If Jews Are The Chosen People Of The Christian Faith Then Why Don't Jews Believe In The Divinity Of Jesus? (worship, divorce)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the thread is too long for me to see if i posted b4.
everybody that practices self improvement hard work and sticks together is "the chosen people" the chinese are "the chosen people", the jews are "the chosen people", its calculus not hip hop and salsa.
dont put that stuff on god its not his stuff.
Don't blame you. These discussion get terribly involved. One discussion I had ended up with a two page discussion on how widely used Aramaic was and the study of 1st century Judean coins, upon which our souls, apparently depended.
It is believed that some of the translations were corrupted, and it is also believed that some tried to remove that verse from some manuscrips. However, that verse is found in the Old Latin Vulgate, and Greek Vulgate which dates to (90-150 A.D.). It is also found in the Syriac Peshilito which is dated to (150 A.D.) Some of the experts fail to mention that. I wonder why? That verse is also found in many first century church lectionaries. And the verse was also quoted by Taitian who lived from 120 to 180 A.D. Many early church fathers quoted it as well, so to suggest that it is not valid, requires one to ignore existing historical texts.
Nicely done. Is that passage in the earlier texts? Anyone? I had heard that no copy of the Bible exists that is earlier than the 3rd century.
Let me check the validated dates of the Old Latin Vulgate, Greek Vulgate and Syriac Peshilito.
Later..
Latin Vulgate. produced by Jerome 387 AD. You crafty Herbert.
greek Vulgate. I couldn't get a committed date, but I did read it was based on the Septuagint, 250 B.C.
Septuagint (LXX) - From Latin for "seventy". A Greek translation of the Jewish Bible and Apocrypha made for the growing number of Greek-speaking Jews scattered throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East area. The work started in c 250BC in Alexandria, Egypt with the translation of "The Law", traditionally made by 72 (or 70 = LXX) Jewish scholars
The name Pe****ta (which means "simple" or "clear") was first used by Moses bar Kepha (d. 903), perhaps to distinguish it from the more complex Syrohexapla, translated ca. 616 from Origen's revised Septuagint. Written before Syrian Christians divided into two communities in 431 and this version therefore was accepted by both the Jacobites (Monophysites) and the Nestorians.
The Old Testament portion was probably created a different times spanning the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. Some of it was translated by Jews working from mostly the Hebrew sometimes consulting the LXX. Except for Sirach, the books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek.
The New Testament section was translated near the end of the 4th century or in the 5th century.
I can only suppose it was translated from the earlier New testaments, and that seems to be Jerome's 4th century. That itself is later than the 3rd Bible issued by Eusebius to make sure everyone preached from a Bible reflecting the decisions made at the council of Nikea.
Right. Well, for now I'll just butter you up a bit for taking the trouble to argue the matter out with me in a fairly amicable way. I appreciate it.
Then I'll say that you are obviously convinced of prophecies of everything from Ezekiel to revelations coming true right now. I'm interested enough to look at each and everyone of these, but right away I can say that the post of the 2,000,000 horsemen that was so kindly posted by Justme above doesn't look a bit like the Red army and still seems to be set in the future which rather makes the reference to the Chinese having a 2 million army back at the founding of the state of Israel a bit vague. And the kings of he east is, I suppose, symbolic. Not even Nepal has a king, now.
The reference to the Ataturk dam with some idea of the Red army marching through Iraq seems speculative in the extreme.
So it's all a bit like finding Bible codes or hidden messages in Shakepeare or accurate horoscopes in 'your stars'. If it vague enough it fits. If you can take references from here or there in the Bible, take the horses and kings as symbolic of presidents and tanks and assign them to anything that fits (more or less) in the last 100 years, you have prophecy.
I'm only saying this to explain why I am not in the least bit persuaded. I expect you will say I'm refusing to see what's in front of me, but I think I'd be daft to take any of that stuff as more that faith -based speculation.
As I say, I'll look at some of those others: "according to the prophecies of the Bible, when the Jews would return from their worldwide exile, they would (first) take back the southern part of Israel which they did in (1948). The Bible then tells us, that (secondly) the Jews would retake Jerusalem, which they did in (1967)". (Bible references? - you should really support your claims) especially as I may need to deal with them again and I should look to see how accurately the Bible text and history fits what you claim.
It's best to read the entire chapter but Zechariah 12 verse 7 speaks of God saving Juda (first) which is southern Israel, and naturally, Jerusalem would be saved second. The chapter speaks of how God is going to use Jerusalem to pretty much upset the nations of the world. It also points out in this day when God saves the People of Israel, He will reveal to them who He is.
They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great,
It's best to read the entire chapter but Zechariah 12 verse 7 speaks of God saving Juda (first) which is southern Israel, and naturally, Jerusalem would be saved second. The chapter speaks of how God is going to use Jerusalem to pretty much upset the nations of the world. It also points out in this day when God saves the People of Israel, He will reveal to them who He is.
They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great,
Ok, I have to close down now but I'll look at that, though I note the last passage has already been fulfilled, supposedly. Or do you think that a single prophecy can relate to more than one event? That is one I'd never come across before.
