I really don't want to get into a long argument here. I made a deep sigh as I read your reply because I can see that happening.
That the NT Authors used the Septuagint is an assumption. Or copies of the Spetugant all come through Christian transcribers.
I don't know where you're getting this from. The Vulgate was based off a Latin text mainly from the Hebrew. In the "Christian" church, it was the Latin and Greek that were copied more than anything else. The East Orthodox church used it more than the western Roman Catholic church.
Some of the weird choices of the Spetugant only make sense to me under the theory that the NT Authors was paraphrasing not direclty quoting the OT, but the Septuagint copying wanted to make it match exactly.
Compare the quote at Hebrews 1:6, then compare that with the original Scripture in Deuteronomy 32:43. The reading in Hebrews matches the Septuagint word-for-word. In Mark 7:6-7, Jesus quotes the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text. In fact, the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint 340 times; by comparison, it quotes from the Hebrew 33 times.
Jesus said he who has seen me has seen The Father.
Yes, because Jesus is the perfect representation of God. He came to earth as an ambassador; an ambassador is a representative who speaks on behalf of a greater power. In Hebrews 3:1, the Bible calls Jesus an apostle; and in John 3:17, the word "sent" comes from the verb form of the noun for "apostle". The Greek word refers to one who is commissioned, an emissary. Being the word of God on Earth, Jesus represented the will of God. By listening to what Jesus said and observing the things he did, we can know what God is like. But all of this does not mean that Jesus is God, much in the way that an ambassador for the United States is not the United States.
The Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 is where YHWH comes from. The difference is God is speaking in the first person, other referring to God are not the first person.
I believe I pretty much just said the same thing. But if you look throughout the Old Testament, God constantly refers to himself as YHWH (although most Bibles translate as "the LORD"). So he quite frequently referred to himself in third-person, I guess? Still, the meaning of the Hebrew is not "I AM THAT I AM", much like how Isaiah 14:12 is not referring to a spiritual being named Lucifer. The KJV is full of poor translations and is based upon outdated scholarship, so I wouldn't place much trust in it.
Any Rabbi screwing around with what that means is probably under Kabbalistic influence. Fortunately I trust the NT over Rabbis.
Okay, this has to be the most moronic thing you've said so far. You dare to accuse the idea of the New Testament quoting the Septuagint as assumption, yet you are clearly making your own assumptions so you can continue believing what you want to believe.
I have a Jewish study Bible that gives that rendering of EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, explaining that "I will be what I will be" is the better translation. Stop looking at things with those biased blinders. Look instead into the old Jewish writings. The term "I Am" was NEVER looked at as having anything to do with God. If you were to go back in time to first century Judea and shout "I am!" in Hebrew or Aramaic, people might think you were strange for doing so, but you would definitely not be accused of blasphemy. Those proponents of traditional Christian doctrine are desperate to keep this lie going that Jesus is God. Coming up with this "I AM" stuff is utter nonsense.
And it's not a matter of you trusting the New Testament over Rabbis; its more a matter of you trusting your understanding of the NT over what's actually in the Bible. You need to open your mind to the possibility that there are other interpretations for things than the ones you cling to.
Jesus can't be the Messiah if he's not God.
This is not true at all, and it shows that you have a lack of understanding concerning what the word "messiah" means. In the Bible, it is used to refer to the anointed king of Israel acting as God's representative on Earth. It literally means "anointed one". If you knew about the Hebrew of the old Testament, you'd know that King Saul was God's messiah. And after him (and more importantly), King David was God's messiah. And the Bible tells us that Jesus is the King of the Jews, a descendant of the line of David, heir to the throne that is supposed to last forever. The problem is, many English translations use the word "anointed" when referring to Saul and David, and "Messiah" when referring to Jesus. There's that biased translating I was talking about. David was not God (although the Hebrew word ELOHIYM is used in reference to him in Psalm 45) and he was God's anointed, so why does Jesus have to be God to be God's anointed? The whole argument in the Bible over Jesus is not whether he's God; it's whether he's the anointed king of Israel.
