original post in this thread. What is your purpose for ignoring him
being refuted and posting he was correct anyway?

> Paul has to put all the things in the
> background that
> Jesus taught about visiting the sick and how one should
> follow the words (though not the deeds) of the Pharisees.
>
>
>
> > >  but it is
> > > true that the emphasis is different.
>
> > That is false.
>
> Then why doesn't Paul say "If you should have eternal life, follow the
> commandments"?

You're taking what the Messiah said out of context. That seems all
you're capable of doing.

> Why didn't Paul say, "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven
> is my brother, and sister, and mother."

That's ridiculous Rob. Why should he have to say certain things?
Anyway, it is Christ's whose family we (including Paul) want to join;
not Paul's.

They aren't among the sheep to begin with if they aren't believers.

>
> ...>
>
> > > Yes he did.  I don't think Kaplan would dispute that Jesus called
> > > himself that.
>
> > Yes he did; he said Paul originated that idea.  Have you read his
> > book? Did you read my post where I quote him saying Paul originated
> > the idea that Yahashua`/Jesus was the Jewish Messiah?
>
> Jesus may have called himself Messiah, but I think that at the cross
> he realized he had failed.

BALONEY!

> What Kaplan was saying is that Paul
> taught a new definition of Messiah such that Jesus' death didn't
> constitute failing.

MORE BALONEY.

>
>
>
> > > And elsewhere in the book it says "He clearly thought of himself as
> > > the Messiah of the
> > > Jews and of no one else."
>
> > Yes, Kaplan contradicts himself; first he makes the claim Paul
> > originated certain ideas, later he attributes them to Christ as a
> > false prophet. Or perhaps he was not the author of later parts of his
> > book, as yo said. I countered the first part of his book, which he did
> > author, where he claimed Paul thought up all of this stuff.
>
> I don't think he said Paul thought it all up.

I quoted him, and refuted him.

> Jesus said some things
> that support your positions, but he also said things that refute it.
> What Paul did was create a theology that pushes all the things
> supporting
> his position to the forefront and tries to explain away all the things
> seeming to contradict it,

He did not.

> whether it's "the law will not pass until
> everything is accomplished" or "the sheep and the goats are separated
> based upon how they acted towards the neediest and most helpless
> people",
> or "if you will get eternal life, do the commandments".  If Jesus said
> something X that contradicted a Pauline position Y, the Paulines teach
> that we should reinterpret X to match Y, but never reinterpret Y to
> match X.

There is only one gospel; you can't prove otherwise any more than
Kaplan did. You're doing the same thing he did; making unfounded
allegations without providing any proof.

>
>
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > The Messiah said he was one with the Father, and because of this
> > > > statement, he was accused of making himself God:
> > > > John 10:30-33, "I and [my] Father are one.
>
> > > Yes, but I would have thought it meant that Jesus was saying that what
> > > he teaches
> > > is one with what God teaches, rather than literally that he is God,
>
> > The Jews of his time are reported in the NT to have accused him of
> > trying to make himself God.  That was my point. What you might think
> > now is not applicable to the argument.
>
> Yes, but generally speaking the gospels argue that many of the Jews
> of his time made unjust and inaccurate accusations against Jesus;
> here you're trying to argue that they were right.

The NT gospels do not say that accusation was wrong. They accused him
of plotting to destroy the temple:
Mar 14:57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against
him, saying,
Mar 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made
with hands, and within three days I will build another made without
hands.
Mar 14:59 But neither so did their witness agree together.

And they accused him of being blasphemous for saying he was the
Christ:
Mar 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high
priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of
the Blessed?
Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of
heaven.
Mar 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need
we any further witnesses?
Mar 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all
condemned him to be guilty of death.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > We've been through this before.  These words are the words of John,
> > > not of Jesus.  The quotation marks end after 3:15.
>
> > That is false.
>
> You can go to the RSV and look for yourself where the quotation marks
> end.

I don't use the RSV/Revised Standard Version. I prefer the KJV.

> This is not just something that I'm making up to attack Christianity.

So you've found a version that agrees with you on this verse; it is
one of the few; most agree with me.

>
> > Are you going to make the same claim about John 8:24
> > where Christ said you will die in your sins if you believe not he is
> > who he said he was (the Son of God was who he said he was).
>
> John 8:24 was spoken to the Pharisees who were seeking to kill him,
> not to me.