Ok, I have to close down now but I'll look at that, though I note the last passage has already been fulfilled, supposedly. Or do you think that a single prophecy can relate to more than one event? That is one I'd never come across before.
The last prophecy has never been fulfilled, because it occurs only after (all) the nations of the earth are gathered against Israel and Jerusalem. And the prophecy states that the Jews of this time will be (IMMOVABLE). Such a thing has never occured. And there was never a time in ancient history, when the Jews return to (Juda first), and then to Jerusalem. This prophecy could only be fulfilled in the future. Because only in our time did the Jews first return to southern Israel, and then Jerusalem. Also, there was never a time where Israel saw the God they pierced , and then went into a time of deep national mourning. This event, is yet to come.
The last prophecy has never been fulfilled, because it occurs only after (all) the nations of the earth are gathered against Israel and Jerusalem. And the prophecy states that the Jews of this time will be (IMMOVABLE). Such a thing has never occured. And there was never a time in ancient history, when the Jews return to (Juda first), and then to Jerusalem. This prophecy could only be fulfilled in the future. Because only in our time did the Jews first return to southern Israel, and then Jerusalem. Also, there was never a time where Israel saw the God they pierced , and then went into a time of deep national mourning. This event, is yet to come.
Yes, is all about foreign attacks on Judea and the one they have pierced is either God or Judea. I don't think it's the king, but the king might be 'him' as the firstborn. "They shall look on me (god/Judea) and mourn for him (the king, defeated or killed?). Some more Judean history to check on.
Needless to say, I think it related to Judean history at the time. They had plenty of nations 'coming against them' and I see no need to look to our future in connection with any of that.
Zech. 12-1-14. The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. 8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble F40 among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. 11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. 12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; 13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei F41 apart, and their wives apart; 14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
But I agree that
John 19:37 "And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced." is missapplied to the crucifixion, though I can see why John thought it fitted quite well. In fact, why don't you think it fits? It seems to match a crucifixion better than current affars.
P.s
Cambell34 you earlier posted
Quote:
And according to the prophecies of the Bible, when the Jews would return from their worldwide exile, they would (first) take back the southern part of Israel which they did in (1948). The Bible then tells us, that (secondly) the Jews would retake Jerusalem, which they did in (1967).
and you say it is prophecied here:
"Zechariah 12 verse 7 speaks of God saving Juda (first) which is southern Israel, and naturally, Jerusalem would be saved second."
That looks as though you are 'deducing' the 'saving' of Jerusalem, so I have to check that against the prophecy.
As I recall Jerusalem was the capital of Judah (Judea) though I suppose one could save Judea and save the captal last of all. However, it is clear that you are saying that, although presumably the 2 million strong Red army will drive their tanks across the Ataturk dam at some time in the future, according to revelations, the predictions about God saving Judea has already happened in 1948 and 1967. Is that correct? I want to be sure just how you apply these prophecies before I go checking in the wrong place.
Have the Zecharia proficies already been fulfilled or are they going to happen? I'm asking because you said:
" Zechariah 12 verse 7 speaks of God saving Juda (first) which is southern Israel, and naturally, Jerusalem would be saved second. The chapter speaks of how God is going to use Jerusalem to pretty much upset the nations of the world. It also points out in this day when God saves the People of Israel, He will reveal to them who He is."
and you went on "They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great"
and you later posted, "The last prophecy has never been fulfilled, because it occurs only after (all) the nations of the earth are gathered against Israel and Jerusalem. And the prophecy states that the Jews of this time will be (IMMOVABLE)."
I'm not trying to make you look contradictory, but I'm giving you the chance to say whether you see Zechariah as having been fulfulled, not yet fulfulled or is an ongoing process?
Oh yes, you said it was Judah first and Jerusalem second as per "Zech. 12-1-14. The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah."
which you see as "take back the southern part of Israel which they did in (1948). The Bible then tells us, that (secondly) the Jews would retake Jerusalem, which they did in (1967)"
That puzzles me, as why would God be worried about the capital of Judea 'magnifying itself' against 'the tents of Judah'? In any case I can't see how the Zionists would have taken Jerusalem secondly just to ensure that it couldn't 'magnify' itself over the rest of Judea.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-06-2009 at 02:18 AM..
Reason: a p.s
Jews are no better or worse than anyone else. Don't listen to that crap that they are the 'chosen people"
We (the Jews) most certainly are chosen. Chosen to take on the responsibilities laid out in the Torah. It has nothing to do with being "superior". That is like saying that the President of the United States is superior to other Americans. Some may "think" that...but in reality, this is not the case.
I didn't read this entire thread, but aside from the obvious reasons of not accepting Jesus, I don't know why Christians cannot see that Christianity is mirrored off of paganism. That and the New Testament is very contridicting of itself. I walked away from all that when I was 14; because even back then, it made no sense to me.
Yes, is all about foreign attacks on Judea and the one they have pierced is either God or Judea. I don't think it's the king, but the king might be 'him' as the firstborn. "They shall look on me (god/Judea) and mourn for him (the king, defeated or killed?). Some more Judean history to check on.
