Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 19:50:43 GMT -5
So the story of Abraham fitted Sumerian legends? Maybe the Sumerians got them from the proto-Hebrews? Why did the Jews "invent" the story of their slavery?
I recall when "scholars" we saying there is no such thing as a "Jew", it's all cultural. That was before DNA showed they were wrong.
I recall when "scholars" were saying the story of the bride for Isaac wasn't strictly true because camels were not domesticated at that time. That's till they found domestic camels in Abraham's strata.
But I am way too young to recall when "scholars" ridiculed the idea that the scattered Jews could return to their ancient homeland and seize it back from the Muslims. And then resurrect their ancient language and identity.
Be nice if modern day "scholars" could report in public, as newspapers sometimes do, "WE WERE WRONG."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 9, 2014 20:04:07 GMT -5
So the story of Abraham fitted Sumerian legends? Maybe the Sumerians got them from the proto-Hebrews? Why did the Jews "invent" the story of their slavery? I recall when "scholars" we saying there is no such thing as a "Jew", it's all cultural. That was before DNA showed they were wrong. I recall when "scholars" were saying the story of the bride for Isaac wasn't strictly true because camels were not domesticated at that time. That's till they found domestic camels in Abraham's strata. But I am way too young to recall when "scholars" ridiculed the idea that the scattered Jews could return to their ancient homeland and seize it back from the Muslims. And then resurrect their ancient language and identity. Be nice if modern day "scholars" could report in public, as newspapers sometimes do, "WE WERE WRONG." I'm sure they have been wrong from time to time. However, their Adam and Eve story is not 'their own' as an example of borrowed stories. They gave it their own little twist, true, but the base doesn't vary much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 20:21:37 GMT -5
It's a bit tricky claiming something as your own when in fact **** that far back **** you as a people didn't exist. Guess you can say the flood story should be common to all the people of that region.
ie you can't have a flood for "Jews" but not Sumerians.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 20:21:46 GMT -5
I absolutely said no such thing. But since you brought it up, it was NT writers (not necessarily Jesus) who made any such claim. And if Jesus did indeed quote prophets - of course he picked one at a time to quote, and he never named any of them -- you can't quote every prophet in 4 gospels of the New Testament. Anyway, most of the prophets of the OT were never even mentioned or quoted in the OT. Furthermore, the prophets in the Old Testament were NOT NOT future tellers. They were spiritual advisers to kings very much in the capacity of our modern day secretaries of state. Most of their predictions should be regarded as presenting a scenario to the king on what would happen if he made certain choices; and because they were a theocracy, they would advise the king on the constitutionality of his actions (that means, according to the Law). Today, of course, in English, "prophesy" does mean to predict the future -- after 2000 years of Christian adjustment to the OT Hebrew dictionary. I really don't know what this means at all. No you didn't say that, that was me. I made the comment that Jesus would have known it was prophesied that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a donkey. When you know the prophecies, it makes sense to try and make as many of them true as possible if you want to be seen as the Messiah. He was trying to free the people from Roman rule and corrupt temple priests. He thought he could be the one to do that. He didn't. O thanks. Anything out of context confuses me. He must have picked the wrong ass to ride that day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 20:26:09 GMT -5
What evidence do you have that Jesus was trying to free the Jews from Roman occupation? My understanding is that the main reason why the Jews ultimately rejected this very famous man was because of His INDIFFERENCE to their politics.
The donkey was a symbol of humility. No white stallions in sight.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 9, 2014 20:47:06 GMT -5
It's a bit tricky claiming something as your own when in fact **** that far back **** you as a people didn't exist. Guess you can say the flood story should be common to all the people of that region. ie you can't have a flood for "Jews" but not Sumerians. Have a look at flood myths for example. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_mythWhen they were captive in Babylon, they were Hebrews, weren't they? What do you think they were called?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 20:53:04 GMT -5
I *** think **** the Jews today were first considered to be Jews after the Egyptian captivity.
I would be wary of calling anything in the bible a straight out "myth" because lots of things so-called turned out not to be myths at all. And lots can't be proven, one way or the other. Someone oughta do a list on this one - how many "myths" of the bible have been "de-mythed."
