Carin Nel

Jesus WAS born in Bethlehem. Where Jesus was born necessarily involves how he was born.
As I’ve stated already in http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...50#post3512950, archaeological excavations show that Bethlehem in Galilee is a first-century site just seven miles from Nazareth, so there is good reason to believe that the Bethlehem which Matthew and Luke remember, dimly and distantly (and through the lenses of scripture and legend) was actually in Galilee. Matthew 1:18, as interpreted here, provides us with a clue to why Jesus’ parents were in Galilean Bethlehem in the first place. Had Joseph been domiciled there, that would explain both that Mary’s pregnancy in Nazareth was a scandal and why Joseph took her away from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth. (Such a change of site is, of course, much more plausible than having Joseph and Mary traveling to Judea for the birth, a journey which in any case would have violated the custom mentioned in Ketuboth 13:10 in the Mishnah.) The conditions of Jesus’ conception as Matthew refers to them made him a mamzer in the eyes of Mary’s neighbors in Nazareth. Cultural preoccupation with sex before marriage in the West has caused scholarship to convert the issue of Jesus’ status in Israel into the anachronistic question of his legitimacy and to ignore one of the most powerful influences on his development. Pressed into the caste, apart which being a mamzer or "silenced one" (shetuqi) made him, Jesus from the beginning of his life negotiated the treacherous terrain between belonging to Israel and the experience of ostracism within his own community. The aspirations of a restored Israel can only have been particularly poignant to those branded with the reputation of mamzerut.
For full article: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...esus_Birth.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
http://www.ancientsandals.com/
http://www.bu.edu/
http://www.archaeology.org/

To go back to the Jewish (or Babylonian) calender :
(Work out the amount of days for yourself )

The Babylonian calendar was used in ancient Mesopotamia (nowadays Iraq and its surroundings). The origin of this calender is hidden in great age, probably around 3000 years ago. The Babylonian calendar was a lunisolar calendar with 12 or 13 months a year that each had 29 or 30 days. There are two embolistic months - Ululu II and Adaru II. An embolistic month is an extra month that is added to the calendar only in certain years, usually to keep a lunar calendar in line with the tropical year. A new day started at sunset and a new month at the first appearance of the yound crescent Moon after New Moon. The beginning of the year was always around the beginning of spring in the northern hemisphere.
At the latest around the year−750 (in the Julian proleptic calendar) the Babylonians divided a full day into twelve equal parts ("double hours"), which were each divided into 30 equal parts. Babylonian arithmetic was based on the number 60, and that's where our division of an hour into 60 minutes and a minute into 60 seconds comes from "Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation" by Stephenson, (p. 2).
At first, the beginning of months and years was determined by observations, but after a while periods and rules were discovered with which the lunar phases, and so the beginning of months, could be reasonably accurately predicted. From about the year −400 the calendar was based on fixed rules, themselves based on the close connection between 235 synodical months and 19 tropical years. The city of Babylon was deserted and forgotten after about AD 100, and eventually the Babylonian calendar also got out of use.
http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~strous/AA/en/...nders.html#1_2