Look, I believe this is a topic that should be treated seriously. What if I'm right about Jesus? That would mean that from early on in the church (about the 3rd century), Satan has infiltrated the church and deceived it so that it worships the creation instead of the Creator. Do you not think that this is serious enough that you should put aside your biased views and give this a good objective study?
Read my short story,
Cat's Milk.
http://mstrainj7.wix.com/mstrainjr
reply
share
Mithrandir-Olorin33
9 years ago
I don't know where you're getting this from. The Vulgate was based off a Latin text mainly from the Hebrew. In the "Christian" church, it was the Latin and Greek that were copied more than anything else. The East Orthodox church used it more than the western Roman Catholic church.
Irelavent to what I said. The Septuagint texts that are the basis for most citations of it are from Christians Bibles. We do not have the original text presented to Ptolemy II.
Lucifer is not the name Isaiah 14 originally used, but it is referring to a being who will be cast out of Heaven in Revelation 12.
The different ways to Translate the Phrase is irrelevant to the fact that God called himself that and so did Jesus.
A lot of false Doctrines entered the Church Early one. Which is why I John and II John warn against the Spirit of Antichrist, which is denying the Deity of Jesus.
"There's no art to this war Spencer"-Alison DiLaurentis
reply
share
mstrainjr
9 years ago
A lot of false Doctrines entered the Church Early one. Which is why I John and II John warn against the Spirit of Antichrist, which is denying the Deity of Jesus.
Show me in the Bible specifically where it says that the spirit of the Antichrist is a denial of Jesus's divinity. Or are you making stuff up again?
Because you brought up the topic:
I tend to look at the book of Revelation as more of a present tense book than a future book. In other words, it mostly dealt with issues happening in the time of the writer, although there is future stuff in it. (And by the way, the very first verse says that God gave Jesus the revelation, which according to you would mean that God gave himself something.)
The number 666 is used as the number of the beast. The Greek KAISAR NERON (Caesar Nero) adds up to 666. In some manuscripts, the number is 616, which is what you get if you remove the Greek ending from the name (KAISAR NERO). And when you check your dating, it's quite possible that Revelation was written in the time of Nero's rule.
But Revelation had to be written in code for those familiar with common Jewish symbolism as used in the prophecy books of the Old Testament. Rome would come upon them if they openly passed around writings that spoke out against Caesar.
In Revelation, it warns about a drunken whore sitting upon a seven-headed beast (chapter 17). It then explains that the seven heads represent seven hills. And notice how the whore is used in contrast with the woman of chapter 12 who the dragon is trying to destroy.
So what does this mean to me? After Satan failed to destroy the early church (chapter 12), he created a doppelganger of it, an evil twin. In Biblical imagery, the symbol of the whore is used to represent false religion. The seven hills represent Rome, which is indeed situated on seven hills. Do you see where I'm going with this? It seems to me that Revelation is warning about the demonic false Christianity seated in Rome, namely, the Catholic Church.
The whole reason why the first council of Nicaea was called in the first place was because there was a huge debate over the divinity of Jesus. The Arians believed that Jesus was not God, and they were spreading in popularity. The council of church leaders were given the task of sorting it all out, except that Constantine made it clear that he wanted Jesus to be God. Now, seeing as how Christians had to endure the persecution of Rome for so long, and here's this Roman Emperor siding with them, it's no surprise that they voted in his favor. They came to the decision that Jesus is God, and then they labeled the Arians as heretics.
Ironically, Constantine later changed his mind, and his son was an Arian. But by then the damage had been done. Over the years, Christinity and paganism fused together until what was left was the false religion from which all of Protestantism sprung. If the roots of a tree are bad, the whole tree is bad.
All this being said, you must understand my reluctance to jump on board with a church teaching simply because it's a traditional doctrine. Like I said further up, I used to believe that Jesus was God, but when faced with so much evidence to the contrary, I would be a fool to continue believing that.
Read my short story,
Cat's Milk.
http://mstrainj7.wix.com/mstrainjr
reply
share
Mithrandir-Olorin33
9 years ago
The use of the word Antichrist is not in Revelation at all, I compeltly left out of my reference the debate over a future individual Antichrist, but yes I am Premillenial and Futurist.
