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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Ezekiel 30:10-11
30:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also make the multitude of Egypt to cease by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon.
30:11 He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, shall be brought to destroy the land: and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.
Spoiler
Nope, none of this happened. Ever
Isiah 19:1-8
19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
19:2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
19:3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.
19:4 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.
19:5 And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.
19:6 And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defence shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither.
19:7 The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no more.
19:8 The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish.
Just out of curiosity does it matter at all to you guys that in Psalm 22, the original text reads "a pack of evil ones close in on me, like lions they maul my hands and feet"not "they pierce my hands and feet" which was just interpolated centuries later to make it sound more crucifixion-ish?
Not to mention the original word in the Hebrew text is "woman", not "virgin" -- that "virgin" was added later, again to make it more in alignment with the various man-god myths Christianity was competing against like Hercules, Dionysius, Horus, and Krishna who were also born of virgins according to the legends centuries before Jesus?
The simple truth is that not one verse in the Old Testament fits a prophecy of Jesus, except by the wildest and most awkward of contortions to the verses in order to "shoehorn" them into Jesus' life. For example the whole 30 pieces of silver thing,
Quote:
Matthew's description of the death as fulfilment of a prophecy "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" has caused difficulties, since it does not clearly correspond to any known version of the Book of Jeremiah but does appear to refer to a story from the Book of Zechariah which describes the return of a payment of thirty pieces of silver. Even writers such as Jerome and John Calvin concluded that this was obviously an error. Wikipedia
Even Jewish Rabbis who are still awaiting the Messiah will tell you flat out that none of the Old Testament verses are predictive of a future Messiah.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 08-13-2014 at 05:22 PM..
1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
Just out of curiosity does it matter at all to you guys that in Psalm 22, the original text reads "a pack of evil ones close in on me, like lions they maul my hands and feet"not "they pierce my hands and feet" which was just interpolated centuries later to make it sound more crucifixion-ish?
Not to mention the original word in the Hebrew text is "woman", not "virgin" -- that "virgin" was added later, again to make it more in alignment with the various man-god myths Christianity was competing against like Hercules, Dionysius, Horus, and Krishna who were also born of virgins according to the legends centuries before Jesus?
The simple truth is that not one verse in the Old Testament fits a prophecy of Jesus, except by the wildest and most awkward of contortions to the verses in order to "shoehorn" them into Jesus' life. For example the whole 30 pieces of silver thing,
Quote:
Matthew's description of the death as fulfilment of a prophecy "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" has caused difficulties, since it does not clearly correspond to any known version of the Book of Jeremiah but does appear to refer to a story from the Book of Zechariah which describes the return of a payment of thirty pieces of silver. Even writers such as Jerome and John Calvin concluded that this was obviously an error. Wikipedia
Even Jewish Rabbis who are still awaiting the Messiah will tell you flat out that none of the Old Testament verses are predictive of a future Messiah.
This is some good stuff- funny! It's so obvious who can deny it.
...
Oh okay. I'll play.
Zechariah 9:9 "Behold thy King will come to thee, the just and savior: he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass".
Matthew 21:1-11 "The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them."
Zechariah 9:9 "Behold thy King will come to thee, the just and savior: he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass".
Matthew 21:1-11 "The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them."
Did Jesus have a wide stance or what?
He might have had a wide ass?
(ba-dum, dum swish)
Yes, Matthew had a heck of a time adjusting that one to fit. And I mean the "prophecy". The problem was that whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew should have been better familiarized with Biblical Hebrew Poetry and Parallelism - or better, the translators of the Greek Septuagint should have been. The author of Matthew must have been relying on a Greek text, and not a Hebrew one.
Poetic Parallelism in BH is when two different terms are used in parallel to mean the same thing. I will highlight examples of this below. "is coming to you" and "is victorious, triumphant" is debatable, but I will highlight it. Technically, the verbs in the first verset are parallel, but I did not highlight them due to convenience.
The Hebrew Masoretic Text (the Dead Sea Scrolls unfortunately cut off a few lines before this passage):
Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion;
Raise a shout, Fair Jerusalem!
Lo, your king is coming to you.
He is victorious, triumphant,
Yet humble, riding on an ass,
On a donkey foaled by a she-ass.
(NJPS)
Throb with abandon, fair Zion!
Let out a shout, fair Jerusalem!
Behold your king.
He will come to you:
He is just and victorious;
Lowly, mounted on an ass, On a donkey, a foal of she-asses.
(Hobbins, OIZ)
The Septuagint missed the parallelism of the donkey and paraphrased some information concerning "salvation" into the passage, as well:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Sion!