Regards
Carin Nel

Diogenes the Cynic

What did I say that was unfalsifiable? You keep using that word, are you sure you know what it means? What is "wild" or "unfalsifiable" about saying that a translation is in error? You are perfectly welcome to check the Hebrew yourself and tell me what I got wrong.
There was no Babylonian 360 day calendar. The Babylonian calendar was based on a lunar year of 354 days with an occasional extra month here or there.
Daniel was SET during the Babylonian captivity but actually written in the 2nd century BCE during Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire. Daniel is one of the most easily datable books in the Bible. We can virtually pinpoint the exact year. It wasn't written in Babylon and it doesn't refer to any 360 day calendar.Thus, 483 years x 360 days = 173,880 days. According to records found by Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson[/quote]
Excuse me but records of what? You need records to multiply 483 x 360? Yes. that's very impressive, unfortunately the figure of 360 is pulled completely out of the air for no other reason that to contrive a correspondence with a desired date of terminus.
Where are you getting this date for when Jesus rode into Jerusalem? What is your evidence that this actually happened? Are you aware that if you assign a date of 32 CE to the crucifixion that Jesus (according to Matthew) would have had to be at least 35 years old? Do you dispute the usual tradition that Jesus was crucified at the age of 33? If so why?
No they weren't.
What is your evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and what Messianic prohies did he fulfill?
Daniel knew when the captivity would end because he wrote it after the captivity was already over. He was writiing history, not prophecy.
This is baloney. The NT provides no probative value at all for determining the authorial intent of anything in the OT.
It doesn't matter how NT authors treated it. The manner in which NT authors interpreted the NT proves nothing about what the OT authors themselves actually intended.
The one thing you got right is that the "abomination" in Daniel refers to the statue of Zeus installed in the Temple by Antiochus. Mark's Olivet discourse (as copied by Matthew and Luke) does make an intentional literary allusion to Daniel but Mark was probably making reference to Caligula's attempt to place a statue of himself in the Temple. Mark wrote this discourse after the destruction of the Temple had already occurred, and so, again, this is an author writing history, not prophecy, and neither Caligula's attempt to place a statue in the Temple nor the eventual destruction of the Temple in 70 CE are fulfillments of anything in Daniel or of any other prophecy (and don't bother trying to say that the Olivet discourse should be properly attributed to Jesus. Just because an author CLAIMS Jesus said something doesn't mean he actually said it. If you want to assert that Jesus actually said it then you have to prove it).
Not "THE" Messiah...just "an anointed one." All kings and high priests were "anointed ones" -- "messiahs." That word is not used titularly in Daniel.
Um..no...it's a fact. We know when Daniel was written and it was written AFTER the "cutting off" of Onias III, the last legitimate high priest (or "annointed one") to serve the Temple.
I'm not familiar with either of those sites. I don't get my data from atheist websites. I actually went to college for this stuff.
None of them say "pierced." Two of them (as opposed to thousands which say "lion") say "dug." It's a scribal error. There is basically a difference of one Hebrew letter between the two words and the vast majority of Hebrew manuscripts say "lion."
Christian translations are irrelevant and wrong. Almost all the Hebrew manuscripts say "lion" and none of them say "pierced." Twol of them say "dug." 'Pierced" is not an accurate translation even for the variants.
Exactly. That's why the tiny minority of variants can easily be identified as scribal errors.
Not true at all. "Like a lion" makes perfect sense within Hebrew poetic forms. It's "dug" that makes no sense.
Professor Baignet is full of it. Two Hebrew manuscripts out of thousands say "they dug." Why are we supposed to prefer two variants (which STILL do not say "pierced") over thousands which agree on "like a lion?"
None of the Ancient Versions say "pierced." The LXX says "they dug." The Vulgate for Psalms 22 was translated from the LXX not the Hebrew. The LXX was heavily tampered by Christians in the 1st century and it's ridiculous to say that a translation should be preferred over the original Hebrew text.