666 is clearly Greek Gemetria just as 888 is Greek Gemetria for Jesus. The attempts to apply it to Nero all use Hebrew gemetria.
Irenaus knew of the 616 Manuscripts and knew they were errors. Revelation introduces nothing new, it all draws on the Old Testament. 616 has no OT precedent, but 666 has 3 OT uses.
"There's no art to this war Spencer"-Alison DiLaurentis
reply
share
AngstBoy42
9 years ago
Amen!
Constantine.
Nicea 1 & 2.
Trent.
2000 years of translations, mistranslations, edits, mistakes, additions, subtractions, et al.
One would have to be a god - dam fool to believe that the gold-leaved, leather-bound KJV descended from heaven and represents "The Word of God".
... Of course, the only proof one needs to know that the Bible is a load of incoherent, self-contradictory bull - *beep* is to READ IT.
reply
share
SMarsala
9 years ago
there is a big difference between Saul, King David and Jesus as the fact that Jesus was the only one who rose from the dead and appeared to his followers after he died.
reply
share
mstrainjr
9 years ago
"Jesus was the only one who rose from the dead"
Yes, the Bible says multiple times that God raised Jesus from the dead. But Jesus was the anointed one before that event happened, and that is what was being disputed about him in the gospels, his claim of authority.
Something interesting though is that the Greek word THEOS (deity) is used in reference to Jesus, and in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word Elohiym (also deity) is used in reference to David (Ps 45:6), except most translations foul it up to hide that from you. Read that whole psalm with a decent translation and it'll be apparent that it's speaking of an earthly being.
The word "Christ" is the same as the Hebrew "Messiah", which refers to one who is anointed, specifically by God. Yes Jesus is different, but that's because he submitted to God's will and allowed himself to be sacrificed for our sins. Now as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15, because Jesus was raised from the dead, we can have hope that we too will be raised someday.
Read my short story, Cat's Milk.
http://mstrainj7.wix.com/mstrainjr
reply
share
SMarsala
9 years ago
So let me ask you a question, Do you think Jesus was the long awaited Jewish Messiah? Do you think Jesus is mankinds Savior?
reply
share
mstrainjr
9 years ago
I used to believe it whole-heartedly, but that was when I was an ignorant child who believed the things told to me by grownups. When I grew up and educated myself about the Bible, that faith pretty much diminished. In order to give a "yes" answer to both of your questions, I have to make a lot of improbable assumptions based on very little evidence. Doing such a thing simply doesn't sit well with me.
The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is the Messiah, the long-awaited king of Israel from the line of David. But the Bible shows that he goes beyond that as well. His authority is extended to the whole world. And he is also the ultimate high priest, a mediator who sits at the right of God and speaks on our behalf. Also, because of his faithful submission to the will of God, his death brought about salvation for all who claim him as lord.
But what makes the Bible more right than any other religious book. You reject Mohammad, who was supposedly a prophet to whom God spoke; yet you accept Paul, who capitalized on the growing Christian movement and practically hijacked it, claiming that God spoke directly to him.
Jesus put the twelve apostles in charge of his ministry, yet much of the Christianity we have today is based on the words of Paul, a man who didn't follow the teachings of the apostles. While Jesus said that we had to live a certain lifestyle in order to achieve eternal life, Paul comes across as saying that all we need is faith. This has lead to MILLIONS of lazy Christians who think they're going to Heaven because they go to church, pray, and read their Bibles. But Jesus said that we need much more than a pious heart to enter into his Father's kingdom.
But I've gone off topic. To more precisely answer your questions, I have to say no to both. I would like to say that I don't know, I'm not sure. But that in itself represents a lack of conviction, so I have to answer no.
I have been seeking and searching. If God truly wants me to be his, than he needs to reveal himself to me in a way that goes beyond an old book.
Read my short story, Cat's Milk.
http://mstrainj7.wix.com/mstrainjr
reply
share
SMarsala
9 years ago
He rose from the dead and appeared to several people for a few weeks and you don't think he's anything special??
