Who Are The Real Children Of Israel?

One translation would have migdol as a tower where they kept fish, or maybe a pile/woodwork with dried fish.
'mgadla nshaya'aramaic is a good start.
Suddenly we have to think indeed aramaic/greek.
It's a well-known greek headdress, roman as well.

Well let's make a start.
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STR...
kjv based ;)
But also jesus and his mary magdalen firmly placed in Egypt.

factbites.com

Pandera (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-16)
Finally and most controversially a certain "Plony" Ben Stada is supposed to be illegitimately descended from the same family because of his mother Miriam Mgadla (Miryai the Hairdresser) called Stath-Da as "she was unfaithful" to her husband Paphos Ben Jehuda.
Though Yeshu ben Pandera fits into the early half of the first century CE, he is most often confused with a much earlier and more infamous Yeshu of rabbinical literature who was the student of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah who lived at the start of the first century BCE.
The Tosefta, the Palestinian Gemara and the Babylonian Gemara, depict Ben Stada as a Jewish sorcerer living around 100 CE and as having brought spells out of Egypt by marking them in his skin (hiding a parchment with them written on it in a cut in his thigh) on a Sabbath.
www.brainyencyclopedia.com /encyclopedia/p/pa/pandera.htm l (1204 words)

read an entire site in portugues. Opinion find mary magdala to be an invention.

And ran into a site that is undoubtedly written by 'jesus is':
http://www.thelowestroom.com/Jason/SerpentsSe...
The hairdresser snake:)
Maybe she had braided hair, like medusa.
Which is by the way a referal to the African warrior-women of the olden days.
Forgot the exact link with Gorgon. Presumably tribal.

MAAT wrote:

LOL Amazing! would be a good estimate.
Anyone that thinks that borrowing from the old hebrew book gives provenance and meaning to the inacuracies of the various interpretations of parables and even person of a son of god( nowhere in the HB) has not understood the difference in philosophy between the two!
They are nothing but christians and ones that paul calls judaizers. i.o.w. claimants of a legacy coined as the true and only true new religion.
If hillbilly had a good basis instead of preaching christian treife allavro and staking that claim of being the arbiter of all thought and therefore everybody else wrong...we might have a normal discussion.
But we've seen messianism in all forms already and are dead-tired of discussing what is and always has been irreconcilable.
It's not even the same god! Nor god-concept!
Though nowadays there are so many sects that it is anybodies guess what they think.

You say the Son of God is nowhere in the Hebrew Bible?

Lets go to Psalm 2?

2:2...The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.

2:7...I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.

2:12...Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Here, kiss was to show allegiance to. One might do this for a superior, or to an idol, etc.

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You say the Son of God is nowhere in the Hebrew Bible?
Lets go to Psalm 2?
2:2...The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.
2:7...I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.
2:12...Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Here, kiss was to show allegiance to. One might do this for a superior, or to an idol, etc.

You have been corrected for your misuse of Psalm 2 on the other thread. There is no kissing going on, and the word 'son' is used in verse 7, not in verse 12.
Typical Christian scripture mutilation.

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>You have been corrected for your misuse of Psalm 2 on the other thread. There is no kissing going on, and the word 'son' is used in verse 7, not in verse 12.
Typical Christian scripture mutilation.

did you get my message?
given the 502 error

Source?...it must be kjv again and i allready find myself not in the mood to start correcting. Not even looking it up, to play the silly game along.

Messianism is a mess. Was that the one?
What was the other thread?
It must be said that the old KJV has a web version with translated AND translitterated AND hebrew original text.
The might have adapted the new KJV.
But the devil is still in the detail, since the translation is wrong.

TNLV
the horror with the lordLordLORD.

Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth take…Deze pagina vertalen
bible.cc/psalms/2-2.htmNew International Version (©1984) The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.
Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth take…Deze pagina vertalen
bible.cc/acts/4-26.htmNew International Version (©1984) The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One.'
Old Testament Titles Used to Describe…Deze pagina vertalen
ncbible.org/resources/ActsComm03OT.htmlPsalm 2:2 "The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One." (Christ)

No wonder prejudice and maladjustment is rife.

MAAT wrote:

TNLV
the horror with the lordLordLORD.
Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth take…Deze pagina vertalen
bible.cc/psalms/2-2.htmNew International Version (©1984) The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.
Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth take…Deze pagina vertalen
bible.cc/acts/4-26.htmNew International Version (©1984) The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One.'
Old Testament Titles Used to Describe…Deze pagina ver
ncbible.org/resources/ActsComm03OT.htmlPsalm 2:2 "The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One." (Christ)
No wonder prejudice and maladjustment is rife.

maladjustment..lol. Haven't used that word in a while, but it does fit the messianic christian movement nicely. Let's see how it looks with CAPS. The Messianic Maladjustment Movement. Now for a slogan....

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
did you get my message?
given the 502 error
Source?...it must be kjv again and i allready find myself not in the mood to start correcting. Not even looking it up, to play the silly game along.
Messianism is a mess. Was that the one?
What was the other thread?
It must be said that the old KJV has a web version with translated AND translitterated AND hebrew original text.
The might have adapted the new KJV.
But the devil is still in the detail, since the translation is wrong.

