Messianic Judaism

[Lulav]

I don't know what your contention is here.

All people in the known world used Greek for all forms of commerce and interaction with anyone who wasn't from their area. That doesn't mean that people didn't have their own native tongues. If a Jew grew up in some outpost of the Empire, he still earned his own native tongue based on where he grew up (like modern Jews in America grow up learning English). This doesn't mean that they didn't know the international commerce language - like people knowing English internationally today.

I made no claims about Jesus' or Matthew's literacy, but given that Matthew was supposed to have worked for the government in taxation, I'm sure that he wrote in Greek, too. I don't know if Jesus wrote Greek. I don't even know if Jesus spoke Greek. The only clear indication of his words that we have is that he spoke Aramaic. I assume that he spoke at least rudimentary Greek as well, but that's an assumption. There's no evidence for it.

What is your problem with this? It's absolutely a simple thing.

Yonah, I'm aware of the usage of the Greek as the 'lingual franca' of the ancient world. I was speaking of the need to have to resort to their 'native' tounge in Israel and not Hebrew which they all should have understood or did they all read the Septuagint in the Diaspora? I am trying to understand what you are saying, there is no 'contention' that would mean I am debating with you and since you aren't allowed that here, that would mean I am baiting you, which I am not.

Your comment to a previous post:

Originally Posted by Lulav

I'm not sure I understand that, how can you tell that it refers to an Aramaic word, yet it says it is in the 'Hebrew', why didn't they say it was in Aramaic?
​

It doesn't say "in Hebrew." It uses a Greek term, not an English term. And that Greek term means BOTH Hebrew and Aramaic. What's difficult about that?

Currently I don't have the brain of a 30 year old, nor a 40 or 50 year old for that matter, sometimes it takes a bit to grasp things as I get older. Please try and have some patience.
What I was referring to here is the translations clearly say "hebrew tongue', I was asking why wasn't it translated into the English bible as Aramaic tongue or language?

John is known to have used a stenographer. If you read the Revelation in Greek, the language is choppy and messy. It's obviously written by a non-native speaker of Greek, since anyone with a year's grammar learning can read it and point out mistake after mistake as far as syntax and agreement is concerned. The Gospel is more polished, either because John didn't write it (I can't say that for sure) or because he dictated it and someone else (his stenographer, it is stated) cleaned up and improved the language.

Yes, aware of that also. As far as the first year Greek student, I didn't get that far, I just didn't take to the language, and if I did, or anyone else here, then we wouldn't be relying on your help in such matters.

I was initially comparing were the 'Hebrew language' was mentioned. But I guess now that it should be Aramaic language, but either way, why would this be mentioned? I just think that gives a clue as to who and from where , wrote these particular writings.

Just trying to understand, not debate.

ciao

 

[Desert Rose]

ewwww.. do they bite?? or just suck on the big toe??

heeeee.....
**
Anisavta, you were such a savvy visitor to that place
most of those *baptisees* choose to buy white gown, dry it in the hotel, no washing, holy river water must stay !, an keep it to get buried in it. I kid you not.
I always thought that tour guides that deal with christians see enough ugly side of our faith to forever remain immune to any potential evangelising.

 

[Lulav]

Holy water? Isn't the Jordon polluted?

The only water I would consider in all Israel as holy water would be that flowing from the Gihon Spring.

 

[yedida]

Yonah, I'm aware of the usage of the Greek as the 'lingual franca' of the ancient world. I was speaking of the need to have to resort to their 'native' tounge in Israel and not Hebrew which they all should have understood or did they all read the Septuagint in the Diaspora? I am trying to understand what you are saying, there is no 'contention' that would mean I am debating with you and since you aren't allowed that here, that would mean I am baiting you, which I am not.

Your comment to a previous post:



Currently I don't have the brain of a 30 year old, nor a 40 or 50 year old for that matter, sometimes it takes a bit to grasp things as I get older. Please try and have some patience.
What I was referring to here is the translations clearly say "hebrew tongue', I was asking why wasn't it translated into the English bible as Aramaic tongue or language?