And Jesus never said or implied that you need to have a pious heart to go to heaven he said you need a PURE heart ( the heart of a child) to go to heaven. Big Difference.
reply
share
mstrainjr
9 years ago
I don't think you understood what I said at all. I hate that I wrote a long response only for you to take what you wanted out of it without giving it thought.
I had a whole paragraph on why Jesus is special, and you claim I don't think he's special. I said that Jesus wants us to have more than a pious heart, and you claim that I think that's what he wants us to have.
See? This right here is the problem with mainstream Christianity. You people see what you want to see regardless of what's right there in front of your face. The church is blinded by arrogance and ignorance.
Let me see if I can break this down even further for you:
That Jesus rose from the dead is indeed special, but it is not unique. Through Jesus, Lazarus was raised from the dead; through Peter, Tabitha was raised from the dead; through Elijah, a widow's son was raised from the dead; through Elisha, a Shunammite's son was raised from the dead. So then the idea of God raising his son Jesus from the dead is not unique except that he did it that time of himself and not through a person. Yes, Jesus was raised and walked around for 40 days, but Lazarus was raised also and was probably around a lot longer than that.
As far as my pious heart comment.... I was saying that Jesus wants us to live a certain lifestyle. Simply sitting in church and believing in Jesus will not get you eternal life. Read Matthew 25:31-46. There, Jesus talks about doing things in his name; those who don't do those things, even though they may have had a good heart, are cast into outer darkness. This ties in with the parable of the talents just before that, starting in verse 14. While two of the men used what they were given to make more, the well-intentioned other man hid his one talent thinking that was all he had to do to please his master.
Faith without works is dead. It is not the works that save you; however, the works are evidence of your faith. Jesus wants his followers to live a lifestyle in which they are continuously planting seeds, doing his work. He wants active workers who trust him with their lives. But most Christians are content with reading their Bibles, going to church, praying... things that hide the one talent but don't reap any more. Yes, it's good to have a pure heart, but what good is it if you're not following after Christ and doing the things he requires of you before you can enter into the kingdom?
Read my short story, Cat's Milk.
http://mstrainj7.wix.com/mstrainjr
reply
share
SMarsala
9 years ago
Jesus said we are healed by our faith, not just Paul. He also said we would want to live a obedient life. The Holy sprit convicts me all the time. I have learned I will never be good enough. So being saved by works alone isn't happening for me.
Jesus wants us to produce fruit by spreading the good news and by the way we live our lives except no one is perfect. If someone wants to find dirt on a person to discredit them, it would be easy since we ALL fall short. You know that's why its faith alone that saves you. When you are filled with the Holy Spirit it changes your heart and you overwhelmingly feel love and compassion for everyone. Everyone! You see the world through Gods eyes. It's Love and compassion that's saves us.
I'm not saying everyone who claims to be a Christian is Christ like, far from it. But we do have a role model in Jesus.
And I read your entire post and all I asked was WHO you thought Jesus was? I understand now you don't think he was the Jewish messiah. You don't think he is a savior. That's your right to believe whatever you want. I have given a lot of thought to want you said and I watch these movies that gives me the history of Christianity. Much of Catholicism doctrine is added into their religion as pointed out through Martin Luther. Men and power perverted all religions not just Christainty I don't have faith in organized religion, I have faith in Jesus alone.
The gospels were written from each persons stand point. It's like twenty people watching a car accent, then you ask each one to recall what they saw and you get 20 different accounts. Each persons point of view is slightly different.
I try hard never to judge anyone, and I try to show respect for all faiths. It's not my job to hit people over the head with the gospel. I do however love history and try make sense of it all in my head. For example I don't believe God created the world in seven 24 hour days. I believe a day in Gods time could be several thousand years.
You mentioned Mohommed. From what I read about him, he was brutal. He killed a lot of people, he encouraged his followers to kill. He had several wives, his first he married for money for she was old, his second or third were child brides. Maybe God did speak to him. I don't know? Do you know?