Yes, I see the NKJV has taken out their maladjustment tools and added footnotes. They still don't have the guts to 'tweak' the verse itself back to the original, however the footnotes tell all.

a.Psalm 2:12 Septuagint and Vulgate read Embrace discipline; Targum reads Receive instruction.
b.Psalm 2:12 Septuagint reads the Lord.

That certainly turns off the Jesus messiah connection.

Vulgate and septuagint are both retranslated again.
It's vexing that most sites provide translations that allready have an interpretation in place.
So if i properly translate XAIA ot IUXU with resp. romanized-greek 'commoner' and koiné-greek/archaic or old greek or even Alexandrian greek 'proof for simple mans eyes'-as a well known old greek abbreviation, in later times changed to 'iochus'-
then it is rather galling to find some translation where we find that all those expresssions are taken to have either kyrios or even jesus inserted, as if the often curious expressions had that meaning.
They knew full well how to properly write 'saviour'or names with that referal in them.
So my conclusion, as others found before, shows that it was written differently, about in essence an unknown man. Furthermore some expressions seem to simply be directed to the general reader or a specific reader.
As proof for a simple mans eyes they say ( a lot of statements start with: it was said...they told...), as if we are really looking at a report about a situation, that gives a summation.
Just as pliny or Tacitus would have written their report. Or even the north-African 'church-fathers' bringing report about the vile pagans and gnostics.

Which we see later discussed and voted upon by a.o. Eusebius and in all the synodes, who would then render a knew statement.
As proof for the simple mans eyes -it would be enough to state...

I also pointed out that the symbol for PAX was used to draw attention: read this passage out loud.

It seems however that the septua was of around the same date as the vaticanus, sinaiticus folowing shortly after.
It is simply the lack of for xianity uncontested first centuries material, and for the translation of the hebrew book we usually find who was involved, but nothing resembling the septua was ever circulated and reported upon in the early centuries.

Expressions in syriac of the first gospels( 5th century, but in arab we find the earliest translations) are equaly devoid of nametitle and title.
But here we also find the claim that they intended f.i. IA E (or some such vague expression, no matter what way you look at it, or no matter what vowels you think they intended) to be read as name and title.

So best to stick with good ol'hebrew.

It is funny to find that nowadays christians consider the original versions of the gospels as less reliable. Catholic church made forgeries.
So i think that is where we get MMMN.
But jews for jesus keep eluding me.
Muslims for jesus makes a bit more sense.
So app

This makes an amusing read:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/ind...
The oldest codices declared 'inferior','conspiracies of the catholic church' etc.

Apropos dating. Most was and is done by comparing writing and paper.(When the same happens to fossils, creationist will cry:' FOUL!') In some cases that comes pretty close or with the same accuracy as carbon dating.
But when it comes to xian bible material nothing ends up in the first century nor are snippets given away for C-dating.(Not even the P texts! Dating of all is disputed. Though a chinese scientist got his hand on some and found late 2nd C CE. And 'texts'is really stretching the finds in some instances. Like the DSS e.g. 8 letter readable, 3 connected reading KAI, and 5 not. It's original LUKE or whatever!) But in this way we find the strange development in using gnostic papers to establish veracity of any christology claims.

John 5:20 in an original form.
http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/sa...

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm

more about dating and P.

Note: scholars woud now date the diatesseron at about 4th century, if any such manuscript existed.

maybe the site is right about stating what a fundamentalist is.
I used to think it was the universal bible-crowd, thus those KJV people.
But P72 reflects some noices we heard from our most avid xians. I.e. GOD = jesus.

I wondered about the god intended in these old papyri. Politically correct changes etc.
And whether they would have a better understanding of Saviour as honorary function and Krystos as just a respectfull title (Baal or lord) or at best later the title and meaning of annointed' in kinging.
Given that early prayers untill the 6th century, even after pope Leo the Great forbid it in the 5th century, used the phrase 'Our Lord, the sun'.*

Also of the pre-17th c. CE bibles only one russian bible is dated (9th c.)! The rest is thus based on claims, form and comparison of writing.

* without winter there is no spring.
Without death there is no life.
Let life return.

Well solstice celebrations still are alive and well, and most certainly less bloody.

http://thegospelofmenotes.blogspot.nl/2006/08...

Mark identified as Marcus Agrippa.

With Gaius and Titus we almost have a set.

Luke acc. to one patrist a companion of Paul.

It is amazing what one can f.i. read about the gospel of the hebrews, said to be an early Matthew, without the thing ever having seen the light of day. Just wiki for it.

