How do Jews disagree with Jesus as the messiah?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeterJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your own St. Jerome didn’t think the Septuagint was accurate, so he based his translations on the available Hebrew texts.

Isaiah 7:14 uses the same Hebrew word as Genesis does and Exodus does and Proverbs does, etc., and it isn’t “virgin” in any of them. There is linguistic uniformity- unlike with the Septuagint or the Vulgate.

PS Shanks has been described as “the world’s most influential amateur biblical archeologist”.

nytimes.com/1998/04/01/books/books-of-the-times-looking-for-jesus-and-jews-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls.html

Certainly doesn’t mean he’s the best- and not professional.
Just to make it clear, Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 24:16 in the Greek Septuagint uses the Greek word, ‘parthenos’ which can only mean ‘virgin’.

I think people need to decide for themselves if the Masoretic text is the most ancient, and whether it reflects the Hebrew of the Dead Scrolls fragments more accurately than the Septuagint which was written by Jewish scribes in the 2nd or 3rd century BC.

theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

shalom

micah
 
What is the reason Jews think that their messiah hasn’t come yet? I asked one Jewish woman who said that (in her opinion) most Jews don’t really believe that there is a messiah. Can any Jewish members chime in?
 
There are many ways to interpret it, although based on my earlier post, it can’t possibly mean that G-d is corporeal. See these, for instance:

jewishideas.org/angel-shabbat/created-image-godthoughts-parashat-bereishith-

torah.org/features/genesis/topic2.html

mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/human.htm

I looked it up and this is the “Orthodox Jewish Bible” that they use:

Version Information

The Orthodox Jewish Bible, completed by Phillip Goble in 2002, is an English language version that applies Yiddish and Hasidic cultural expressions to the Messianic Bible.

Copyright Information

The Orthodox Jewish Bible fourth edition, OJB. Copyright 2002,2003,2008,2010, 2011 by Artists for Israel International. All rights reserved.

biblegateway.com/versions/Orthodox-Jewish-Bible-OJB/

It is neither Orthodox nor Jewish. It even includes the New Testament!

Before I saw that, I agreed that it had to be a mistake. Now that I look at the site, I am 100% convinced that it was deliberate on their part
Now this is funny right there LOL!
 
Just to make it clear, Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 24:16 in the Greek Septuagint uses the Greek word, ‘parthenos’ which can only mean ‘virgin’.

I think people need to decide for themselves if the Masoretic text is the most ancient, and whether it reflects the Hebrew of the Dead Scrolls fragments more accurately than the Septuagint which was written by Jewish scribes in the 2nd or 3rd century BC.

theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

shalom

micah
I thought that I would do some research regarding the Masoretic text to see if the Hebrew letter nun (n) is missing from the acrostic in Psalm 145. It is indeed missing. Why?
What is the verse that begins with the letter nun (n)?

"The LORD is faithful in all his words: and holy in all his works."

It should be noted that there should be 22 verses in an acrostic Psalm that follows in order the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Catholic bibles this verse is included with verse 13 of Psalm 145. Verse 13 in Hebrew begins with the Hebrew letter mem (m)

Now here is a reference to the Masoretic without the verse:

יב לְהוֹדִיעַ, לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם–גְּבוּרֹתָיו; וּכְבוֹד, הֲדַר מַלְכוּתוֹ. 12 To make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, and the glory of the majesty of His kingdom.

יג מַלְכוּתְךָ, מַלְכוּת כָּל-עֹלָמִים; וּמֶמְשַׁלְתְּךָ, בְּכָל-דּוֹר וָדֹר. 13 Thy kingdom is a kingdom for all ages, and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

יד סוֹמֵךְ יְהוָה, לְכָל-הַנֹּפְלִים; וְזוֹקֵף, לְכָל-הַכְּפוּפִים. 14 The LORD upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that are bowed down.

The acrostics are not lined up properly, because of my copying and pasting from:
mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt26e5.htm

Now here is the verse that it is missing and it is combined with verse 13 of the Douay Rheims:

**145:12 To make thy might known to the sons of men: and the glory of the magnificence of thy kingdom.

145:13 Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages: and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. The Lord is faithful in all his words: and holy in all his works.