Does Islam make more sense to you than Christanity?? Because your looking for the execeptence of God to make logical sence to you.
reply
share
mstrainjr
9 years ago
I have learned I will never be good enough.
True, but just make sure that you're not using that as an excuse to avoid acting upon the teachings of Christ. I've seen too many so-called Christians use the "nobody's perfect" rationale to explain away their lazy faith.
You know that's why its faith alone that saves you.
But what is faith? Is it simply believing that Jesus died for your sins and rose again, or is it an active trust that guides your daily activities? The church is filled with "believers" who would rather sit on their butts and pretend that they're saved instead of actually going out and doing the works of the lord which he commanded his followers to do. I believe the kind of faith God wants us to have is an active faith, not a passive one.
I understand now you don't think he was the Jewish messiah. You don't think he is a savior.
I used to believe it whole-heartedly when I was a child. But then I grew up and decided to challenge my faith. I didn't want to be one of those ignorant Christians whose knowledge of the Bible barely went outside the slogans and catchphrases spouted by their preachers. I learned the Greek of the New Testament and began looking at the Bible in as much of an objective way as possible. I'd look at controversial passages and weigh all sides of the arguments, forming my own opinions based on the things I discovered.
What I found is that some of the doctrines taken for granted in the church are probably wrong. For example, while John 1:1 is usually the center of the debate of Jesus' divinity, I couldn't find much of anything outside of it that could be taken to mean that Jesus was God in the flesh. It takes an understanding of the Greek word THEOS and what it really means; it doesn't simply mean "God". I also found that the concept of hell is probably wrong as well. It has been used by the church for hundreds of years to scare people into church membership and tithing, but I have come to the conclusion that such eternal punishment is against everything that God tells us about himself elsewhere in the Bible. It does not at all represent justice.
And I could go on and on with several more topics. The point is that I made the decision to look at my faith from the outside. Instead of taking verses out of context so I could go on believing church dogma, instead of going to websites created by people with the same beliefs so I could feel justified in my own faith, I tried to disprove the things I believed in. And what I found was that the evidence against is far more weighty than the evidence for the interpretations taught by the mainstream churches. What is faith if it is defiantly ignorant in the face of valid counterarguments?
I don't believe God created the world in seven 24 hour days. I believe a day in Gods time could be several thousand years.
I've heard that before, and it is possible. But I don't put too much faith in a creation account written by people living long after the fact. The truth is that no one was there to witness those things. The stories found in the Torah (the first five books) represent stories that had been passed down through the Jews over centuries, and there is much evidence that some of them were influenced by Babylonian culture during the exile. I personally can't take Genesis literally.
You mentioned Mohommed. From what I read about him, he was brutal. He killed a lot of people, he encouraged his followers to kill. He had several wives, his first he married for money for she was old, his second or third were child brides.
Yet you accept that people like Moses, Joshua, and David wiped out cities full of people (many of them innocents) in the name of their God. Why is it okay for them but not for Mohammed? They killed thousands of people. Heck, David even killed a well-intentioned young man who had ended Saul to put the fallen king out of his misery. The Bible shows David to be a bloodthirsty murderer who established himself as God's figurehead on Earth in what some describe as a cult. But he was "righteous" because he did it for God? Then why's Mohammad the bad guy?
And yes, it seems that Mohammed did marry a girl who was most likely underage. But it's believed that Mary was herself a young teen. Such things were customary back then. Pedophilia wasn't as frowned upon as it is today; in fact, it was pretty much the norm. People didn't live very long, so they married young.
Does Islam make more sense to you than Christanity??
I never meant to give you the impression that I think that. I consider Islam a step backwards from Christianity. It relies upon old, outdated practices that even many modern Jews have abandoned. It is very much the way Israel used to be back in the time of the judges, just more technologically advanced in some parts of the world. Really, I think all the bad blood stuff needs to end, and we need to all find a way to work out our disagreements and find common ground so we can move forward together. All that fighting over there in the Middle East is stupid, and I'm talking about both sides.
Again, I've written another super long post, so I'll stop here.
Read my short story,
Cat's Milk.
http://mstrainj7.wix.com/mstrainjr
reply
share