One I would like to see de-mythed is the Exodus. This requires the date of the Exodus to be about a century before it is thought to be. That way it can coincide with the eruption of Thera. Dates for Thera have been inching closer to us, and dates for the conquest of Caanan have been receding. Thera gives us a basis for the environmental and political catastrophe of the Middle East, and helps understand how water can "part."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 21:02:16 GMT -5
What evidence do you have that Jesus was trying to free the Jews from Roman occupation? The Romans crucified him. I know all about your understanding. Unfortunately I can't convince you that there is anything to be learned outside your box. 1800 years of Catholic/Orthodox indoctrination have basically convinced everyone that their version is inerrant in any aspect -- even to such minute details as the meaning of Hebrew terms. And as for the symbolism -- symbols are nothing more than poetic logos for selling ideologies. Including the snake in the garden -- which BTW did not represent the same thing to the Sumerians than it does now to Christians.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 21:08:43 GMT -5
It's a bit tricky claiming something as your own when in fact **** that far back **** you as a people didn't exist. Guess you can say the flood story should be common to all the people of that region. ie you can't have a flood for "Jews" but not Sumerians. Have a look at flood myths for example. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_mythWhen they were captive in Babylon, they were Hebrews, weren't they? What do you think they were called? You're right. They did not become Jews until they were taken captive and because they were from Judah they were called Jews. By then the various peoples of the Hebrews had intermarried for such a long time that of course their gene pool had become distinguishable -- vasatly more distinguishable than the modern American gene pool. My brother in law's DNA indicates he is a Levite -- and easier one to distinguish because the Levites were a class to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 9, 2014 21:56:43 GMT -5
Have a look at flood myths for example. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_mythWhen they were captive in Babylon, they were Hebrews, weren't they? What do you think they were called? You're right. They did not become Jews until they were taken captive and because they were from Judah they were called Jews. By then the various peoples of the Hebrews had intermarried for such a long time that of course their gene pool had become distinguishable -- vasatly more distinguishable than the modern American gene pool. My brother in law's DNA indicates he is a Levite -- and easier one to distinguish because the Levites were a class to themselves. They were the priestly class weren't they? That was one of the reasons why scholars believe Jesus would have been a rabbi because on Mary's side he was from the Tribe of Levi I believe? Then on Joseph's linage he was qualified to be king because he came from David? He would have used those two lineages to his advantage if he was smart. Seems as though he did attempt it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 22:15:38 GMT -5
You're right. They did not become Jews until they were taken captive and because they were from Judah they were called Jews. By then the various peoples of the Hebrews had intermarried for such a long time that of course their gene pool had become distinguishable -- vasatly more distinguishable than the modern American gene pool. My brother in law's DNA indicates he is a Levite -- and easier one to distinguish because the Levites were a class to themselves. They were the priestly class weren't they? That was one of the reasons why scholars believe Jesus would have been a rabbi because on Mary's side he was from the Tribe of Levi I believe? Then on Joseph's linage he was qualified to be king because he came from David? He would have used those two lineages to his advantage if he was smart. Seems as though he did attempt it. Yes - my brother in law is very priestly. Because he is a Levite there are some restrictions on him that do not apply to all Jews. For example, he is not allowed to be near a dead body, so he could not stand around my Dad's grave with the rest of us. But he does appreciate a raunchy joke on occasion. That's the story behind the two differing lineages for Jesus in the gospels. But one of them (don't ask me which just now) had to be "adjusted" so that the number of generations between certain "significant events" would indicate regular intervals of something like 7 generations. Someone got left out somewhere, or something. I could probably find it in my notes, but I'm sure it's not an emergency.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 22:29:36 GMT -5
I *** think **** the Jews today were first considered to be Jews after the Egyptian captivity. I would be wary of calling anything in the bible a straight out "myth" because lots of things so-called turned out not to be myths at all. And lots can't be proven, one way or the other. Someone oughta do a list on this one - how many "myths" of the bible have been "de-mythed." One I would like to see de-mythed is the Exodus. This requires the date of the Exodus to be about a century before it is thought to be. That way it can coincide with the eruption of Thera. Dates for Thera have been inching closer to us, and dates for the conquest of Caanan have been receding. Thera gives us a basis for the environmental and political catastrophe of the Middle East, and helps understand how water can "part." One Biblical version of the water parting is perfectly logical -- it was a great wind. But according to the original Hebrew it wasn't the Red Sea that parted. It was a shallow marshy body of water called the Reed Sea. And you are right -- there are some evidences of some catastrophic events that happened in those ancient times. Ironically some of the plagues of Egypt were not one-time events. Some of them come in multiple yearly cycles, something like the Mormon crickets that infest Nevada about every 7 years. But there is no record outside the book of Exodus to indicate that Egypt lost any number of escaped slaves in ancient history. If the Biblical story were true, Egypt would have been turned into a permanent American day without a Mexican. It would have meant economic collapse. But there are other stories that circulated about similar such events happening in the ancient world -- whether any of them were true. The more often a parallel story appears, the less likely the latest version is to be believed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 23:21:03 GMT -5
Question - "What evidence do you have that Jesus was trying to free the Jews from Roman occupation?"