145:14 The Lord lifteth up all that fall: and setteth up all that are cast down.**

So we can see that even the Catholic version combines what should have been verse 14 in Psalm 145 as part of verse 13. Thus, the Catholic version has 21 verses instead of 22 verses which should have been true to a Hebrew acrostic of 22 verses representing the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

Why is The Lord is faithful in all his words: and holy in all his works omitted from the Masoretic text eventhough it was found among the Dead Sea Scroll fragments and is in the Septuagint text?

My guess is that it was an early Messianic verse that referred to Jesus Christ and was removed. It is very similar to the Septuagint verse of Hab. 2:4 “The just shall live by my faith” Whose faith? The faith of the Messiah who was faithful in all his words, and holy in all his works"

shalom

micah
 
YKohen;9726529]I’m not offended at all. I’m just pointing out that it is both incorrect as well as illogical, given who the RaDaK was.
Regarding Rabbi David Kimchi could you provide a Jewish on-line site that represents his true views of Micah 5:2? This is the Rabbi that we are talking about - correct?

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Kimchi.html
While the Vulgate translates Michah 5 as “from the days of eternity” and Michah 7 as “according to the days of old”, which is odd from a linguistic standpoint, because the original Hebrew for both is “from ancient days” and “as in ancient days”. The terms are identical except for the first letter. The Hebrew letter “mem” means “from” and the letter “chaf” is “as in”.
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Micah5.html

“But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.”

So this is a reference to the Messiah, from ancient days, but just not Jesus the Christ - correct?
While it is true that outside the land, G-d said (Exodus 14:14):***The LORD will fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.’***Once we entered the land of Israel, we were the ones to fight- led by a military leader or king.
Michah is clearly aware of this and refers to it.
Micah teaches that the Messiah will be a military King, like King David?
 
What is the reason Jews think that their messiah hasn’t come yet? I asked one Jewish woman who said that (in her opinion) most Jews don’t really believe that there is a messiah. Can any Jewish members chime in?
Many in the Orthodox Jewish community believe that the Messiah will come EITHER when we humans are in most need of him because evil behavior is at its worst OR when Jews follow the commands of the Torah, especially by means of acts of charity and loving-kindness, but also by behavior such as resting from work and mundane tasks on the Sabbath. However, the Orthodox in particular, also believe the Messiah can come any day at any moment, and can already be a religious Jew living among us. Some in the Reform Jewish community do not believe in an individual Messiah but rather in a Messianic age in which humans will finally learn, with G-d’s help, to live together in peace. But some Reform Jews, such as myself, do believe in the coming of the Messiah. Conservative Jews may be likewise split in their beliefs about the Messiah: many, however, do believe in this principle of faith. Parenthetically, I think one can ask the same question to Christians: namely, why do Christians believe that Jesus hasn’t returned yet?
 
I thought that I would do some research regarding the Masoretic text to see if the Hebrew letter nun (n) is missing from the acrostic in Psalm 145. It is indeed missing. Why?
What is the verse that begins with the letter nun (n)?

"The LORD is faithful in all his words: and holy in all his works."

It should be noted that there should be 22 verses in an acrostic Psalm that follows in order the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Catholic bibles this verse is included with verse 13 of Psalm 145. Verse 13 in Hebrew begins with the Hebrew letter mem (m)

Now here is a reference to the Masoretic without the verse:

יב לְהוֹדִיעַ, לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם–גְּבוּרֹתָיו; וּכְבוֹד, הֲדַר מַלְכוּתוֹ. 12 To make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, and the glory of the majesty of His kingdom.

יג מַלְכוּתְךָ, מַלְכוּת כָּל-עֹלָמִים; וּמֶמְשַׁלְתְּךָ, בְּכָל-דּוֹר וָדֹר. 13 Thy kingdom is a kingdom for all ages, and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

יד סוֹמֵךְ יְהוָה, לְכָל-הַנֹּפְלִים; וְזוֹקֵף, לְכָל-הַכְּפוּפִים. 14 The LORD upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that are bowed down.

The acrostics are not lined up properly, because of my copying and pasting from:
mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt26e5.htm

Now here is the verse that it is missing and it is combined with verse 13 of the Douay Rheims:

**145:12 To make thy might known to the sons of men: and the glory of the magnificence of thy kingdom.

145:13 Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages: and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. The Lord is faithful in all his words: and holy in all his works.**

145:14 The Lord lifteth up all that fall: and setteth up all that are cast down.