Yes, aware of that also. As far as the first year Greek student, I didn't get that far, I just didn't take to the language, and if I did, or anyone else here, then we wouldn't be relying on your help in such matters.

I was initially comparing were the 'Hebrew language' was mentioned. But I guess now that it should be Aramaic language, but either way, why would this be mentioned? I just think that gives a clue as to who and from where , wrote these particular writings.

Just trying to understand, not debate.

ciao

I was wondering the same thing, Lulav. Why wouldn't the English translators just simply say "which in the Aramaic means..." rather than "...in the Hebrew means..."
This is just a wild thought, but remembering that the Eng. translation didn't come till long after the fact, could it possibly be to separate Yeshua from Islam? Doesn't Aramaic, along with Arabic belong to that people group and area as a major language?
(If not, forget I said anything....just thinking out loud again )

 

[ChavaK]

You cannot base an answer to a dispute based on one single article written by an unknown author, an author that appears to have no credentials at all to back up his assertions.

When I saw what the site was, it also make me sceptical.
I would like to see a scholarly article by someone with excellent
credentials.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I can't help that these translations say "Hebrew," when it was obviously Aramaic. I didn't translate them.

 

[yedida]

When I saw what the site was, it also make me sceptical.
I would like to see a scholarly article by someone with excellent
credentials.

When I read several of the articles on the site I had an uneasy sense about it all. From past experiences, I choose to forget the website. It has little of importance to offer. That makes that particular article about the Greek language and the Jewish people of the time stamped out of the argument (at least until more can be found to back it up (hopefully with credentials)).

 

[yedida]

I can't help that these translations say "Hebrew," when it was obviously Aramaic. I didn't translate them.

We know that, Yonah.
I'm wondering what the reason might be that the English translators would go to such measures to lead their English readers to think that it was Hebrew rather than Aramaic. I believe you.
We see in America a lot of Bible teachers try, covertly, to separate Yeshua from his Jewishness, and here we have the translators trying to separate him from speaking Aramaic by trying to imply he spoke Hebrew. Just weird. And I'm wondering why. Could it be to insert a separation from the people of Islam? Or am I confusing languages here?

 

[visionary]

There has been some ideas pushed around that the translations themselves were originally translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek..

William M. Schniedewind, "Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew", The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures vol. 5 article 6 states that in its widest sense, Classical Hebrew means the spoken language of ancient Israel flourishing between the 10th century BCE and the turn of the 4th century CE.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, uncovered in 1946-1948 near Qumran revealed ancient Jewish texts overwhelmingly in Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Qumran scrolls indicate that Hebrew texts were readily understandable to the average Israelite.

 

[Lulav]

We know that, Yonah.
I'm wondering what the reason might be that the English translators would go to such measures to lead their English readers to think that it was Hebrew rather than Aramaic. I believe you.
We see in America a lot of Bible teachers try, covertly, to separate Yeshua from his Jewishness, and here we have the translators trying to separate him from speaking Aramaic by trying to imply he spoke Hebrew. Just weird. And I'm wondering why. Could it be to insert a separation from the people of Islam? Or am I confusing languages here?

Aramaic and Arabic are totally different so I don't think it's that. I would like to understand why it doesn't say Aramaic if that is truly what it is.

 

[yedida]

Aramaic and Arabic are totally different so I don't think it's that. I would like to understand why it doesn't say Aramaic if that is truly what it is.

I figured that Arabic and Aramaic were different but wasn't sure. It was a good, possible idea while it lasted

 

[pat34lee]

It might behoove you to listen more and attempt to correct less. There's room for learning in everyone.

I purposely made that reference without being a direct reply to anyone, so it was not directed at Yonah or anyone else. And while he may live in Israel and teach there, (teach what, exactly?) that alone would not make him an expert on either the history or the language. I can plainly see he has studied both though.

It used to be the consensus among archeologists that many of the places, kingdoms and people of the Tanakh were fictional until they started finding references to them in excavations. It also used to be the believed that Hebrew was being replaced with Aramaic as the primary language in Israel as early as the 3rd or 4th century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds have changed that belief.