Answer - "The Romans crucified him."
That's an insufficient answer.
Under Roman rule the Jews could not use Capital Punishment, I understand. So any case, worthy of death, had to vetted by the Romans. I am sure there were lots of Jews killed this way.
Incidentally I believe that's how Jesus' brother was killed - the hiatus of Roman rule after Festus gave the Jews the chance to murder James.
BTW entering Jerusalem on a donkey was certainly a signal that Jesus was not going to rise up against Rome or its client ruling class in Israel.
nb Egyptians did not refer to their defeats. We don't know a lot about the country. Satellite imaging has shown that we have greatly underestimated the density of population in Egypt,and the large number of towns, villages, cities, pyramids and temples that were never known about. So there's probably a lot more we don't know about Egypt, than what we do know. Besides, evidence for the verity of biblical verses isn't high on archaeological agendas. And given my own experience with some of these people - they would be happy to bury it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2014 23:43:33 GMT -5
Question - "What evidence do you have that Jesus was trying to free the Jews from Roman occupation?"
Answer - "The Romans crucified him." That's an insufficient answer.
Under Roman rule the Jews couldn't not use Capital Punishment, I understand.
But who said the Jews used capital punishment on Jesus. One undisputable fact: Crucifixion Punishment reserved ONLY for "insurrection" against Rome. One Biblical "fact": Jesus was crucified. Or do you know what "insurrection" means? I'm not so sure that is true. The Romans did not interfere with Jewish justice. Jesus was not condemned in a Jewish court, he was tried in a Roman court, obviously for a Roman offense. Why in heck did the Jews welcome him into the city as a celebrity and then execute him a few days later? Yes, there were hundreds of Jews killed that way ... they were all convicted insurgents. If Jesus had committed some Roman crime other than insurrection they would not have executed him in that manner. Why would there need to be a hiatus. Jews even stoned people to death with no interference from Rome. What did the Romans care if the Jews killed each other? Symbolic? If he wanted to make himself appear humble he would have walked into the city. Instead he rode in on the classiest vehicle available to Jews in Palestine, a donkey. You don't think the Romans let the Jews have horses, do you? They'd have killed him a lot sooner if he'd arrived on one of their horses. The fact that you arrive at convention in a Cadillac doesn't mean you're humble. All it means is that the grounds owner hasn't provided a runway for your private jet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 23:54:45 GMT -5
Seconds to find www.christian-history.org/death-of-james.htmlAccording to Josephus, Ananus became the high priest of Jerusalem after the procurator, Porcius Festus, died. While the new procurator, Albinus, was on the way, Ananus saw the opportunity to get rid of James.Horses were common in Israel I am sure. Didn't Solomon have about ten thousand horses in his cavalry? Not to mention chariots. Zechariah speaks of the Messiah thus: "Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."The donkey symbolized Jesus' humility. We read many came to greet him as He entered Jerusalem. They were not the same as those who condemned Him. The city was divided. Some "scholars" just can't get that. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin. To kill Jesus they needed Roman consent, and they nearly didn't get it. Again - the theory that Jesus was nothing more than a political subversive isn't even a theory - its just a tale told to negate everything said about him in Gospels.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 10, 2014 0:46:46 GMT -5
