Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, but I don't think the purpose of this thread was for arguing that one should deny the veracity of the New Testament off hand. It was about a good book she was recommending, actually. So if we can't trust anything that is of Christian origin, surely no one has the right to trust anything of Jewish origin. Every word must be backed by non-Jewish sources. Therefore, we're both smacked by your own logic.
Jews don't try to convince anybody of their beliefs. We discourage converts. We don't have a forum where a subsection of which is for the express purpose of Jews learning how to better mission to other religions.
If you want to make statements about me needing to believe Jesus, upon my eternal soul, you are going to need better than "Hey, Jesus' followers said so!". For me to have my believes, I simply need to believe.
One does not need to have a missionary ethic to have a logically built belief system.
If you'd like to find fault with me because I'm willing to admit that there is no evidence for Abraham outside of the Torah, be my guest.
That obviously wasn't the point. Obviously you believe the Torah and give to it weight and value in and of itself as a historical source.
I have always understood it as the faithful. The servant of HaShem are the faithful to HaShem, not those that have fallen away. The few that have never left the path. They are the ones discussed here.Furthermore, the Servant is even given traits that could not refer to Israel. Example: "...He had done no violence. Nor was there any deceit in His mouth." (Isa 53:9) Israel had inflicted God's wrath previously due to such sins.
I do not believe Israel is the voice speaking here. I believe it is the kings of the world. Enkil will disagree with me, and that's fine, but his arguments did not sway me one bit. In other chapters we see the gentiles seeing the error of their ways and coming to the Jews. They are shocked.Also notable is Isa. 53:8 - "...He was cut off our of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due." If "he" was to be in the plural in reference to all of Israel in this situation then the verse could be paraphrased as "(Israel) was cut off of (Israel) for the transgression of (Israel)." That simply doesn't make sense, especially if Israel was just described as having committed neither of those sins previously mentioned. How could Israel atone for Israel's own sins that Israel was said to never have committed?
Either way, Hosea 11 clearly shows Israel being referred to as a singular "he". It is perfectly acceptable for Israel to be referred to as a collective entity.Also, in reference to the plural meaning of him argument, the Hebrew word is lamo which Benjamin Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon describes as being used to refer on occasion in both the singular and plural forms. It is used singularly when paired with singular nouns which happens many, many times in this chapter.
I've heard the Christian arguments many times. The disagreement will never be settled. To be perfectly honest, I am probably one of the worst at explaining these kinds of things. As much as I enjoy debate and discussion, I'm far better at other thingsI've heard these arguments before and am familiar with both. No one I've discussed this with has been able to solidly support either claim. If you can I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!
LoAmmi, my point is this:
The NT martyrs claimed to be eyewitnesses of Christ's works. They lived, worked, and ate alongside Him. Therefore, they would know whether or not what He did really happened. Why would they put their lives on the line if they KNEW it was false? They would surely know if it were.
That's my point.
Which martyrs? How did they die? Who killed them?
You need to provide details before I am going to agree.
People die for things all the time. People die in cults following their leader. Does that make the cult correct? I mean, they would be a direct witness. Would they be willing to die for something they know is false?
How do you know they wrote the Gospels? Why are those names attached to those documents? What proof do you have that the Gospels were not written far later by people who were never there?Yes, people do, but these people wrote the epistles and gospels. Why would they write something they knew was false and then risk their lives defending the false things they wrote?
Martyr examples:
James the Apostle was at the command of Herod with a sword. (Acts 12:2)
Stephen was stoned to death by a mob while evangelizing. (Ironically, the man leading the mob was Saul, who would become known as the Apostle Paul. He would eventually risk his own life for his faith in prison.)
Others including Silas also risked their lives for their beliefs.
How do you know they wrote the Gospels? Why are those names attached to those documents? What proof do you have that the Gospels were not written far later by people who were never there?
Why should I believe these events occurred?
Irrelevant when we are discussing this. My belief or lack of believe in events of the Tanakh has nothing to do with my belief or not in events in the New Testament. I am not trying to prove events from the Tanakh, you are trying to prove events from the New Testament. The onus is on you.Why do you believe the events mentioned in your religion occurred?
Such as?There is even extra-Biblical evidence of these events NT events occurring which doesn't exist in as large an amount for the OT stories you believe.
As best I've seen, around 70CE is when the Gospels get dated. Maybe a bit before, but certainly nowhere near 35-50. Acts around the same time. Paul's letters are the earliest parts and while it looks like he's having a rough go of it, he isn't talking about a lot of the events you are describing.Also, for the "written far later" part...carbon dating/science/academic and scholarly review of the texts.
I don't think Stephen ever met Christ in the flesh.
I posted a link to this book on the other thread I started, but realized it might be good to share separately.
The book is called "Discovering God" by Dennis McCallum. (http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Go...8145031&sr=8-4) If you are seeking solid proof for Christianity, this book offers insight into Biblical claims and Old Testament prophecies with great support.
One example mentioned is in the Old Testament prophecies recorded in chapter 53 of the book of Isaiah. In this chapter, a highly detailed description is given of Christ that was recorded approximately 500 years before Jesus' birth. (Carbon dating of the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been performed at least four times dating it alone as being from approximately 335-107 BC, although the original manuscript was, as mentioned, likely written much earlier based on textual descriptions of events.) This description of Christ describes many things that could not have been purposefully duplicated by any individual. Other old testament prophecies, including those in Daniel, even calculate the date of His birth, something definitely beyond any human's control.
Anyway, McCallum's book goes heavy into these prophecies and other common questions about Christianity in greater detail. It's only $3.99 new on Amazon and is a very short read. (The older edition I have is less than 200pgs.)
I'd suggest going into the reading with an open mind, however, which I think most of you must have to be on a Christian forum, engaged in *generally* civilized debate.
Not only that, but we only have the death of one Apostle in the text. Even taking the text at face value, there is no basis for saying that all of them died for their beliefs. Do we even have a clear record of what all of them ended up doing?
Could you point out to me where the Servant is mentioned as being Israel? I just reread all of chapter 53 and nowhere in there is Israel ever mentioned by name or by association. I've heard that argument before and every reference I've been given is outside the realm of the passage and could be clearly ascribed as not pertaining to the "him" described in the passage.
Then the context is Deutero-Isaiah, not Isaiah.
"All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Israel."
...So, that would mean... "...but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on...us?"
That doesn't make sense. The servant is described as being without sin and baring sin for Israel's sake. Israel sinned. Israel is therefore not sinless and cannot bare Israel's sin.
Which ones do you know were killed for their beliefs? How many of those were direct eye witnesses?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?