He was speaking to unbelievers who happened to be Jews. It does not
say they were seeking to kill him at that point; they argued and in
the last verse in the chapter, after he said he existed before
Abraham, they took up rocks to stone him.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
Abraham was, I am.
Joh 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid
himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them,
and so passed by.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > Saying that man commits sins, including all those Jesus listed, is
> > > a far cry from saying all mankind is damned because of Adam's sin
> > > and the Torah cannot save man, because it is too difficult.
>
> > This refers to all but believers being damned:
> > Joh 8:23  And he [Christ] said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am
> > from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
> > Joh 8:24  I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins:
> > for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
>
> He wasn't talking to "all mankind" here.

He was talking to unbelievers who happened to be Jews.

>
>
>
> > > Original sin is a doctrine of Augustine, based on Pauline
> > > ideas.  Jesus' speech in Mark is not the doctrine of
> > > original sin.  And of course the Torah explicitly said
> > > that obeying the Torah is *not* too difficult, and Jesus
> > > explicitly endorsed the Torah.
>
> > He did not endorse obedience to all the law of Moses; he said to love
> > God and love thy neighbor were the principles upon which the law hung.
>
> He endorsed obedience to all the law of Moses in many places.

He did not.

>
> He did so in Matthew 5:17-19, and again in Matthew 19:17.

You are really redundant; we've been over your misconceptions about
both of those many times, and it is just more of the words of the
Messiah you cannot understand, and for which you will accept no
explanation.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > He was talking to a particular group of enemies, not making a general
> > > statement.
>
> > John 8:24 applies to anyone and everyone, Jew or Gentile (he was
> > speaking to Jews).
>
> It does not apply to me.

They were Jews who were murderous towards him, who didn't really
follow the commandments.

>  A few lines down, he said "You are of your
> father the devil".
> Do you think that line applies to anyone and everyone too?

Everyone who hasn't become a child of God. And you're being
redundant.

>
>
>
> > > Just as when he said "ye are of your father the devil".
> > > It doesn't mean everyone born is son of Satan.
>
> > It means all evil people have remained children of Satan, rather than

> > becoming children of God, so yes it does mean what you say it doesn't

> > mean.
>
> You're being circular.  To accept this I already have to accept your
> assumption that "nonbelievers" equates to "evil people".

This indicates two types of people, children of God and children of
the Devil:
I John 3:10 "In this the children of God are manifest, and the
children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of
God, neither he that loveth not his brother."


You know, I see a pattern here; you ask me to explain a concept
according to the NT scriptures, and when I do explain what the concept
is based upon, you say you don't believe the concept. I don't think
you really want answers.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > Haven't I seen these exact words before?  They don't teach original
> > > sin,
>
> > If everyone who does not believe in him is condemned, of course it
> > teaches original sin.
>
> I don't believe that everyone who does not believe in him is
> condemned.

What you believe doesn't matter. That was my answer to your question
about original sin.

>
> It's absurd to think that God would send me to Hell because I don't
> believe
> some stories about Jesus!

I know you think so.

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures,
The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of
the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our
eyes?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken
from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but
on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

>
> And in any case, what does that have to do with original sin?

Even if someone somehow manages to be perfect from birth to death,
they still need faith in the Saviour because of original sin.

>
> You're totally throwing away the Biblical notion "do justice",
> by saying that everyone's a sinner,

No, I'm not. In fact, I don't even know why you'd say that.

> therefore being just
> or unjust in relative terms matters nothing, only
> accepting the exemption from punishment that you get
> by being a believer matters.
>
>
>
> > > and they're not (after 3:15) Jesus' words.
>
> > That's false. Christ often spoke of himself in the third person,
> > especially when he was alluding to himself as the Son of God, etc.
>
> Some of the most famous scholars of Christendom disagree with you
> that Jesus was speaking here.

And many would disagree with you. But who are you speaking of? Those
people on the Jesus Seminar or people like them? They're laughable;
their criteria is 'if a Jew wouldn't say it, then Christ could not
have said it', and they deny all the miracles out of hand. Even
"scholars" are influenced by their belief or their lack of belief.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > It doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as the messiah
> > > or (more significantly) as the substitutionary sacrifice is damned
> > > to hell.  Jesus didn't say that.
>
> > Yes, he did.
>
> Where did he say you have to believe in the doctrine of the
> substitutionary
> sacrifice and that this and not justice was the gating factor for
> heaven or hell?

Actually he said to believe in him for that, see John 4:10-26 below
and John 3:18.

