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.
That's obvious. Richard does.
And if a Jew thinks they understand the OT ...I, for one, will not be the one to debate it.
Knock yourself out, do what you will, but you won't find me doing it...and that's what I said...
"That's just me."
It's their Book, I'm not going to be disputing what they believe.
Call it Southern Hospitality if you want.
My place would be learning about their beliefs from them...asking them questions.
Btw, we don’t call it “The Old Testament”, we fall it the Tanakh, wich stands for the three sections of our book, the Torah (Sayings, Law), Nevi’im (Prophets) and K’tuvi’im (Writings)...
This is like reading about Hindus from an author that is not Hindu, why not talk to the himself?...
If you ever get an interest to do so, you can compare the Hebrew Tanakh against the Christian Old Testament and see what I mean...There are specific passages that were altered to conform with the New Testament and certain verses that are in the Tanakh that are not in the Christian Old Testament and certain things that are in the Christian Old Testament that are not in the Tanakh...Then you might ask yourself, why the differences, what’s going on...
You seem to think that all Jews have the same beliefs about the Hebrew Scriptures. They don't. But this is off topic.
Really?...What beliefs are different?...We have Orthodox, Conservative and Reform and add to that the Reconstuctionists, it all doesn’t have to do with different beliefs, but different levels of observance...
It is a held by virtually all scholars that the early church fathers had only the Greek Gospel of Matthew. Hence, all statements made by the church fathers about the prominence and widespread use of the Gospels always refer to the Greek Gospel of Matthew.
There were references to the existence of a Hebrew Matthew, but no church father actually possessed it and used it. Only Origen and later Jerome even understood Hebrew and could have used it. Jerome is the only one who said he had seen it and even translated it, but he later changed his statements about it.
This lack of possession of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is a commonly accepted position among Biblical scholars based on the following historical literary evidence:
1. No early church father quotes from a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew or claims to have seen or used it.
When the early church fathers quote from the gospel of Matthew, it is always from the Greek Gospel of Matthew. When the early church fathers compare gospel passages from each of the gospels, it is always using the Greek text of Matthew. No reference is ever made to what a Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew actually said. Augustine mentions the possibility that there might have been a Hebrew text, but he implies that he did not have it and he had never seen it.
You seem to think that all Jews have the same beliefs about the Hebrew Scriptures. They don't. But this is off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Really?...What beliefs are different?...We have Orthodox, Conservative and Reform and add to that the Reconstuctionists, it all doesn’t have to do with different beliefs, but different levels of observance...
I was referring to matters of interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures. An obvious example is that through out the centuries Jewish rabbis have had different opinions concerning whether the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 referred to Israel or to the Messiah, whoever they thought the Messiah might be.
Jewish rabbis have always argued over matters of interpretation. The Talmud is a collection of arguments.
Therefore, the idea that a Jew automatically understands the Hebrew scriptures just because he is a Jew is ridiculous. And that's as for as I'm going to go with this because it's not the topic of the thread.
Last edited by Michael Way; 05-13-2019 at 08:25 AM..
Ellen G. White was the modern day prophetess of the Seventh Day Adventist and they came up with the doctrine of Jesus being the arch angel Michael. Charles Taze Russell was an adventist before he organized the Jehovah's Witnesses a little bit later. He took that bit of doctrine.
That whole post was fascinating...so much I never knew.
Thanks...for your time to explain some things.
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.