A short article: Archaeological Evidence of a Semitic NT

 

[ContraMundum]

Why? maybe because it is contradictory. You say 'being baptized by another person', but this is not the way of mikvah, what Yeshua would have done, as well as his disciples and followers.

You don't know that. The "way of the Mikveh" is not the Way of the Master anyway.

Are we really to be baptized 'into a name' or into a new life?

The text says "In the Name of" the meaning is more than that, obviously.

I don't think anyone here has 'invented' their own traditions on immersion. As I'm sure you know the traditional mikvah is done privately for obvious reasons and not 'dunked' by someone else.

Like I said, it doesn't matter about rabbinic mikveh traditions. They are for different purposes anyway.

The texts describing baptism always have someone being baptized by another. No one baptizes themselves in the Bible. Ever.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" We are to baptize "them".

"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." John baptized them.

"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan." John baptized Jesus.

Paul recalls "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." Paul baptized others, and obviously the practice of the Church is to baptize others.

" And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

Etc etc..

Yeshua himself went down into the water. Despite Christian teachings to the contrary, John did not sprinkle any water on him, nor dunk him under water.

How do you know that? Were you there? Did you know that the practice of the various baptisms in the scriptures is rarely, if ever, by immersion? Check out the Greek usage and the Torah.

It's funny that this Jewish immersion tradition has been passed down to Christianity, but they put their own rules on it, to avoid looking too Jewish I guess.

You've got to be joking.

 

[Heber]

Sorry, I know you are not as addicted to tradition, brother,i probably phrased it badly. I would like to have a little expanation from you or CM about the "extra" baptism?
In my mind need or the second , etc..time kind of devalues the first. But i can imagine the situations when it can be useful.

I was baptised by a good minister friend in the Yarden (long before it grew to what it is now, in my own clothing with no safety rails or $25 gowns!). I don't think it casts doubt on the original one when I was a baby. It allowed me to do what the Scriptures say: to believe in my heart and confess with my lips that Yeshua is Lord. Couldn't say that as a baby! My parents took the promises and they had died so I was Baptised to take upon my self the promises they made - that I would bring myself up in the Lord and in the fellowship and nurture of the family of Christ.

Self Baptism is of doubtful validity in my opinion, for the reasons CM has stated, though I know some here have undertaken it.

I would not suggest that anyone be Baptised a second time without very deep thought and counselling. It is not something one should do lightly, as with anything that G_d calls us to do.

CM may well be shocked that I have been Baptised twice. I suspect he would not be in agreement.

Why not start a thread about second Baptism?

 

[ContraMundum]

by sprinkle or immersion?

I accept both. Usually in scripture baptism is connected with sprinkling or pouring. The Book of Hebrews describes the baptisms in the Torah as "divers washings" (διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, literally "various baptisms" 9:10)

We track them down to these:

Ex. 24:6-8- sprinkling.
Ex. 29:21- sprinkling
Lev. 8:11ff- sprinkling and pouring
Lev. 8:30- sprinkling
Lev. 14:7- sprinkling
Lev. 14:51- sprinkling
Num. 8:7 -sprinkling
Num. 19:13- sprinkling.

And in the Prophets-

Isa. 52:15 – sprinkling
Ezek. 36:24ff- sprinkling.

Of course the LXX uses the same Greek word as the NT in places, but the issue is the usus loquendi of the NT.

Thus is easy to prove that "baptism" as used in scripture represents sprinkling and pouring most of the time in the Tanach.

So, I accept both.

 

[ContraMundum]

They were probably reacting against what I call 'baptised pagans' that run through our streets - the old and young who, having been baptised as babies, never set foot inside a place of Christian worship yet are usually the first to claim that 'of course I am a Christian - I've been Baptised'! Must be more of them than there are of real Christians!!!

I hate this because, as a minister, I am asked to Baptise a child and just know that it is being done because grandma says it must, even though grandma nevers goes to Church, herself. Or it is claimed that unless little Jimmy is Baptised he will go to hell, not be able to get married in a Church, not be able to buried etc etc etc. And you just know that, in spite of their 'firm' promises, they will not do what they have promised. Makes me feel awful because, although I do decline to Baptise a number of babies/children, I am being used to try and allow them to making binding promises, not to me, but to G_d - promises they know they will not keep, and have no intention of keeping, either. Baptism for many is just a sort of celestial insurance policy!