>
> > However, when he returns, many who did not believe may
> > come to be believers.
>
> By saying he will return, you are admitting that "all" is not
> accomplished,
> even if you narrow the meaning of the word "all" to mean "all that is
> written of the messiah in the prophets".
>

> I don't believe that he will return. I believe it means he will be unmistakable as God at that point. And then those who rejected him as the Messiah will mourn.


And I believe he will because he said he would return in the glory of
the Father. Take that to mean whatever you will.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > This doesn't mean sola fide.
>
> > It means the church will become part of the sheep of Israel. One fold,
> > one shepherd.
>
> It still doesn't mean sola fide.

As I said already, the Protestant faith claimed five solas/solae.

The "fruit" they will manifest when they abide in him is love of God
and love of neighbor, not 'doing the commandments'.

> not "believe in the virgin birth
> and in the homo-ousious and in the Incarnation and
> inn the substitutionary sacrifice" and all this other stuff.

He is not speaking about all of that "other stuff" here; that does not
negate he said it elsewhere; you want the entire gospel stuffed into
one sentence or you claim most of it is not true. And you keep
ignoring the most important parts, in this case, "WITHOUT ME [CHRIST]
YE CAN DO NOTHING", which I put in all caps for emphasis, so you'd
notice it. And you ignore it anyway. I think you don't want to
understand, and you're just wasting my time, because I have no
inclination to missionize you. And changing my mind is hopeless for
you; I have always believed in him and remain entirely satisfied, even
joyous, about my faith in Christ.

>
>
>
> > I'm sorry Rob, but you just don't understand the Messiah's gospel any
> > better than Kaplan does.
>
> For the purpose of this discussion, we need merely show that Judaism
> is different from Christianity, not that it's right.  Which is right
> is a matter of faith.  The fact that they teach different things is
> a matter of analysis.  Kaplan and I do the analysis mostly in the
> same way.

I've noticed. You could have written his book.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > Yes, that's an echo of what Hillel said.  (Jesus was likely a
> > > follower of Hillel).  Hillel also tried to reduce all the
> > > commandments to a small number of principles.  That doesn't
> > > mean the commandments don't exist.  It means that the
> > > principles underlying the commandments derive from
> > > either the golden rule (Hillel) or "love thy neighbor" (Jesus),
> > > and of course from the v'ahavta (quoted in 22:37).  By no
> > > means did Jesus say the other laws don't apply.
>
> > He said elsewhere they didn't apply, as when he said it is what comes
> > out of a man that defiles him, not what goes into him.
>
> I don't think that means the commandments don't exist.
>
> Anti-Christians would argue that letting the adulteress go
> meant that Jesus disapproved of the commandment against
> adultery; I don't think that is true either.

He believed it was a sin, and he forgave her sin.

>
> > > He said
> > > "on these two commandments hang all the law", not
> > > "these two commandments supersede the rest".  Similarly
> > > Hillel said "The rest is
> > > commentary; Go and study [the Torah]", not "once you
> > > know the golden rule, you don't need to learn the rest".
>
> > > Whereas Paulines, and some folk here, really *do* think
> > > that the other rules don't apply any more.  They
> > > either say that they're nailed to the cross, or that
> > > one need only consult one's conscience, or whatever,
> > > but not that you should study and follow the law".
>
> > If they really think they're now allowed to kill and steal and commit
> > adultery, etc. because they profess belief in Christ, then they're
> > evil; they're not real believers and they're not saved. And deep down,
> > they know they're evil and that they're trying to get over on God.
>
> Then you aren't sola fide --

Yes, I am Rob; we are saved ONLY THROUGH FAITH ALONE. You can't seem
to understand even the most basic concepts. All of my life, I could do
everything right and do nothing wrong, and without faith in Christ, I
would still be condemned. But Christ expected his followers to be men
of peace and love. If the alleged 'believers' use their supposed
'faith' as a license to sin, they're bastard sons, not sons of God.

John 13:35 "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if
ye have love one to another."

Salvation and eternal life is the "gift of God" for those who turn to
the Messiah for salvation:
Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift

of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou
wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living
water.

Joh 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw
with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living
water?
Joh 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the
well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this
water shall thirst again:
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him
shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in
him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
...
Joh 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which
is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
Joh 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
...


John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in
the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Whether YOU believe Christ said that in John 3:18 or not; that is the
Gospel of Christ, and that is the meaning also of the passage you
don't like in Luke 19:27.

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should
reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

You cannot leave stuff out; the apostles said what he said was
required indicated no one could be saved.