Proclaim, O daughter Jerusalem!
Behold, your king comes to you,
just and salvific is he,
meek and riding on a beast of burden
and a young foal.
(NETS)
You can see where the LXX turned the parallelism of the single donkey and turned it into two, as well as adding the detail that the male donkey was a young one. Nowhere in the Hebrew do any of the words say anything of its age. One could argue over whether the MT or LXX has the more original text, but I won't.
It is no wonder, then, that the author of the Gospel of Matthew had his hands full when trying to adapt this oracle using a Greek text. He no longer had one donkey to deal with, but two - and one of them a young colt.
Just out of curiosity does it matter at all to you guys that in Psalm 22, the original text reads "a pack of evil ones close in on me, like lions they maul my hands and feet"not "they pierce my hands and feet" which was just interpolated centuries later to make it sound more crucifixion-ish?
Even if the text really means maul, there are numerous other details in the whole chapter which happened at the crucifixion even describing the reactions and words of the crowd, Roman soldiers gambling for his clothes and that his body would dry out so much that his tongue would stick to his jaw. This happens during crucifixion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Not to mention the original word in the Hebrew text is "woman", not "virgin" -- that "virgin" was added later, again to make it more in alignment with the various man-god myths Christianity was competing against like Hercules, Dionysius, Horus, and Krishna who were also born of virgins according to the legends centuries before Jesus?
The simple truth is that not one verse in the Old Testament fits a prophecy of Jesus, except by the wildest and most awkward of contortions to the verses in order to "shoehorn" them into Jesus' life. For example the whole 30 pieces of silver thing,
Yet you don't present anything to back up these claims. The Hebrew word is almah which was translated into the Greek word parthenos. Parthenos means virgin. Why would they translate to parthenos if definition was "woman"?
Even if the text really means maul, there are numerous other details in the whole chapter which happened at the crucifixion even describing the reactions and words of the crowd, Roman soldiers gambling for his clothes and that his body would dry out so much that his tongue would stick to his jaw. This happens during crucifixion.
I will put out here that the Hebrew probably means "pierce", but that the reading of "maul" seems to stem from Rashi in the Middle Ages. The issue is still debated, but Rashi is not always the best source for some philological information. I personally think that the verb is "pierce".
It doesn't really matter anyways, especially if one reads the entire Psalm in its full context. Unless one is willing to include all the other details of David's lament and apply them as a prophecy of Christ, then picking a verse here or there from the Psalm is a case of cherry-picking. While SOME details may match (or rather, were added in the Gospel accounts, more likely) - the majority of details from the Psalm do NOT match. It's pretty easy to take a Psalm, and then insert words from that Psalm on Jesus' lips - when writing hundreds of years later. That doesn't mean prophecy - that means tailoring one's account to fit what one perceives as a prophecy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Yet you don't present anything to back up these claims. The Hebrew word is almah which was translated into the Greek word parthenos. Parthenos means virgin. Why would they translate to parthenos if definition was "woman"?
The information concerning the erroneous translation of Biblical Hebrew almah (young woman) by Greek parthenos (virgin) by numerous resources online stemming from many years of scholarly research by scholars well-versed in the language, and by consulting any competent dictionary of Biblical Hebrew or Greek should not have to be explained in much detail.
From my previous post of how the Greek translators approached the Hebrew text, it should be clear that they often paraphrased or misunderstood certain aspects of Biblical Hebrew. The same is clear from the current instance. Why did the Greek translators not choose a direct translational equivalent to "young woman" and instead chose "virgin"? Why did they replace the Divine Name "Yahweh" with the generic term "Lord"? Why did they translate "gods" as "angels"? Why did they do a number of things? Many years of Judaism proceeded the Septuagint, and influenced the translators for various theological and religious reasons.
Regardless, if Matthew had not relied on the Greek text, but instead on the more original and accurate Hebrew text - we never would have this problem, just as we never would have the awkward "two donkeys" problem.
Even if the text really means maul, there are numerous other details in the whole chapter which happened at the crucifixion even describing the reactions and words of the crowd, Roman soldiers gambling for his clothes and that his body would dry out so much that his tongue would stick to his jaw. This happens during crucifixion.
Yet you don't present anything to back up these claims. The Hebrew word is almah which was translated into the Greek word parthenos. Parthenos means virgin. Why would they translate to parthenos if definition was "woman"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I will put out here that the Hebrew probably means "pierce", but that the reading of "maul" seems to stem from Rashi in the Middle Ages. The issue is still debated, but Rashi is not always the best source for some philological information. I personally think that the verb is "pierce".