Seconds to find www.christian-history.org/death-of-james.htmlAccording to Josephus, Ananus became the high priest of Jerusalem after the procurator, Porcius Festus, died. While the new procurator, Albinus, was on the way, Ananus saw the opportunity to get rid of James.Horses were common in Israel I am sure. Yes, or course horses were common in Israel. But the Romans had forbidden Jews to have horses. Yes, Solomon had horses - though I wouldn't put a bet on 10,000. But Solomon was centuries before Jesus, Israel was at it's height of power, and the Roman Empire hadn't been dreamed of. And the horses were all gone when the Israelites and Judahites ended up in captivity. And who was the messiah? He's clearly indicating it was the king, coming [ present tense, note] into the city. This passage is not about Jesus ... it's about the king of the day. Before we go any further -- you have NOT established that Zechariah was speaking about Jesus. So the rest of this has nothing to do with Zechariah's use of the word "messiah". Yes, the city was obviously divided. But the nature of the divide was not explained in the Bible. But there is clear historical evidence and record of the dividing line. The division was between the common Jews in the city and the Sanhedrin. And the Sanhedrin kissed and slobbered up to the Romans because the Romans used them to control the common people. The common people hated the Sanhedrin for their corruption. And the Sanhedrin did not sentence him. The reason was that they didn't have the authority to shame him the way their allies, the Romans, could, so they sent him to the Romans so he could be crucified. The Sanhedrin had no interest whatever in protecting Jewish political activists, and they basked in the favor they had with the Romans every time they delivered their countrymen to Roman justice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 1:07:55 GMT -5
It appears that Jesus wasn't so threatening to the rulers at all. To Herod the Great, any new "king" was a threat, but those rulers who lived during Jesus' ministry came to see He was no threat to Herodian or Roman rule.
We can be sure Herod sent his spies to monitor the situation. They would have come back with reports of an apolitical holy man, teaching the Israelite to be better citizens. (Read the sermon on the mount, Matt 5,6 and 7.) Herod was greatly interest in Jesus when Jesus had been arrested by the Sanhedrin.
Ditto for the Romans.
Note the one political message of the NT - obey your government - no matter the policies of that government. In the end we read the Jews wanted to take Jesus by force and make him their leader.
Indeed, in the beginning many of the Pharisees and Sadducees clamored to be baptized, and to hear and see Jesus. It was Jesus who cut them off, not the other way around.
You know all this. where we differ is that I take what I read at face value. It makes sense on various levels, including the Occam's Razor one - the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 10, 2014 2:32:50 GMT -5
It appears that Jesus wasn't so threatening to the rulers at all. To Herod the Great, any new "king" was a threat, but those rulers who lived during Jesus' ministry came to see He was no threat to Herodian or Roman rule. You don't know that. The Bible says Herod felt threatened, but there are parts of that story that are fancifully presented. But we have no indication whatever in the Bible about what the Romans thought of Jesus. But if your neighbor shot someone in his yard, couldn't you assume that your neighbor had a problem with the victim. Herod was gone before Jesus became a holy man. He was supposed to have been gone before they brought Jesus back from Egypt. No. Herod was gone by then - according to the Bible. Yes, the Romans were interested, because Jesus had been preaching that he was their new king. Of course they were interested. That was Paul, not Jesus. You didn't understand anything I wrote. That's exactly what I was trying to tell you. You even tried to convince me that the Jews wanted to kill him. Jesus prevented them from being baptized? ? Jesus prevented them from seeing and hearing him? No, you don't. You take the face value and inject your Christian theology into it. The normal approach of Christians to the Bible is to learn "what it means" (according to someone), and then read the passage for what it will support of what they have been told. They don't ever question the lack of details that support Christian theology. What I am writing is what the Bible says at face value -- and questioning where the Christian spin on it came from. Not really. Occam is the patron saint of used car dealers and their naïve customers. I'd love to hear his explanation of electricity, say nothing about how plasma screen TVs. [/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 3:41:37 GMT -5
There were more than one Herod - you know that. He had Antipas, Aristobulus, Phasael etc.. Google Herod. When Herod the Great was gone, each region named his reigning son "Herod."