>  Jesus wanted you to
> do the commandments.  He may have nitpicked about how some
> leaders of his day interpreted them (as Reform Jews today do),
> but he still believed that there were commandments, and whatever
> they were, you had to do them.

And if and when we fail to always do that, "with God, all things are
possible".

>
> ...
>
>
>
> > > As I said, it's a matter of emphasis.  Christians do teach that
> > > we're damned without a savior.  They do teach that whole
> > > substitutionary
> > > sacrifice thing.  That the Torah is obsolete, and you should
> > > first get saved and then you don't need to study the law; God
> > > or Jesus will put whatever you need into your heart after.  That's
> > > a change. That's un-Jewish.
>
> > It is however the teachings of Christ, and is what is said the new
> > covenant would be like (Jer. 31:31-34).
>
> Jer. 31 doesn't teach a substitutionary sacrifice at all.

I was talking about the law of loving God and loving neighbor being
written on the heart. That is so of born again Spirit-filled
Christians.

>
> --
> Rob Strom

[Mordecai]

Christianity, not now, and certainly not THEN (when it was a very minor new
religion and had little to do with Judaism as it was split from it at the
time) ... was not worth changing a single word of all the verses for.
Nor is Islam.
Nor is our own feelings when the words speak evil against ourselves.
The value of the words of G_d is far higher than all.

We would not change the words for ourselves, for another lesser than
ourselves, nor for ANY other greater than ourselves.

Nor could we do so if we wanted to do so. We could not get all Jews to
agree on this and there would be debates of an order you would not
conceive.
This is a case of "no debates equals no change of wording."

So no, there was not a change of a word from the original text.

But I am going to ask a question.
IF JC stated "no sign will be given to this generation besides the sign of
Jonah ..." and yet you say "this sign was given to Israel ..." how do you
reconcile it?

let me explain how you deal with things like this.
You will ignore the question.
You will not answer.
Tomorrow it will be forgotten and be as thought it was never asked.
And all will revert to the way it was before.


--
Mordecai!

When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.

[dolf]

Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:19:26 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:

>>> If you are interested in reading about what happens with the Mosaic Law
>>> being disannulled, and the replacement of its covenant I would suggest
>>> reading Galatians. All of it. It is only 6 chapters. :)
>>
>> I read Galations 4 once.
>> I learned two things from it.
>> The difference between Paul the Pharisee and the others,
>> and why learned Jews didn't convert.
>>
>

> The reason some Jews did not convert was written in the OT. Most all
> believers of that day had been Jews, and if one reads the Gospels they
> would see that the High Priest was worried because more were there to
> worship Jesus than follow Judaism. This is one reason why Saul was bent on
> killing and torturing Christians. All the leaders of the Christian Church
> came from Judaism.
>

Why is there a need for conversion from Judaism to Christianity?

Jesus himself said "Moses wrote about me."

What we are concerned with here is the central premise of the ternary
notion of #ZERO and Y2K as a logical proposition of judgement and a LESSON
FROM 11 SEPT 2001: ON KNOWLEDGE PRAGMATICS AND DETERMINING TRUTH CONTENT BY
COMPUTATIONAL FUNCTION:

We can see here the ENGLISH STOICHEION (sans @ vBLUE Taxon entry) mapped to
the #237 AS USE OF FORCE as an extension of our HRUMACHIS CALENDAR RUDOLPH
function()...

As any Event (#LAMED / #L as 12th letter) occurs in time (milliseconds %
81) we can obtain the # value for the crime or speech event.

[ ]

X - LAMED = EVENT

[ ]

From the vGreen prior, vBlue etc we then read the SPACE TIME CONTINUUM AS
TAXONOMY SEQUENCE TO FIND WHERE THEY CORRESPOND TO THE ROW / COLUMN MAPPING
ON THE GRAPPLE NOUMENAL / TEMPORAL REALITY.