I expect CM has many similar experiences and views!

Indeed. I now use requests for infants to be baptized as chances to witness to the parents. It is working.

I was baptised by a good minister friend in the Yarden (long before it grew to what it is now, in my own clothing with no safety rails or $25 gowns!). I don't think it casts doubt on the original one when I was a baby. It allowed me to do what the Scriptures say: to believe in my heart and confess with my lips that Yeshua is Lord. Couldn't say that as a baby! My parents took the promises and they had died so I was baptised to take upon my self the promises they made - that I would bring myself up in Lord and in the fellowship and nurture of the family of Christ.

I would not suggest that anyone be Baptised a second time without very deep thought and counselling. It is not something one should do lightly, as with anything that G_d calls us to do.

CM may well be shocked that I have been Baptised twice. I suspect he would not be in agreement.

Yes. I tend to see baptism as something God does for us rather than something we do for God, so I do not recommend anabaptism.

Why not start a thread about second Baptism?

I suspect most people in this forum are baptized more than once, just gauging from the general hostility to the Church and its theology.

 

[Heber]

Indeed. I now use requests for infants to be baptized as chances to witness to the parents. It is working.



Yes. I tend to see baptism as something God does for us rather than something we do for God, so I do not recommend anabaptism.


I suspect most people in this forum are baptized more than once, just gauging from the general hostility to the Church and its theology.

I had been absent from the Church since being thrown out at age 11. I felt that G_d was calling me back to make a firm commitment, as my parents had done. I wasn't, then, even aware of the Messianic movement. Although I am critical of the Church on a number of occasions, I criticise openly from within. If only Messianic folk would do the same - we might see a Church more willing to bend on some issues. Effective critiscism has to be constructive, not destructive.

 

[yedida]

Indeed. I now use requests for infants to be baptized as chances to witness to the parents. It is working.



Yes. I tend to see baptism as something God does for us rather than something we do for God, so I do not recommend anabaptism.


I suspect most people in this forum are baptized more than once, just gauging from the general hostility to the Church and its theology.

Morning CM,
Regarding the infant baptism, I always thought it was more of a vow the parents made concerning the child (and oops Heber kind of confirmed that) but then at whatever age it is, the child "confirmed" it and that is what the "Confirmation" was all about. The child doesn't get baptised a second time as this one would be at his request and understanding? I had thought that a second baptism took place at an orthodox's child confirmation ceremony.

And for me, the baptism that my friend and I took part in so long ago in a swimming pool stands firm to this day. No need to repeat it. When I began following Messianic Judaism, the mikveh stood for a turning back to God. I had never left the Family I had been a part of, I just hadn't been a very active member for awhile, I was the prodigal child returning to what was already my home - it was not a second baptism.

 

[Lulav]

"Baptism as a rite of immersion was not begun by Christians but was taken by them from Jewish and pagan forms...."[SIZE=-2] - Dr. Merrill Tenney, the editor of the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible


Mikvah and baptism
[/SIZE]According to Jewish law the immersion had to have a required witness. Dr. William LaSor in the Biblical Archaeology Review says apparently the Biblical phrase "in the name of" was an indication of the required witness. In several New Testament references such as I Corinthians 1:13, 15; Matthew 21:25; Acts 1:22; and Acts 19:3 we see early baptism mentioned in conjunction with the name of individuals such as John and Paul. Further information on this can be found in Jewish literature concerning proselyte baptism where it indicates his baptism required attestation by witnesses in whose name he was immersed.

According to Dr. David Flusser, the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the New Testament teach that water can purify the body only if the soul has first been purified through repentance and righteousness.

 

[ContraMundum]

I had been absent from the Church since being thrown out at age 11. I felt that G_d was calling me back to make a firm commitment, as my parents had done. I wasn't, then, even aware of the Messianic movement. Although I am critical of the Church on a number of occasions, I criticise openly from within. If only Messianic folk would do the same - we might see a Church more willing to bend on some issues. Effective critiscism has to be constructive, not destructive.

Excellent example!