So we can see that even the Catholic version combines what should have been verse 14 in Psalm 145 as part of verse 13. Thus, the Catholic version has 21 verses instead of 22 verses which should have been true to a Hebrew acrostic of 22 verses representing the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

Why is The Lord is faithful in all his words: and holy in all his works omitted from the Masoretic text eventhough it was found among the Dead Sea Scroll fragments and is in the Septuagint text?

My guess is that it was an early Messianic verse that referred to Jesus Christ and was removed. It is very similar to the Septuagint verse of Hab. 2:4 “The just shall live by my faith” Whose faith? The faith of the Messiah who was faithful in all his words, and holy in all his works"

shalom

micah
Now how do we know if the ‘nun’ acrostic verse actually begins with ‘nun’.

Think of the Hebrew word נאמן, meaning trustworthy, or the word אמונה, meaning belief. The root of both words is אמן.
Posted By Menachem Posner for Chabad.org, Montreal, Quebec
via jewishtrivalley.com

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/639038/jewish/Where-does-the-term-Amen-come-from.htm

This verse, missing from the Aleppo Codex, and missing from all modern Hebrew Bibles that are copied from this codex, but found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, says
נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשיו (The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works).


(One can see the graphics of the original Hebrew at this website with the mem verse preceding the nun verse, and the samech verse proceeding the nun verse)

Thus, the beginning word of this verse is the Hebrew word for trustworthy, or faithful. That is, Faithful, or trustworthy is the Lord.

theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

I would love to hear from a Masoretic Hebrew scholar as to why this nun acrostic verse is missing from Ps. 145.

shalom

micah
 
Now how do we know if the ‘nun’ acrostic verse actually begins with ‘nun’.

Think of the Hebrew word נאמן, meaning trustworthy, or the word אמונה, meaning belief. The root of both words is אמן.
Posted By Menachem Posner for Chabad.org, Montreal, Quebec
via jewishtrivalley.com

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/639038/jewish/Where-does-the-term-Amen-come-from.htm

*This verse, missing from the Aleppo Codex, and missing from all modern Hebrew Bibles that are copied from this codex, but found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, says
נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשיו *(The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works).

(One can see the graphics of the original Hebrew at this website with the mem verse preceding the nun verse, and the samech verse proceeding the nun verse)

Thus, the beginning word of this verse is the Hebrew word for trustworthy, or faithful. That is, Faithful, or trustworthy is the Lord.

theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

I would love to hear from a Masoretic Hebrew scholar as to why this nun acrostic verse is missing from Ps. 145.

shalom

micah
It is against a faithful Jews’ nature to try to deceive others. So it can’t have been the writers’ intent to skip a verse in order to keep us from recognizing something.

I suppose it must have to do with the meaning of the letter nun. As many here probably know, there’s a nun and a nun sofit (at the end of words in order to close them) in the alphabet, and each letter has its meaning. Since the nun is bent while the nun sofit is straight like this “I” and just a bit longer, the nun is considered to be humble. Maybe it’s too humble to appear in the verse or something?
Just trying to make an appraoch 😊
 
It is against a faithful Jews’ nature to try to deceive others. So it can’t have been the writers’ intent to skip a verse in order to keep us from recognizing something.

I suppose it must have to do with the meaning of the letter nun. As many here probably know, there’s a nun and a nun sofit (at the end of words in order to close them) in the alphabet, and each letter has its meaning. Since the nun is bent while the nun sofit is straight like this “I” and just a bit longer, the nun is considered to be humble. Maybe it’s too humble to appear in the verse or something?
Just trying to make an appraoch 😊
I’ll accept that approach.

I do know that same Hebrew word is found in the Tanakh when speaking of the faithfulness of Moses (Numbers 12:7), a faithful priest (1 Sam. 2:35) and faithful David
(1 Sam. 22:14).

I find it interesting that this missing verse is quoted in one of the early church writings, and that Ps. 145 was read ,or chanted in one of our earliest liturgies…the liturgy of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem

The question remains, from a historical perspective, is the Septuagint a more accurate representation of the Tanakh than the Masoretic text?

God’s peace

micah.
 