FROM THOSE MAPPINGS AN OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF TRUTH (PISTIS SOPHIA AS
GNOSIS) CAN BE MADE: #15 CE, #34 CE, #65 CE, #111 CE, #175 CE, #260 CE,
#369 CE

Churches need to have a fruitful discussion over the dependency of their
models of mind on faulty dualism inherent with the historical Pythagorean
Systems which like the CANON OF SUPREME MYSTERY PUBLISHED IN 2 BCE (1993
ENGLISH), shows that the natural year was held to be 4.5 days for each #1
of the #81 squares which gives:

364.5 days in 2 BCE

IMAGE TO THE BEAST: as HETEROS (MALE/FEMALE MARRIAGE -- WHAT IS SIN &
WICKEDNESS?) autonomic transformative prototype and symbolic associator to
the series #15 CE, #34 CE, #65 CE, #111 CE, #175 CE, #260 CE, #369 CE ...
#2000 Y2K

That the DAO TE CHING / I CHING demonstrates such bi-polar hexagonal
prototypes were in use during the HAN Dynasty 200 BCE to 200 CE and
especially given the lunar calendar and religious mysteries association as
103 BCE parallelism with Judaism's Maccabean dynasty.

What I demonstrate is that the 72J = 12 x 6J (293 solar years) notion of
dispensational governance together with the 8th layer as TRANSFORMATIVE
HETEROSQUARE SPIROGIRA ORDER PLUS THE 9th layer as the DAO TE CHING of 2
BCE (ENGLISH ed 1993) as TEMPORAL / NOUMENAL REALITY is different to the
PISTIS SOPHIA AS GNOSIS: #15 CE, #34 CE, #65 CE, #111 CE, #175 CE, #260 CE,
#369 CE as FALSE AND DECEPTIVE MARRIAGE CLAIM TO CHRISTIAN IDENTITY."

GENESIS: That widget has now been uploaded to the jackNote file. I'll next
implement the HRUMACHIS calendar which should happen over the following
week... [completed 21 October 2012]

Then I'll do the Hebrew / Greek and AUM lexicon panels which should fully
replicate the grapple.html which I will replace before resuming the
project.

Once that is done, I'll then produce a bible view of the categories...

I would suggest The QUEEN'S JUBILEE BIBLE with the DAO TE CHING AS IN-LAY
AS THE COMPLETE #81 to #729 APPRAISALS ARE EMBEDDED WITHIN THE BIBLE HEBREW
AND GREEK LEXICON.

THERE WILL BE A SPEECH COMPONENT TO PLACE YOU IN THE LOCUS OF REDEMPTIVE
REFLECTION...
Nous: #40
Time: 13:55 hrs
Date: 2012.10.22
Torah: #40 #10 #20 %81 = #70
Dao: Reversal, Avoiding Activity
Tetra: #68 - Dimming
I-Ching: H36 - Sinking Light
- http://www.grapple369.com/news/artwork/QueensJubileeBible.jpg

Latin: Justitia {Virtue of God, House of God, Like unto God} Alt: Keliel
{Vessel for God} {
1. HELPS & PROTECTS THE SAFETY OF DECISIONS
2. MONARCH, NOBLES, GOVERNORS
3. UNCOVERS CONSPIRACIES
4. Arpien}
Ahaz {One that takes or possesses}


JEWISH CHRONOLOGICAL/MATHEMATICAL VIEW OF NATURAL LAW: Telos [122J3W1D] =
Arch [3W1D] + c² [9(9²+1)/2]

22/7 as 3W1D ...

the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of Universal
Law}, which contains the law of that will: 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of the
'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to the 'constant sequence of sun and
moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days

the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE/MATTER - Formula of Humanity},
which contains the command to behave in accordance with the law, that is,
the principle of subsumption under the law: x 49 = 6J or 294 x 364 days or
365.2423 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20 March 1996 / 21 March =
1 Nisan 5756; and

The conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE/OFFSPRING - Formula of Autonomy},
which contains the verdict (sentence), what is laid down as right in the
case at hand: ... 6,000 as 122J3W1D + 9(9²+1)/2 as #369 with Septet #41
centric on 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.

Thus we see that the 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of the Priesthood is a
substantiation of Judaeo-Christian identity [Luke 1:5-9] and the Torah's
cosmology and cosmogony as 'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 days. This norm
associated to the ephemeral and mundane has a transcendent fecundite
connection to the Vernal and the Autumn Equinox in the 6th year of the 22nd
Course of Gamul: 7 x 24 x 13 x 49 = 6J or 294 x 364 days or 365.2423 x 293
years - Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20 March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756
associated to the 'constant sequence of sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day
intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days.

