Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
Good post. That pretty much sums it all up. MUQ's last resort is playing the victim card again rather than learning proper logic. Intellectually lazy.
Going on vacation so I may go silent for a while. Carry on.

I'll keep the huns, the infidels, and the apostates at bay while you are gone. Not to worry....Just dotn forget to return to relieve me of my duty.

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll keep the huns, the infidels, and the apostates at bay while you are gone. Not to worry....Just dotn forget to return to relieve me of my duty.

You forgot to mention the Saxons, Picts, and Spear-Danes :)

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
exactly my point (and then some). Paying taxes is not necessarily a religious experience. It could be, I suppose. But not necesarily.
AS far as the "and then some": The world has changed a little since the days of King George. We now have automatic garage door openers and disposable diapers. ANd there are entire blogs dedicated to the earthshaking possibility that the new Iphone5 may have a 2 mV larger battery.

rabbee: any thing that is done, persistantly over and over is a religion involving a religious activity. but it does not mean it is, any religion true to G-D. you are either, repetativly true to G-D or not true to G-D. taxes is a means of forced tithing, to support some religious activity. it is, the nero or pharoah worship syndrome.

this world's not here in TheTorah reality is merely an illusion, no matter how persistantly mentaly delusional it is while actually here in TheTorahHappening.

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll keep the huns, the infidels, and the apostates at bay while you are gone. Not to worry....Just dotn forget to return to relieve me of my duty.

oops! did not know; it was your turn to keep track of joel.

rabbee yehoshooah adam wrote:

<quoted text>
rabbee: any thing that is done, persistantly over and over is a religion involving a religious activity. but it does not mean it is, any religion true to G-D. you are either, repetativly true to G-D or not true to G-D. taxes is a means of forced tithing, to support some religious activity. it is, the nero or pharoah worship syndrome.
this world's not here in TheTorah reality is merely an illusion, no matter how persistantly mentaly delusional it is while actually here in TheTorahHappening.

You say one is repeatedly true to God, or repeatedly not true to God.

But, how do we resolve the example of Jonathan (King Davids friend) with this dynamic?

Was Jonathan a man who was trying to straddle the fence, and stay on good terms with both sides, even though his father was clearly evil?

I have not made up my mind on how to interpret Jonathan yet, so Im eager to see what you guys think about the lessons to be drawn from the life and death of Jonathan.

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot to mention the Saxons, Picts, and Spear-Danes :)

I am partial to the Picts - thanks to Pink Floyd (Ummagamma??)

As far as the Saxons goes, the joke has been that Mit Romney DOES represent multiple ethnic groups - the Anglos and the Saxons.

Spear-Danes sounds violent so I will let that slide

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Im not arguing anything here. Im just fishing for your opinions is all.
When I said that Christians probably use the Torah more", it was about 2 things.
A...Christianity is hyper evangelical by nature, where Judaism isnt.
B...Christians way out number Jews in the world.
So, based on that, we probably do use the Torah more.
Anyway, Im just trying to get your position on Melchizedek known so I can relate to what your saying about Melchizedek being just an ordinary person.
But we still have this curious Messianic prophecy to resolve, and Melchizedek comes up again in it.
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."...Psalm 110: 1-4
Hmm...?

Understood.

Technically you are of course correct by your demographic but I reject your use of the label. When one says Torah, it is implied it is the Hebrew set. Christians doent use the Hebrew set, and what they use has a different order, as well as not so subtle translation differences.

I understand Melchizadok as a cohen (priest). A human. As of the Psalm - It can be understood at face value without any attribution of additional ideology, so I have nothing to explain.

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Understood.
Technically you are of course correct by your demographic but I reject your use of the label. When one says Torah, it is implied it is the Hebrew set. Christians doent use the Hebrew set, and what they use has a different order, as well as not so subtle translation differences.
I understand Melchizadok as a cohen (priest). A human. As of the Psalm - It can be understood at face value without any attribution of additional ideology, so I have nothing to explain.

Just checking as to what Orthodox Judaism says about the Psalm 110 and Melchizedek.

Now, as to Jonathan? Was he a fence rider who paid for his indecision with his life? Is that how to interpret Jonathan?

Surely David would have accepted Jonathan into his camp of followers, if Jonathan had left Sauls house?

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
It works for you too?