Many in the Orthodox Jewish community believe that the Messiah will come EITHER when we humans are in most need of him because evil behavior is at its worst OR…
We know that initially God was to be the King of the chosen people, Israel, but instead they opted for a human king:

“But when they said, ‘Give us a king to lead us,’ this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: ‘Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.’” (1 Samuel 8:5-7)

We know from sacred scripture that the former dominion will be restored and that kingship will come to Israel and that ultimately the Lord will be the everlasting
God of both Jews and Gentiles when the restoration of Jerusalem, and the permanent inheritance of the land God, promised to Abraham, is fully realized.

Does it seem reasonable to conclude that a mere man, as opposed to God, will be permanently situated on the throne as the everlasting King in this everlasting Kingdom?

"As for you, watchtower of the flock, stronghold of Daughter Zion, the former dominion will be restored to you; kingship will come to Daughter Jerusalem.”

“The sun shall no longer be your
light by day, Nor for brightness shall
the moon give light to you; But the
LORD will be to you an everlasting
light, And your God your glory. 20
Your sun shall no longer go down, Nor
shall your moon withdraw itself; For
the LORD will be your everlasting
light, And the days of your mourning
shall be ended. 21 Also your people
shall all be righteous…”

The Gentiles
[nations] shall see your righteousness,
And all kings your glory. You shall be
called by a new name, Which the
mouth of the LORD will name.

“For behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth; … 18 But be glad and
rejoice forever in what I create; For
behold, I create Jerusalem as a
rejoicing, And her people a joy.

"Son of man, this is the place of My throne and
the place of the soles of My feet, where
I will dwell in the midst of the
children of Israel forever.
 
Your own St. Jerome didn’t think the Septuagint was accurate, so he based his translations on the available Hebrew texts…
Would you agree that the authors of the NT, when quoting the OT, use primarily the Septuagint vs the Masoretic?
 
We know that initially God was to be the King of the chosen people, Israel, but instead they opted for a human king:

“But when they said, ‘Give us a king to lead us,’ this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: ‘Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.’” (1 Samuel 8:5-7)

We know from sacred scripture that the former dominion will be restored and that kingship will come to Israel and that ultimately the Lord will be the everlasting
God of both Jews and Gentiles when the restoration of Jerusalem, and the permanent inheritance of the land God, promised to Abraham, is fully realized.

Does it seem reasonable to conclude that a mere man, as opposed to God, will be permanently situated on the throne as the everlasting King in this everlasting Kingdom?

"As for you, watchtower of the flock, stronghold of Daughter Zion, the former dominion will be restored to you; kingship will come to Daughter Jerusalem.”

“The sun shall no longer be your
light by day, Nor for brightness shall
the moon give light to you; But the
LORD will be to you an everlasting
light, And your God your glory. 20
Your sun shall no longer go down, Nor
shall your moon withdraw itself; For
the LORD will be your everlasting
light, And the days of your mourning
shall be ended. 21 Also your people
shall all be righteous…”

The Gentiles
[nations] shall see your righteousness,
And all kings your glory. You shall be
called by a new name, Which the
mouth of the LORD will name.

“For behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth; … 18 But be glad and
rejoice forever in what I create; For
behold, I create Jerusalem as a
rejoicing, And her people a joy.

"Son of man, this is the place of My throne and
the place of the soles of My feet, where
I will dwell in the midst of the
children of Israel forever.
G-d has given Israel permission to be ruled by a king throughout its history (see the books of Deuteronomy and Samuel, for example). The king never ruled in place of G-d but in the name of G-d. The same is true of the Messiah, a human king who will rule over a world of peace with justice for all in the name of G-d, the Almighty King. Similarly, the Torah, holy as it is as the Word of G-d, is not G-d Himself. BTW, the study of Torah will not cease when the Messiah comes, but will increase.
 
I’ll accept that approach.

I do know that same Hebrew word is found in the Tanakh when speaking of the faithfulness of Moses (Numbers 12:7), a faithful priest (1 Sam. 2:35) and faithful David
(1 Sam. 22:14).

I find it interesting that this missing verse is quoted in one of the early church writings, and that Ps. 145 was read ,or chanted in one of our earliest liturgies…the liturgy of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem

The question remains, from a historical perspective, is the Septuagint a more accurate representation of the Tanakh than the Masoretic text?