There is a need to reconcile the 364 day cosmology and cosmogony of the
Scriptures with its ultimate end, with other perspectives which were
deficient. This computational norm of 365.2423 days associated to this
Sabbath Based Jubilee chronology transcends the adoption of that norm in
the 1582 CE Gregorian Calendar Reforms (British Act of Parliament enacted
1752 CE) proposing a 400 year cycle which commences on a Saturday and
equates to 146097 days. According to this worldview, there is in 6,000
years the equivalent of 2191455 days MOD 7 = 7; MOD 22 = 13; MOD 364 = 175
to which applies the “September 2001 – Year #4 of #19 vMeme/Moment Calendar
Overlay”

- Dolf
- www.grapple369.com

[dolf]

Mordecai <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote:
> "jwshe...@satx.rr.com" wrote:
>>
>> The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that
>> called "The Septuagint"
>>
>> (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars.
>>
>> it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith. A revision
>> in the sense of the canonical Jewish text was necessary. This revision
>> was made by a proselyte, Aquila, who lived during the reign of Hadrian
>> (117-138).
>>
>> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations
>>
>> Gee, I wonder why the translation before Christ has virgin and the
>> one 100 years after Christ has young woman?
>> I guess the Jews before were biased towards Christianity<grin>?
>
> Christianity, not now, and certainly not THEN (when it was a very minor new
> religion and had little to do with Judaism as it was split from it at the
> time) ... was not worth changing a single word of all the verses for.
> Nor is Islam.
> Nor is our own feelings when the words speak evil against ourselves.
> The value of the words of G_d is far higher than all.
>

Jesus said, Moses wrote about me, if you don't believe his words, how will
you believe mine.

So clearly the Jews had sort to adopt another kabbalistic reality.

[dolf]

Mordecai <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote:

> "jwshe...@satx.rr.com" wrote:
>>
>> The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that
>> called "The Septuagint"
>>
>> (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars.
>>
>> it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith. A revision
>> in the sense of the canonical Jewish text was necessary. This revision
>> was made by a proselyte, Aquila, who lived during the reign of Hadrian
>> (117-138).
>>
>> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations
>>
>> Gee, I wonder why the translation before Christ has virgin and the
>> one 100 years after Christ has young woman?
>> I guess the Jews before were biased towards Christianity<grin>?
>
> Christianity, not now, and certainly not THEN (when it was a very minor new
> religion and had little to do with Judaism as it was split from it at the
> time) ... was not worth changing a single word of all the verses for.
> Nor is Islam.
> Nor is our own feelings when the words speak evil against ourselves.
> The value of the words of G_d is far higher than all.
>
> We would not change the words for ourselves, for another lesser than
> ourselves, nor for ANY other greater than ourselves.
>

If Jesus went to the temple which was his custom to read, then there is no
basis (other than paganism) by which you can claim it was schismatic and
separated from Christianity.

They adopted a progression magic squares as the basis for dispensational
governance in dominion to the Romans and as a precursor to their use of a
geometric construction to argue points of proof...

What we are concerned with here is the central premise of the ternary

notion of #ZERO [0 CE) and Y2K as a logical proposition of judgement and a

[Linda Lee]

It's interesting that the only ones here who cannot understand the
words of the Messiah are Jews. It just confirms the Messiah's words
that God blinded the Jews so they could not see nor hear.


Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which
saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing
ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are
dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time
they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should
heal them.

[Mordecai]

Pete wrote:

> The sign Jesus Christ spoke of was given to that generation and to Israel
> at that time, it is also evident prophetic truth to all who believed on
> Him. However Jim would handle that I do not know. So your best guess may be
> accurate.
>

I don't have to force things to fit, or to explain.
The first two chapters of Matthew were included in the gentile christians
version of the book but not in the Jewish christian version.
They give all sorts of problems.
I presume (as I do not care one way or another) this is another one of
those problematic verses in the first two chapters?

As I do not have to force anything to fit, or to explain, I just shrug and
say "there is a problem."

[Zev]

On Oct 27, 11:07 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"

There were several isolated Jewish communities at the time.
Difficult to believe that:
1) They all conspired to change a sacred text
where people didn't even know what a Christian was.
2) They left no trace of their conspiracy.
3)They maliciously changed it to almah
(which could be expected to be virgin)
instead of "Ishah" (= woman).

[Zev]

On Oct 27, 11:28 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:19:26 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 9:41 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:44:43 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:
> >>> On Oct 26, 6:22 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> So every question would first be spent catering to who you feel is an
> authority, then us have to study what they say to see if we can argue a
> point. Pretty slick on your part, if you can get away with it. But I won't
> play that game, nor will I accept you saying I am backing out with sour
> grapes. I have full confidence in whom I believe.

We agree about OT authority, we never argued about that.
We were analyzing the OT text, when you said, effectively,
"Matthew is right, no matter what you say".