And again, NONE of them say "PIERCED."
He knew nothing of "pierced" either. Aquila's translation says "they fettered." He was probably confused by a template containing a minority variant (attested in the DSS) spelled as kaaru. Kaari means "like a lion." Karu means "they dug." Kaaru means nothing but Aquila apparently tried to guess that it had an association with a similar word meaning "fettered."
There is nothing in the Psalm to indicate that it's about the Messiah. Name-calling is not argument.
The narrative begins: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” – a question agonizingly framed by the Savior from the cross (Mt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34).[/quote]
Yes, Mark quoted the Psalm in his Passion. So what?
No it isn't, although the dice throwing bit was probably looted for the passions. And it doesn't say pierced.
I disagree. I’m just going to refer you to : http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=37[/quote]
Please make your own arguments instead of linking to other websites. At least summarize whatever points you think are persuasive.
Isaiah specifically has God say "you are my servant, Israel." There is no mystery as to the identity of the servant. Isaiah repeadtedly and explicitly says that it's Israel. It gives no hint that it's about the Messiah and this was never read as a Messianic prophecy in Judaism.
If Jesus was born in Galilee then he couldn't have been the Messiah. The whole point of the Bethlehem expectation was that it was the birthplace of David. It's not the name that was significant but the place itself. If Jesus was not born in the hometown of David then he was not the Messiah.
All of this is completely non-responsive to my questions. What did the verse prophesy about Jesus? Don't give me typology, give me a clear prediction and a confirmed fulfillment.
Like what?
Which a.) has nothing to do with any evidence for the Exodus and b) is way too early to match up with the Biblical dates for Joshua. What the archaeology shows is that there Jericho was already a ruin by the time of Joshua and it had no more walls.
Actually, it does NOT correspond to the time frame given in Exodus.
No archaeologixcal evidence reinforces these views. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence the Israelites were ever in Egypt. There is no sign whatsoever that they had any presence there at all.
The myth is important but it was not a historical event.
Where do the Jews come from?
According to the free encyclopedia, wikipedia....[/quote]
You need to find better resources than wikipedia. Start with The Bible Unearthed.

Jack the Bodiless

Carin Nel:
Nope, you seem to have entirely missed the point again.

You cited the Bethlehem birth as an example of a "fulfilled prophecy". But this is merely a part of the story: and anyone can write a story in which the hero "fulfils prophecy". You must demonstrate that Jesus ACTUALLY WAS born in Bethlehem: not just that the authors CLAIMED this. Any claimed prophecy must be verifiably fulfilled.

Obviously, you can't do this: so you shouldn't be climing this as an example of "fulfilled prophecy". But, as has already been pointed out, your problems here go much deeper than a simple lack of verifiability. You seem prepared to admit that Matthew and Luke are somewhat unreliable, remembering "dimly and distantly". But they didn't just pick dates a decade apart (and how likely is it that, if Jesus died young, one of his biographers would be out by a decade?). Each account contains further details: Matthew's is definitely set in the time of the tyrannical King Herod (who supposedly commanded the Massacre of the Innocents to kill Jesus), and Luke's definitely features a Roman census under a Roman governor. Both of these events feature prominently in the story (and both have major historical problems). Judea became a Roman province (under Quirinius) a decade after Herod's death.

Carin Nel

I think there was a misunderstanding. I see your point.
What a Messianic Jew believes (his faith) though, does not cancel the fact that he was born of Jewish parents and thus still a Jew. Right?

Regards,
Carin Nel

RED DAVE

From Carin Nel:
Right as far as it goes. This gets into the question: "Who is a Jew?"

It's tricky because of the interplay between Jewish national identity and Jewish religious identity. In general, any religious or secular Jew is considered a Jew. A convert to another religion is not considered a Jew. Messianics, therefore, regardless of their birth, since they are converts, are not considered Jews.

And, to get back to my original point, there is no truth to your assertion that large numbers of Jews are either converting or becoming Messianics. Most Jews aren't that masochistic.

RED DAVE

Carin Nel

I'm sorry, Dave, I really did not mean to offend anyone by making that statement, especially the Jews, as I have a special affection for them.
The fact that you did not find many Messianic Jewish congregations in your area, does not prove that Jews don't become Christians, because many join the normal Christian congregations. Many Jewish believers in Israel go underground. I get their E-mails.
Regards,
Carin Nel

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no reason for Christian converts in Israel to go "underground," and Christian attempts to convert Jews have always been miserably unsuccessful. It's possible to find a handful, yes, but it's also possible to find Christians who have converted to Judaism...or to Islam or to Wicca or to scientology. The percentage of Jews who convert to Christianity is statistically negligible and inisgnificant and most of the ones who do convert were never religious Jews in the first place, as can be evidenced by the abysmal distortions and lack of understanding of Jewish theology and Hebrew scripture represented in Messianic literature.