Oh no im married and my wife is very jealous.t

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You assert that Melchizedek was a cleric, or High Preist of an Earthly congregation of YHWH worshippers?
What Synagogue was that? Where was it located?
After all, Abraham was the father of Judaism. Wherever he went, that was where Judaism was. But Melchizedek didnt wander around with Abraham. We are not told of another nation of Jews existing in Abrahams time.
So where was this Temple that Melchizedek was the High Preist of?
And what did the Psalmist mean with this Messianic scripture...
..."The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."...Psalm 110: 1-4
An interesting discourse among theologians...
Psalm 110, Adonai, and Agency - YouTube
&#9658; 10:16&#9658; 10:16
www.youtube.com/watch...
So, it may come down to the question of whether an Omni-present YHWH can be in two places at once?
Remember what the Jewish scriptures say of Messiah in Micah?
..."But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."...Micah 5:2
What can limit YHWH?

I assert nothing. You and other Christians read only tidbits of verses that you twist to 'prove' your religion on the back of someone else's. I assert that you could have a perfectly fine religion if only the followers of Jesus would follow his teachings (not Paul's), especially 'love your neighbor'. That one teaching would've made it unnecessary to kill millions of people that didn't want to accept your religion.
Judaism doesn't teach that everyone else is going hell, unlike yours. Malchi-tzedek was aware of One Creator, and he recognized Abram as someone who also believed the same. They didn't need Jesus, or anyone else as a co-god. He didn't try to convert Abram or vice versa.

Is the verse introducing Malchi-tzedek missing from your bible? It is necessary for him to be a Jew in order to worship the Most High? Abraham's followers didn't coalesce into "Jews" until Isaac's twelve children (tribes). You think the Most High was absent from the world until then - think about it.

8 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High.
(ooooh - bread and wine...this must be talking about Jesus...oooh)
Usually a priest has followers - think about it.

19 And he blessed him, and said:'Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth;
(Malchi-tzedek must be Jesus giving a blessing for Jesus....ooooh - I love circular reasoning)

20 and blessed be God the Most High, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.'
(YES YES this proves the trinity - Malchi-tzedek (jesus) blessing Abram, then blessing himself (jesus) who is God)

Psalm 110 - mistranslation and grammatical touchups in order to christify it. Dealt with earlier.

Micah 5:2 - as with many of the supposed links to Tanakh, the NT was retrofitted to make it appear as fulfillments of prophecy. I've often asked why Jesus never fulfilled any verifiable prophecies such as universal peace, universal knowledge of Torah, removing pain from childbirth. Primarily, he didn't restore the united 12-tribe kingdom.

Your expected answer of 2nd coming is smoke and mirrors reasoning. Mithra hasn't returned either.

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You say one is repeatedly true to God, or repeatedly not true to God.
But, how do we resolve the example of Jonathan (King Davids friend) with this dynamic?
Was Jonathan a man who was trying to straddle the fence, and stay on good terms with both sides, even though his father was clearly evil?
I have not made up my mind on how to interpret Jonathan yet, so Im eager to see what you guys think about the lessons to be drawn from the life and death of Jonathan.

rabbee: how can i agree, disagree, with anything that has distorted names in it? there is no letters j or i in eevreet. since any attempt to do so, condones the altering of names in scripture. i am not going to give any illusion, that those distored names are correct.

but as far as Nathanel and Daveed Melech are concerned. there is a right time, for every thing. but do not lie, until that time comes. when your dealing with a touchy situation, it is ok to remain silent for the right time to unveil itself.

if a man has an, ak47 in his hands. this may not be the right time, to tell him of his sin of robbing a bank.

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh no im married and my wife is very jealous.t

What does one have to do with the other?

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Just checking as to what Orthodox Judaism says about the Psalm 110 and Melchizedek.
Now, as to Jonathan? Was he a fence rider who paid for his indecision with his life? Is that how to interpret Jonathan?
Surely David would have accepted Jonathan into his camp of followers, if Jonathan had left Sauls house?

Jonathan was David's gay lover.(oh excuse me, we call them "special friends" so as not to excite anyone)

There is no such thing as the "orthodox" view, IMO. We dont have a vatican structure. There is the translation/interpretation of the verse, period. Unlike the Christians, I dont have an underlying ideology or story line that I feel compelled to push, so I have no reason to make interpret/translate that anyway other than phshat (plain meaning).