It doesn't really matter anyways, especially if one reads the entire Psalm in its full context. Unless one is willing to include all the other details of David's lament and apply them as a prophecy of Christ, then picking a verse here or there from the Psalm is a case of cherry-picking. While SOME details may match (or rather, were added in the Gospel accounts, more likely) - the majority of details from the Psalm do NOT match. It's pretty easy to take a Psalm, and then insert words from that Psalm on Jesus' lips - when writing hundreds of years later. That doesn't mean prophecy - that means tailoring one's account to fit what one perceives as a prophecy.
The information concerning the erroneous translation of Biblical Hebrew almah (young woman) by Greek parthenos (virgin) by numerous resources online stemming from many years of scholarly research by scholars well-versed in the language, and by consulting any competent dictionary of Biblical Hebrew or Greek should not have to be explained in much detail.
From my previous post of how the Greek translators approached the Hebrew text, it should be clear that they often paraphrased or misunderstood certain aspects of Biblical Hebrew. The same is clear from the current instance. Why did the Greek translators not choose a direct translational equivalent to "young woman" and instead chose "virgin"? Why did they replace the Divine Name "Yahweh" with the generic term "Lord"? Why did they translate "gods" as "angels"? Why did they do a number of things? Many years of Judaism proceeded the Septuagint, and influenced the translators for various theological and religious reasons.
Regardless, if Matthew had not relied on the Greek text, but instead on the more original and accurate Hebrew text - we never would have this problem, just as we never would have the awkward "two donkeys" problem.
You point out the central flaw in construction of the Jesus legend. Completely outside the wholly-biased New Testament writings, what we know of Jesus is zero, zilch because no historian, no secular writer wrote a word about him. A man who could raise hundreds of dead bodies at his crucifixion--bodies who then went around and appeared and presumably talked to thousands of people in Jerusalem--that alone would have made headlines all over the Mediterranean, yet it is not mentioned once until 60 years later when Matthew decides to start pumping up the "Jesus-as-savior/god-becomes-man" myth to compete with the other god/savior myths in competition with Jesus, such as Horus, Hercules, Dionysius, Krishna, Buddha and others.
This is a which came first, the chicken or the egg issue. Did the Old Testament writers write prophecies specifically tailored o Jesus OR did the gospels writers dig through Old Testament writings trying to find anything that could, in the wildest twisting and contortion and out-of-context application of a few words out of the Old Testament, be shoehorned into the gospel texts to get people to believe that Jesus was this god-becomes-man?
The answer will depend on which side of fence you stand. If you're a dye-in-the-wool staunch fundamentalist who will not open his ears to any evidence that threatens your faith then you'll go with the former.
But if you're open to possibilities that it might be the latter then there is a mountain of evidence showing that the gospel writers did indeed lift 300 or so passages that they thought they could twist and contort and interpret out of context to fit Jesus, when in fact NONE of the Old Testament scriptures refer to Jesus or a future god/man savior with the possible exception of Daniel 9:25 (and there are mystery faith influences Daniel fell under that explain his use of the word "messiah").
Quote:
the writers of the New Testament books often twisted verses from the Old Testament that had nothing to do with messianic prophecies to try to make them fit into Jesus’ story. It was as though the Gospel advocates of the New Testament were desperate to look for anything in the Old Testament to try to fit their concept of Jesus as the messiah into it. In effect, it was a sort of “forced sequel.” Anyone who merely looks at the alleged Old Testament prophecies can see this. It’s quite obvious.
Just out of curiosity does it matter at all to you guys that in Psalm 22, the original text reads "a pack of evil ones close in on me, like lions they maul my hands and feet"not "they pierce my hands and feet" which was just interpolated centuries later to make it sound more crucifixion-ish?
What text are you quoting from?
Quote:
Not to mention the original word in the Hebrew text is "woman", not "virgin" -- that "virgin" was added later, again to make it more in alignment with the various man-god myths Christianity was competing against like Hercules, Dionysius, Horus, and Krishna who were also born of virgins according to the legends centuries before Jesus?
Considering that the implication was that a woman of the age would be a virgin, the point is made. Besides that fact, Luke was a physician..he certainly understood what a virgin was, and he wrote it as such in his Gospel.
Quote:
The simple truth is that not one verse in the Old Testament fits a prophecy of Jesus, except by the wildest and most awkward of contortions to the verses in order to "shoehorn" them into Jesus' life. For example the whole 30 pieces of silver thing,
Even Jewish Rabbis who are still awaiting the Messiah will tell you flat out that none of the Old Testament verses are predictive of a future Messiah.
There are many verses in the OT that fit Jesus -- if you're willing to consider them. I highly doubt that you'd be willing to believe them even if an angel appeared from God.
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.
... 