That's abandoning the argument and excusing it
by saying you're not interested in arguing.

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 28, 2:00 am, Mordecai <"mldavis(please dont

spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote:
> Pete wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 08:45:59 +1030, Mordecai wrote:
>

The virgin birth was fulfillment of prophesy, but the virgin birth was
not a sign visible to all; the resurrection after three days in the
tomb was the sign.

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 27, 10:52 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 08:45:59 +1030, Mordecai wrote:

> The sign Jesus Christ spoke of was given to that generation and to Israel
> at that time, it is also evident prophetic truth to all who believed on
> Him.

The virgin birth was fulfillment of prophesy, but the virgin birth was
not a sign visible to all; the resurrection after three days in the
tomb was the sign.

> However Jim would handle that I do not know. So your best guess may be
> accurate.
>

> > let me explain how you deal with things like this.
> > You will ignore the question.
> > You will not answer.
> > Tomorrow it will be forgotten and be as thought it was never asked.
> > And all will revert to the way it was before.
>
> --

[vince garcia]

Justin martyr wrote that the jews of his time WERE conspiring to alter
some passages of scripture to dillute the Christian message

[vince garcia]

And supposedly, in the Hasmonean period, three different torah scrolls
were found in the temple, from which they mdae a master scroll.

Today, the samaritan pentateuch is a bit different from the normal
jewish one.

So to say that at all times the jews would never have different readings
of certain passages because they would never "alter" the scriptures
seems unlikely

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Duh! We are talking about Greek translations,
the before Christ translation the Septuagint
has the Greek word for virgin, the A.D. one,
by the proselyte, Aquila has young woman.
My source if you had looked was
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations
Zev your scholarship is usually better, as for Mordecai,
he appears to just like to kevetch,which I also like to do.

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 28, 2:42 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 11:07 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that
> > called "The Septuagint"
>
> >  (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars.
>
> > it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith. A revision
> > in the sense of the canonical Jewish text was necessary. This revision
> > was made by a proselyte, Aquila, who lived during the reign of Hadrian
> > (117-138).
>
> >http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations
>
> > Gee, I wonder why the translation before Christ has virgin and the
> > one 100 years after Christ has young woman?
> > I guess the Jews before were biased towards Christianity<grin>?
>
> There were several isolated Jewish communities at the time.
> Difficult to believe that:
> 1) They all conspired to change a sacred text
> where people didn't even know what a Christian was.

It may be difficult for you to believe, but the Jewish Encyclopedia
says the Septuagint became unacceptable to Jews because it was
accepted "as Sacred Scripture by the new faith" i.e. Christianity. The
other thing that made it unacceptable was that it didn't agree with
the later Masoretic text. Now what does that tell you?


From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"Two things, however, rendered the Septuagint unwelcome in the long
run to the Jews. Its divergence from the accepted text (afterward
called the Masoretic) was too evident; and it therefore could not
serve as a basis for theological discussion or for homiletic
interpretation. This distrust was accentuated by the fact that it had
been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith." -
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations

[Mordecai]

As a witness, I require more than his unsubstantiated word. He has
examples? He has another witness?
He can find examples?

No?
Does he has an agenda which causes this to be what he desires - for example
"defending the christian bible?"

Hmm ...
You have to do much more than this.

[Zev]

On Oct 28, 1:57 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> And supposedly, in the Hasmonean period, three different torah scrolls
> were found in the temple, from which they mdae a master scroll.
>
> Today, the samaritan pentateuch is a bit different from the normal
> jewish one.

The Samaritans themselves were different from normal Jews.

> So to say that at all times the jews would never have different readings
> of certain passages because they would never "alter" the scriptures
> seems unlikely

After the issue came up, it would have been noticed
and it would have created a scandal.
It's not like a typographical mistake.

[Mordecai]

Pete wrote:

> That is exactly what I was writing about. You may have seen it in my next
> reply.

Do you know the difference between a sign and a prophesy?
Both are future events.
One is given which you will see in order that you believe the other which
was to occur later.
It is a check to see if the prophet spoke truth.

If G_d himself is going to give a sign, then I BELIEVE him when he stated
that it is a sign.
If it is a sign, it is NOT a prophesy.

If you want JC as a sign ... then it needs to be examined as a sign, not as
a prophesy.