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh no im married and my wife is very jealous.t

Can you be a volunteerist but still feel obligated by an involuntary marriage compact?

I wish COR was still around to ponder this.

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Just checking as to what Orthodox Judaism says about the Psalm 110 and Melchizedek.
Now, as to Jonathan? Was he a fence rider who paid for his indecision with his life? Is that how to interpret Jonathan?
Surely David would have accepted Jonathan into his camp of followers, if Jonathan had left Sauls house?

Perhaps a better place to start is what the original language says without grammatical 'touch-ups' added by church translators.

le-david, mizmor:
naum HaShem, le-adonai
"shev liyamini"

http://eteacherbiblical.com/

to Yoda

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...

Why We Need Ecological Medicine

We know which species make us sick, but we must learn which species make us healthy.

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>Perhaps a better place to start is what the original language says without grammatical 'touch-ups' added by church translators.
le-david, mizmor:
naum HaShem, le-adonai
"shev liyamini"
http://eteacherbiblical.com/

Translate the German phrase "Was machts du?" into English and what do you get? Litterally translated word for word, it means "What makes you?". That might open up the door to a debate over evolution, carbon based matter, creationism, etc. You might go astray in doing it that way.

But to translate the actual meaning, it comes out something like "What are you doing"?

When you say retrofitted, what do you speak of? The Masoretic texts and the redactions and transliterations?

The original paleo-hebrew would not have had vowel pointers, it was all consonants. The vowels were always part of the language, but they had to be memorized. When we read the Psalm 110 for example, it is with the added Masoretic vowel pointers added, possibly 1500 years or more after the Psalm was written.

Is this a retro-fit, or just a reflection of how languages naturally change over time?

Also is the issue of margin notes and comentaries of explanation. The Masorets used margin notes, possibly as a way of resolving paleo-hebrew texts translations into aramaic (following the captivity) or more modern Hebrew, which included the vowel pointers. The 1535 version also came with the commentary of explanations that applied to the texts. This was what the King James Bible was based on.

A familiarization video

A History of the Masoretic Hebrew Texts - YouTube
&#9658; 4:55&#9658; 4:55

www.youtube.com/watch...

You will note that later Jewish works left out altogether, the commentaries and footnotes of the earlier MT?

So, "Was machts du"? Which is (the correct) way to translate it?

BTW,the phrase "and bowed down and worshipped" was a common one in the OT. Old Hebrew was repetitive. But...We can look at that issue later.

BTW, what was the oldest translation of the OT (in any language) before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found?

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text> BTW,the phrase "and bowed down and worshipped" was a common one in the OT. Old Hebrew was repetitive. But...We can look at that issue later.
BTW, what was the oldest translation of the OT (in any language) before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found?

What's german got to do with this? Let's stick with the issue you avoid - adding phrases to someone else's scriptures..

How many times is the phrase 'bowed down and worshipped' used in the original writings" I'm not referring to the church version right now.

It appears you've been bamboozled by the Greek also - the church translators tend to choose a word with more emotional impact when weaving the mythology.

Your version uses the word 'worship', but the original Greek uses a word meaning bowing/prostrating from the word 'proskynesis' in the manner of honoring someone with no connotation of divinity.
Why did your translators add the word 'worship'?
(That's a rhetorical question since you haven't answered it the other 7 times I've asked.)

Matthew 2:1 (YLT)
and having come to the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and having fallen down they bowed to him, and having opened their treasures, they presented to him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh,

Now we all know that act of bowing has a totally different meaning than the act of worshipping. Obama didn't worship the Saudi king when he bowed to him.

I'll repeat the first question and await a direct answer.

"How many times is the Hebrew phrase 'bowed down and worshipped' used in the original Hebrew writings?"

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>What's german got to do with this? Let's stick with the issue you avoid - adding phrases to someone else's scriptures..
How many times is the phrase 'bowed down and worshipped' used in the original writings" I'm not referring to the church version right now.
It appears you've been bamboozled by the Greek also - the church translators tend to choose a word with more emotional impact when weaving the mythology.
Your version uses the word 'worship', but the original Greek uses a word meaning bowing/prostrating from the word 'proskynesis' in the manner of honoring someone with no connotation of divinity.
Why did your translators add the word 'worship'?
(That's a rhetorical question since you haven't answered it the other 7 times I've asked.)
Matthew 2:1 (YLT)
and having come to the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and having fallen down they bowed to him, and having opened their treasures, they presented to him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh,
Now we all know that act of bowing has a totally different meaning than the act of worshipping. Obama didn't worship the Saudi king when he bowed to him.
I'll repeat the first question and await a direct answer.
"How many times is the Hebrew phrase 'bowed down and worshipped' used in the original Hebrew writings?"