How ever unbelievable it might be, some earliest patrist works discuss it and the entire timeline is based on it. The diatesseron as well as historicity of said church-fathers.
Of this 2nd c. CE father of lugdunum (Lyon) a few snippets in Greek remain BUT a wooden copy was made immediately after the greek version in Latin!
And the kind we see f.i. Scotius written/translated in, thus quite modern.
Roight!
Time-machine thus, amazing ability to suddenly write Greek and Latin avant la lettre, escape wholesale murder, travel back and forth as if planes where also invented, money no issue, and as if prosecution of christians never happened etc.
What was it again...5700 snippets left in greek.
About 1400 relevant for early dating.
Diminish the number again by the Papyri and such awkward claims by the church and we are left with very little that is original and not disputed.
They should have thought before they burned every book they could lay there hand on!
And it is incredibly hard to find any depictions of actual text as claimed in the church-history.
Self-reference and ascribed dates because of this, do not cut it.

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a common misperception due to lack of education among Christians.
The practice of Halacha (following mitzvot) is very concerned with developing an inner life - and nowhere does it state that outward behavior without inner intent is sufficient. This is common knowledge among traditional Jews. We have entire texts devoted to this in the Musar literature. And concepts suh as "ruach" that reinforce this. Get yourself a hebrew education, talk to a rabbi, buy books....you will discover that there is a wide breadth of deeper Jewish wisdom that your church is not providing for you that covers these topics.

Nothing is worse than an educated fool. Take heed.

Eve existed before Adam. Eve was a hermaphrodite. She conceived on her own and had several children. After a while, God, who is also female, decided that the woman needed a companion and helpmate. Thus man was created. That is the reason man is so much stronger than woman. He was created to help woman.

The woman then conceived Cain and Abel with Adam’s help (helpmate). Cain eventually married one of his sisters who was previously conceived by his mother alone (by impregnating herself). The female genitalia say it all. You will never find a hermaphrodite (intersexed) person who is predominantly male. You will find a hermaphrodite person who is predominantly female. In the beginning the male gonads were more prominent in females, but because of the change where Adam was made, after a while female lost the ability to conceive by themselves.

All the wars men fought in Bible days were fought to protect women. Then as time went by, men started to use their strengths to their advantage. They got rid of women as the dominant figure (in a similar way in which they are trying to debase Blacks. Another story).The Bible has been tarnished by men to suit their whims. Don't be fooled when the catholics pray and say 'Hail Mary Mother of God...' There is more to it. Mary was the only functioning hermaphrodite who could be found in the time of Jesus and that is why she was chosen as his mother. She was the second Eve, the first woman, the first human. God help us. Selah

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>You have been corrected for your misuse of Psalm 2 on the other thread. There is no kissing going on, and the word 'son' is used in verse 7, not in verse 12.
Typical Christian scripture mutilation.

SS--There is no kissing going on, and the word 'son' is used in verse 7, not in verse 12.Typical Christian scripture MUTILATION.

HughBe--- The KJV has kiss and Son(BAR) in verse 12. Tell me what word you have used for the transliterated word BAR or KJV "son".

Tell me why there is no "kissing" given that the transliterated word nashaq means KISS and is the dominant translation of the word starting from Genesis where we read "And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss (nashaq) me, my son"

Note how nashaq is translated in the KJV and note its frequency.—

nashaq---kiss 29, armed 2, kissed him 1, armed men 1, ruled 1, touched 1

Now, tell me about the Christian MUTILATION.

HB we are not going to do take 3000 on translating..by now you should be able to o it properly yourselve...or read in the appropriate threads.

But socio-economic circumstances aside as in having an impact on evolving religion, i think it's time again for a comprehensive world-wide study of people presentation:
http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page8.htm
From Asia to the Americas and way earlier then ever thought.
With unexpected links.(Some scholars discussed this in general of guessed at it).
Native Americns also extensively discussed.
And a further understanding of Altai Denizovans and old Sumer(KI-EN-GIR)indeed populated by these KI-EN-GIR.
Melanesia and other discussed in more detail.
http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page8.htm

MAAT wrote:

HB we are not going to do take 3000 on translating..by now you should be able to o it properly yourselve...or read in the appropriate threads.
But socio-economic circumstances aside as in having an impact on evolving religion, i think it's time again for a comprehensive world-wide study of people presentation:
http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page8.htm
From Asia to the Americas and way earlier then ever thought.
With unexpected links.(Some scholars discussed this in general of guessed at it).
Native Americns also extensively discussed.
And a further understanding of Altai Denizovans and old Sumer(KI-EN-GIR)indeed populated by these KI-EN-GIR.
Melanesia and other discussed in more detail.
http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page8.htm

creepy - like I said. ;|

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>You have been corrected for your misuse of Psalm 2 on the other thread. There is no kissing going on, and the word 'son' is used in verse 7, not in verse 12.
Typical Christian scripture mutilation.

Even if it is in reference to King David, it's pretty ominous. For some, I would say. I do notice that he was not too forgiving for those who spoke against him, and things happened. Take Michal, she said the wrong thing to him and paid for it. Gotta be careful.

NotQuiter wrote:

<quoted text>Even if it is in reference to King David, it's pretty ominous. For some, I would say. I do notice that he was not too forgiving for those who spoke against him, and things happened. Take Michal, she said the wrong thing to him and paid for it. Gotta be careful.

I wasn't referring to the Psalm or David, rather the 'creepy' one in the pm.