Ergo, I could say "I will give you a sign - next weeks lotto numbers will
be ..." and we look to see if the numbers line up.
This is a sign.
It is observed, examined, and checked.
And you say "he correctly predicted what is impossible for a man to predict
- therefore it is of G_d."
And thus you might trust me on other utterances ...

[Mordecai]

Three issues.
1) A change to the scriptures creates a footprint ... before and after.
There is a difference and the difference is noted and can be pointed to.

2) A "conspiracy to change" creates a secondary, and different footprint as
you have to order or convince others to do changes. Ergo Rabbi Fred Nerk of
"the ones in charge" have to tell Rabbi Joe Nerk to change the words - and
convince him to do so.

3) The cost of a scroll is so high that most communities could not afford
to change the scroll. the entire scroll has to be rewritten. Changes are
not permitted on a scroll.

In this case, there is no evidence of change, nor evidence of a conspiracy
to change, nor evidence of the rewriting of the scrolls world wide.

[duke]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:28:36 -0700, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:19:26 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:
>
>> On Oct 27, 9:41 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:44:43 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:

>>>> On Oct 26, 6:22 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:15:43 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 26, 10:34 am, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> No wonder you're begining to talk about *other* signs.
>>>
>>>>> The other signs were unrelated to this, so why knock them until you study
>>>>> all of them?
>>>
>>>> I'm knocking only your inabilty to defend the claim you made.
>>>
>>> OK, Although I stipulated a few times here the meaning and usage of the
>>> word, I agree with you in that it requires the Faith of God to believe it.
>>>
>>>>> When one reads the verse in Isaiah it starts off, "Therefore the Lord
>>>>> himself shall give you a sign;" Does your common sense tell you that God is
>>>>> going to tell you that a lass is going to have a baby called Immanuel? How
>>>>> many "lasses" have had a baby boy called Immanuel has there been over the
>>>>> eons? and why would all those be a sign? Are you laughing at God? Does He
>>>>> make boo boo's?
>>>
>>>> See Ed Form's take on this.
>>>> It's in a recent post in this thread.
>>>
>>> I have responded several times. When one looks at the greater picture there
>>> is far less reason to believe Judaism then Christianty do to the
>>> reliability of documents.
>>
>> Strangely enough, you didn't use this argument.
>>
>
>Because I wouldn't accept it as a valid argument. You see, I believe the
>entire Bible is THE word of God. I know that all that is in it is true, by
>both faith and reality.

You may believe that, but it's not. The bible says everything is valid for
teaching, but it doesn't say that every word is literal truth.

If you desire to really understand the word of God, you must be ready to read it
for the big picture, not every tiny detail, some of which is really accurate,
and a whole lot of it is parable and the like.


The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************

[vince garcia]

It WAS noticed by justin martyr as noted. And let me ask why the jewish
sages who wrote the septuagint placed in it "different" renderings,
seeing as Jews are so fanatic about accuracy?

[vince garcia]

lol==no i don't. You know I won't play your game of "prove it to MY
satisfaction"

[Zev]

On Oct 28, 5:14 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Zev wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 11:28 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> What would be your point in discussing the OT if you could provided you
> could write a breif sysnopis. And what outcome would you seek?

Mostly I'm interested in correcting mistaken usage of OT text
to indicate ideas which the Patriarchs and prophets
would have scoffed at.
I rarely initiate threads.

[Zev]

On Oct 27, 11:07 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that
> called "The Septuagint"
>
>  (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars.
>
> it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith. A revision
> in the sense of the canonical Jewish text was necessary. This revision
> was made by a proselyte, Aquila, who lived during the reign of Hadrian
> (117-138).
>
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations

Interesting, but I have no way of judging it.
And you still have to explain how the conspiracy succeeded.
And how a book used by unlearned Jews and non-Jews
was kept more diligently than a book used by learned Jews,
who presumably considered it as the original,
to be used as a standard and a source for translations.

[vince garcia]

Zev wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 11:07 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that
> > called "The Septuagint"
> >
> > (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars.
> >
> > it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith. A revision
> > in the sense of the canonical Jewish text was necessary. This revision
> > was made by a proselyte, Aquila, who lived during the reign of Hadrian
> > (117-138).
> >
> > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations
>
> Interesting, but I have no way of judging it.
> And you still have to explain how the conspiracy succeeded.

Was there a "conspiracy" with the DSS which are quite different from the
Masoretic in some passages?

[Zev]

Vince, you don't read the LXX, wherever you read about this,
you saw the answer.
But would they do it to the original Hebrew?