SOME wanted to take Jesus by force and throne him (they wouldn't have gotten far!) and OTHERS wanted to kill him. Biblical critics love to focus upon a single interpretation, a single group or a single idea to discredit. But the bible, like life itself, has complexity.
Yes, Paul said to "obey them which have the rule over you" (both secular and within the church) And Peter wrote, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” Hardly a call to arms, is it?
And what did Jesus say? "... whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"
I don't see anything revolutionary in Jesus, not even in the most desperate of circumstantial evidence.
I like Occam. He said usually the simplest answer is the right answer. So when someone tells me the Americans faked the moon landing I like to point out it would be easier to land on the moon, than to fake landing on the moon.
Your views on this one are common - they were a part of the Jewish arsenal from the get-go.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 10, 2014 18:29:58 GMT -5
There were more than one Herod - you know that. He had Antipas, Aristobulus, Phasael etc.. Google Herod. When Herod the Great was gone, each region named his reigning son "Herod." SOME wanted to take Jesus by force and throne him (they wouldn't have gotten far!) and OTHERS wanted to kill him. Biblical critics love to focus upon a single interpretation, a single group or a single idea to discredit. But the bible, like life itself, has complexity. So much for your belief that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. So now you think that my understanding of the Jewish views was correct from the get-go. I perceive that you were just testing me all this time to see if I was getting it right after all. Apparently I passed. Or did you think I have been telling you what I believe to be true. I don't necessarily think any one it is true -- I've just been trying to tell you what the Bible story actually says.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 5:11:50 GMT -5
Quote - " So now you think that my understanding of the Jewish views was correct from the get-go." Non sequitur my friend. I said your view is the one the Jews adopted after Jesus (and for many - including his own kindred, while He was with them.)
Quote - "Biblical critics love to focus upon a single interpretation, a single group or a single idea to discredit. But the bible, like life itself, has complexity. So much for your belief that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one." MY Occams Razor here is that yes, Jesus WAS the man He said He was, and yes, He DID the things recorded of him. The alternative point of view has this man involved in a vast conspiracy involving historic figures, whole nations, rewriting (and destroying) scripture, staging events, mind control over vast numbers of people etc. on a scale that puts the Protocols of Zion to Shame.
Here's one example from my unanswered thread on Genesis 49:10 New Living Translation The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor.
(don't you love the brevity of this?) interpretation - there will one day be a nation of the Hebrews, complete with its own monarchy and law - but it will end with the Messiah who will belong not to us but the Gentiles.
Our putative fake prophet would have either 1 - had this inserted in the Jewish Torah unnoticed after the 2nd Century AD. 2 - hazard a guess that the Jews are about to be doomed and he would be the most famous person in history through subterfuge, deceit and just plain luck.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 11, 2014 16:15:09 GMT -5
It's a bit tricky claiming something as your own when in fact **** that far back **** you as a people didn't exist.Guess you can say the flood story should be common to allthe people of that region.ie you can't have a flood for "Jews" but not Sumerians. About that Sumerian story of Gilgamesh.
"Gilgamesh was a king of Uruk, Mesopotamia, who lived sometime between 2800 and 2500 BC.[1] He is the main character in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Mesopotamian poem that is considered the first great work of literature.[2] In the epic, Gilgamesh is a demigod of superhuman strength who built the city walls of Uruk to defend his people and travelled to meet the sage Utnapishtim, who survived the Great Deluge." Now, in the story of Noah, who copied whom?
Did the Genesis version copy the Sumerian one or did Sumerian copy the Genesis story? It seems that biblical story was copied from the story of Gilgamish since Abraham came out of the Mesopotamian area ..
In actuality does it even matter?
There has been a lot of catastrophes in the history of the earth . Never mind that they were natural catastrophes.
Leave it to religion to make them into a sermon to control people!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 11, 2014 18:03:12 GMT -5
Quote - " So now you think that my understanding of the Jewish views was correct from the get-go." Non sequitur my friend. I said your view is the one the Jews adopted after Jesus (and for many - including his own kindred, while He was with them.)
You made that up.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2014 1:56:13 GMT -5
Q MY Occams Razor here is that yes, Jesus WAS the man He said He was, and yes, He DID the things recorded of him.
the alternative point of view has this man involved in a vast conspiracy involving historic figures, whole nations, rewriting (and destroying) scripture, staging events, mind control over vast numbers of people etc. on a scale that puts the Protocols of Zion to Shame.