The Messianic movement is a conversionary tactic designed to target uneducated ethnic Jews and sucker them into thinking that Christianity has anything to do with Jewish tradition or any chance of reconciliation with religious Judaism. The Jewish Messiah is not God, is not an object of worship, is not a redeemer of sins and has a set of criteria which has not yet been met by any human being. No educated Jew could think that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. No educated Jew would worship ANY Messiah, no educated Jew could be so easily snookered into thinking that Jesus met any of the scriptural expectations of the Messiah and no educated Jew could be taken in by the erroneous interpretations of the Hebrew Bible used by Christians to try to "prove" that Jesus was the Messiah.

For these reasons, attempts to evangelize religious Jews have always failed and always will. Christian proselytizers are especially at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to interpret the Tanakh. Presuming to be able to explain another people's own scripture to them is at best simply humorous in its pretention and at worst, patently offensive.

Rick Sumner

This is one of those arguments that is almost uniformly used as an apologia for Jews right to interpret their own scripture, but virtually never used for anyone else. It's also utter nonsense.

I attempt to explain Christian texts to Christians almost every day. On occasion I even discuss Islamic texts with Islamics. So, for that matter, do you, Diogenes. What, exactly, should prevent me (or a Christian, for that matter) from offering exegesis of a Jewish text, or analysis of Jewish history, to a Jew?

This isn't so much a criticism of you as it is a criticism of a general state of affairs, your post just happens to be symptomatic of it. There is a worrisome tendency to view Jews and Judaism as somehow beyond reproach and beyond challenge.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Diogenes the Cynic

It's usually never attempted for anyone else but my point would be just as valid for Christians attempting to explain the Qu'ran to Muslims.
Nothing if it's educated but Christian proselytizers almost never ARE educated in how they attempt to interpret the Hebrew Bible. My point is not that being Jewish automatically makes one's interpretation of the Hebrew Bible more authoritative but that Christian evangelists typically attempt to "explicate" these scriptures to Jews without having any awareness of how they are read in Judaism. They are going against a couple of thousand years of continuous and hardened tradition and quite frankly, it's usually the case that tradtional Jewish understanding of the Tanakh IS objectively correct and the Christian interpretation is wrong. Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah's "suffering servant," Daniel's "70 weeks," and the 22nd Psalm are all examples raised in this thread where Christian interpretation is simply uninformed and objectively erroneous. Swooping in and attempting to tell any educated Jew that the way their scripture has been understood for two thousand plus years of continuous tradition is a tall order to begin with. When the proselytizers' arguments are also hamstrung by mistranslations from Hebrew and total ignorance of context then you don't exactly have a recipe for success. That's what I mean when I say that Christian proselytizers have a disadvantage in interpreting the Tanakh. They have to cherry-pick, distort, mistranslate and resort to such circular tactics as "dual-prophecy" and "typology" to make their arguments, while their Jewish targets have the advantage of being able to read their Bible simply as it is written, in its original language, with everything in its original context. They don't have to play games with the text to make it come out how they want it to. It IS their scripture and that DOES mean something. Maybe not everything but not nothing either. They certainly do PERCEIVE Christian attempts to convert Jews by "explaining" their own Bible to them (almost always with demonstrable mistakes) as presumptious, arrogant and offensive, and that's why it's a strategy that almost never works.
That was not my intent. I was only attempting to make some observations about why religious Jews tend to be impervious to Christian conversion, not attempting to say they are "beyond reproach."

Carin Nel

Tell this to Rabbi David M. Hargis, Rabbi Yaakov ben Yosef, Rabbi Haim Levi, Rabbi George Quinn, Rachel Levi, Rick Aharon Chaimberlin, Jacob Prasch, Emuna Braverman, Rabbi Samuel R. Rubin etc, etc, etc

Regards,
Carin Nel


,