BTW, using the three wise men story in Matthew was an excellent way of proving my point. Those fellows came a long way to worship the new born King of the Jews.

Are you admitting that the Greek version (ca AD 200) was copied from an earlier, more original source text than the later versions used by Orthodox Judaism today?

I didnt say that, BTW. But it seems that you are trying to dance around that issue, so I wonder. I asked what was the oldest translation in any language, and you immediately brought up the Greek one.

As to how many times the bowing down and worshipping (Hebrew shachah) was mentioned in the Bible, 172 times in the KJV. Here is a source link...

Shachah - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/s...

The word in question is shachah, which is indeed in the Hebrew text, not added later as you wrongly said.

You say that it is bowing down in submission, that is sometimes,but not always worship. That is true, but...

When we take the text as a whole, then the situation becomes clearer. The man that Joshua spoke with also told Joshua to remove
his sandals, for the place he was standing was on Holy ground.

This is the same thing YHWH told Moses at the burning bush.

So, the Christian translators took a word that by itself was inconclusive (shachah), compared the rest of the text to see what was going on, and formulated the correct answer.

Jewish translators would see the same inconclusive word (shachah) and take it out of context by divorcing it from the rest of the text, and get a different result.

The man Joshua gave shachah to, accepted worship (no angel would do this). Joshua calls himself "thy servant". Is this to imply tht Joshua was a worshiper of angels (idolatry)?

So when we translate the word shachah your way, it makes zero sense. But when we take the word as it is presented in the Christian texts, it makes perfect sense from a theological point of view.

And, Joshua has more dealings with this man just two verses later. Such as...

Joshua 6:2 Hebrew Texts and Analysis
biblos.com/joshua/6-2.htm

"And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valor."...Joshua 6:2

Notice the speaker was written as YHWH?

So, when we examine the issue, your way of translation dont make any sense from a grammatical, literary, or theological point of view. But when it is translated as the KJV Bible has it, it all makes perfect sense, and it all flows and it is in agreement with itself.

Are you admitting that the Greek version (ca AD 200) was copied from an earlier, more original source text than the later versions used by Orthodox Judaism today?

I didnt say that, BTW. But it seems that you are trying to dance around that issue, which makes me wonder why. I asked what was the oldest translation in any language, and you immediately brought up the Greek one.

As to how many times the (shachah) bowing down and worshipping was mentioned in the Bible, 172 times in the KJV. Here is a source link...

Shachah - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/s...

The word in question is shachah, which is indeed in the Hebrew text, not added later as you wrongly said.

You say that it is bowing down in submission, that is sometimes,but not always worship. That is true, but...

When we take the text as a whole, then the situation becomes clearer. The man that Joshua spoke with also told Joshua to remove
his sandals, for the place he was standing was on Holy ground.

This is the same thing YHWH told Moses at the burning bush.

So, the Christian translators took a word that by itself was inconclusive (shachah), compared the rest of the text to see what was going on, and formulated the correct answer.

Jewish translators would see the same inconclusive word (shachah) and take it out of context by divorcing it from the rest of the text, and get a different (artificial) result.

The man Joshua shachah to accepted worship (no angel would do this). Joshua calls himself "thy servant". Is this to imply tht Joshua was a worshiper of angels (idolatry)?

So when we translate the word shachah your way, it makes zero sense. But when we take the word as it is presented in the Christian texts, it makes perfect sense from a theological point of view.

And, Joshua has more dealings with this man just two verses later. Such as...

Joshua 6:2 Hebrew Texts and Analysis
biblos.com/joshua/6-2.htm

"And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valor."...Joshua 6:2

Notice the speaker was written as YHWH?

So, when we examine the issue, your way of translation dont make any sense from a grammatical, literary, or theological point of view. But when it is translated as the KJV Bible has it, it all makes perfect sense, and it all flows and it is in agreement with itself.