Needless to say, I think it related to Judean history at the time. They had plenty of nations 'coming against them' and I see no need to look to our future in connection with any of that.
Zech. 12-1-14. The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. 8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble F40 among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. 11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. 12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; 13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei F41 apart, and their wives apart; 14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
But I agree that
John 19:37 "And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced." is missapplied to the crucifixion, though I can see why John thought it fitted quite well. In fact, why don't you think it fits? It seems to match a crucifixion better than current affars.
P.s
Cambell34 you earlier posted
and you say it is prophecied here:
"Zechariah 12 verse 7 speaks of God saving Juda (first) which is southern Israel, and naturally, Jerusalem would be saved second."
That looks as though you are 'deducing' the 'saving' of Jerusalem, so I have to check that against the prophecy.
As I recall Jerusalem was the capital of Judah (Judea) though I suppose one could save Judea and save the captal last of all. However, it is clear that you are saying that, although presumably the 2 million strong Red army will drive their tanks across the Ataturk dam at some time in the future, according to revelations, the predictions about God saving Judea has already happened in 1948 and 1967. Is that correct? I want to be sure just how you apply these prophecies before I go checking in the wrong place.
Have the Zecharia proficies already been fulfilled or are they going to happen? I'm asking because you said:
" Zechariah 12 verse 7 speaks of God saving Juda (first) which is southern Israel, and naturally, Jerusalem would be saved second. The chapter speaks of how God is going to use Jerusalem to pretty much upset the nations of the world. It also points out in this day when God saves the People of Israel, He will reveal to them who He is."
and you went on "They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great"
and you later posted, "The last prophecy has never been fulfilled, because it occurs only after (all) the nations of the earth are gathered against Israel and Jerusalem. And the prophecy states that the Jews of this time will be (IMMOVABLE)."
I'm not trying to make you look contradictory, but I'm giving you the chance to say whether you see Zechariah as having been fulfulled, not yet fulfulled or is an ongoing process?
Oh yes, you said it was Judah first and Jerusalem second as per "Zech. 12-1-14. The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah."
which you see as "take back the southern part of Israel which they did in (1948). The Bible then tells us, that (secondly) the Jews would retake Jerusalem, which they did in (1967)"
That puzzles me, as why would God be worried about the capital of Judea 'magnifying itself' against 'the tents of Judah'? In any case I can't see how the Zionists would have taken Jerusalem secondly just to ensure that it couldn't 'magnify' itself over the rest of Judea.
The prophecy is not worried so much about the whims of the Zionists. God reveals only what will be. And this cannot be related to Judean history, because nothing like this has ever occured in any of their past history. Jerusalem having plenty of nations coming agains them is not enought. The prophecy clearly demands (ALL) the nations of the earth. This is a prophecy for the future of Israel. The details of the prophecy are laid out so we can follow the events as they occur. And since Southern Israel was taken first, and Jerusalem second, this fulfilled verse 7. And nothing like this has ever occured in past history. And the one who was thrust through, is Jesus Christ. The Jewish people will see Him after their nation will be saved by Him. And this is the reason there will be so great mourning in the land of Israel. Because only at the very end, will the Jewish nation understand, that it was Jesus Christ who was their promised one. And it was Jesus Christ who fulfilled all the prophecies of the Old Testament. And it will be Jesus Christ, who opens Jerusalems East Gate.
I looked at the early years of the state of Israel in the light of your Zechariah prophecy claims.
I have used an Israel page and good ol' wiki, but the same is said in a number of other sources.
"In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.
This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.
...The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State...On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution...
David Ben-Gurion. THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL May 14, 1948" Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel
I think this is just a little to show how nations decided this, not prophecy.
It is not clear that it was a question of the Jews being established in the south (which would have included Jerusalem geographically) and later taking Jerusalem. The partition was more complex, (see map) United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and Jerusalem was an open city.
"The 1949 Green Line became the administrative boundary between Israel and the occupied territories. Jerusalem's boundaries were enlarged, incorporating East Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Law, passed in 1980, reaffirmed this measure and reignited international controversy over the status of Jerusalem." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
So it isn't Quite like taking over Jerusalem on a later date. It was more taking over entire Jewish control of the city, which they'd had since getting 'the south'.
So one can, with a bit of tweaking of the founding of Israel and tweaking of Zecharia, point up the near-resemblances and claim prophecy. But it's the same problem we saw with the Ezekiel doorway - thing. it looks reminiscent, and can made made to look good if you choose your wording carefully. But the harder one looks, the more diffuse and questionable it gets as a convincing prophecy.
No, sorry. I am less, not more, convinced by your Zechariah prophecies.
But I'll mention something a bit off topic. Reading about Judean history of 1,000 B.C, I was struck by how much of that history is based on the Bible. It is assumed that the prophecies are reflections of actual events, perhaps retrospectively, but in the absence of any corroborative evidence (such as we get from Assyria), isn't it possible that some, at least, were prophecies and may not have panned out? In other words, can we accept Bible history?
Probably we can, since, if a prophecy didn't happen, the Bible - writers would amend it to fit with what did happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