No, Bert that isn't the only alternate. It is YOU that is limiting alternates.
Instead of "Jesus being the man He said He was."
Jesus could have truly believed he was who he thought he was. Jesus could have been a man who thought that he could reallylcould lead his people out of bondage to the Romans. Jesus could have been just man caught up in the political movement of his time by trying to show up the rich Jews that were kow-towing to the Romans for their own gain
Jesus could have been a raving lunatic Jesus could have been a humble man that the writers of the gospels took avantage of after his death in an attempt to change the Jewish religion.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2014 2:12:32 GMT -5
Here's one example from my unanswered thread on Genesis 49:10 New Living Translation The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor.
(don't you love the brevity of this?) interpretation - there will one day be a nation of the Hebrews, complete with its own monarchy and law - but it will end with the Messiah who will belong not to us but the Gentiles.
Our putative fake prophet would have either 1 - had this inserted in the Jewish Torah unnoticed after the 2nd Century AD. 2 - hazard a guess that the Jews are about to be doomed and he would be the most famous person in history through subterfuge, deceit and just plain luck. So now you are an interpreter of scripture, bert.
Actually, this bit of scripture doesn't live up to it's prophecy. "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor." The scepter DID depart from the Jews, the ruler's staff DID depart from his descendants.
For many years the Jews had no scepter or staff of there own. They lived in many areas of the world under other rulers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 12:06:41 GMT -5
Here's one example from my unanswered thread on Genesis 49:10 New Living Translation The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor.
(don't you love the brevity of this?) interpretation - there will one day be a nation of the Hebrews, complete with its own monarchy and law - but it will end with the Messiah who will belong not to us but the Gentiles.
Our putative fake prophet would have either 1 - had this inserted in the Jewish Torah unnoticed after the 2nd Century AD. 2 - hazard a guess that the Jews are about to be doomed and he would be the most famous person in history through subterfuge, deceit and just plain luck. So now you are an interpreter of scripture, bert.
Actually, this bit of scripture doesn't live up to it's prophecy. "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor." The scepter DID depart from the Jews, the ruler's staff DID depart from his descendants.
For many years the Jews had no scepter or staff of there own. They lived in many areas of the world under other rulers.
your not seeing what the verse says....its says "until the coming of the one to whom it belongs" "until" is a key word in that verse...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2014 15:52:56 GMT -5
So now you are an interpreter of scripture, bert.
Actually, this bit of scripture doesn't live up to it's prophecy. "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor." The scepter DID depart from the Jews, the ruler's staff DID depart from his descendants.
For many years the Jews had no scepter or staff of there own. They lived in many areas of the world under other rulers.
your not seeing what the verse says....its says "until the coming of the one to whom it belongs" "until" is a key word in that verse... What has the word "until" got to do with it?
If you are saying "the one to whom it belongs" was Jesus, the scepter HAD departed from the Jews by then.
They weren't rulers over themselves before Jesus was born, at his the time he was on the earth and certainly not afterwards. So there never was a time when they continued to have their own "scepter & the ruler's staff" cover them.
Unless you are trying to fit present day Israel into the picture. That still is not one continuous time period where the "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from his descendants"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2014 17:27:00 GMT -5
So the story of Abraham fitted Sumerian legends? Maybe the Sumerians got them from the proto-Hebrews? Why did the Jews "invent" the story of their slavery? I recall when "scholars" we saying there is no such thing as a "Jew", it's all cultural. That was before DNA showed they were wrong. I recall when "scholars" were saying the story of the bride for Isaac wasn't strictly true because camels were not domesticated at that time. That's till they found domestic camels in Abraham's strata. But I am way too young to recall when "scholars" ridiculed the idea that the scattered Jews could return to their ancient homeland and seize it back from the Muslims. And then resurrect their ancient language and identity. Be nice if modern day "scholars" could report in public, as newspapers sometimes do, "WE WERE WRONG." And it would be nice if you, Bert, would actually name & quote your so-called "scholars" so that we could check who they were and their thoughts on a subject.
|
|