God’s peace

micah.
Continuing:

Figure 63 – A portion of Psalm 145 from the Aleppo Codex

Psalm 145 is an acrostic psalm where each verse begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Aleppo Codex the first verse begins with the letter aleph, the second with the beyt, the third with the gimel, and so on. Verse 13 begins with the letter מ (mem-top highlighted letter), the 13th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the next verse begins with the letter ס (samech-bottom highlighted letter), the 15th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is no verse beginning with the 14th letter נ (nun).

Figure 64 – A portion of Psalm 145 from the Dead Sea Scrolls

**When we examine Psalm 145 from the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find between the verse beginning with the מ (mem-top) and the verse beginning with the ס (samech-bottom), the verse beginning with the letter נ (nun-center). This verse, missing from the Aleppo Codex, and all modern Hebrew Bibles that are copied from this codex, but found in the Dead Sea Scrolls reads,נאמן אלוהים) בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשיו )(God is faithful in his words, and gracious in all his deeds).

This is why Psalm 145:13 reads differently in the King James Version and the modern versions such as the Revised Standard Version. The King James Version was written prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, while the Revised Standard Version, and other modern versions, were written afterward and often incorporate what has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.**

ancient-hebrew.org/ahh/ahh.htm

The Hebrew reads: Elohim (God), the Septuagint reads: Kurios (Lord). Thus, we find that the Septuagint scribes translated Elohim to Kurios, that is God to Lord.

πιστὸς κύριος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ
The Lord is faithful in all his words: and holy in all his works.

Here we see the first Greek word to be ‘pistos’ (faithful) and the second Greek word to be
‘kurios’ (Lord). Why the Hebrew scribes translated Elohim to kurios is a mystery.

newadvent.org/bible/psa144.htm

shalom

micah
 
G-d has given Israel permission to be ruled by a king throughout its history (see the books of Deuteronomy and Samuel, for example). The king never ruled in place of G-d but in the name of G-d. The same is true of the Messiah, a human king who will rule over a world of peace with justice for all in the name of G-d, the Almighty King. Similarly, the Torah, holy as it is as the Word of G-d, is not G-d Himself. BTW, the study of Torah will not cease when the Messiah comes, but will increase.
I understand your position. Originally God was to be their King but they rejected God, in favor of a human king, no doubt out of fear of enemy nations who had kings, and God acquiesced:

"But when they said, ‘Give us a king to lead us,’ this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: 'Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.’" (1 Samuel 8:5-7)

I understand why the chosen nation requested a human king long ago. However, if God is the King when all things are eventually fully restored and renewed (“Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind…Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear.” - Isaiah 65) then why the need for a human king? This will be an idyllic time in perpetuity when the LORD will finally be to all an everlasting light and Divine guardian, as per scripture.

Pretty cool OT prophecy:

“See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more. 20 “Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
21 They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the work of their hands.
23 They will not labor in vain,
nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the Lord,
they and their descendants with them.
24 Before they call I will answer;
while they are still speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord.

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a king-
dom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be
left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms
and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever; just as you saw
that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that
it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and
the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall
be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”
 
I really wish that all of the Jewish people would come to recognize Jesus as the Messiah and convert to Catholicism.
 
I really wish that all of the Jewish people would come to recognize Jesus as the Messiah and convert to Catholicism.
According to the book of Revelations there are going to be two Jewish witnesses before our Lord Jesus Christ returns. I am not going to assume that they are going to convert the world to the Catholic faith before Jesus Christ returns.

I do wish that Jewish scholars would recognize that their own Septuagint version of the Tanakh is just as reliable, or more reliable than the Masoretic text That we of the Christian faith, have as much justification for assuming Isaiah 7:14 taken from the Septuagint is speaking of the virgin birth of our Messiah, as they claim it is speaking of a ‘young woman’ in their Masoretic text.

God’s peace

micah
 
I’m going to try and combine a number of posts into one for the sake of brevity (although it won’t be that brief). You probably won’t like it, but I would be happy to hear your response.

The entire Septuagint was written over the course of hundreds of years- obviously by many different people. It even includes books that are neither part of the Jewish Bible not the Christian Bible. The two earliest known manuscripts contain only fragments, and nothing more. Relatively complete manuscripts of the Septuagint date from the 4th and 5th centuries of the common era, and the oldest complete copy that is extant dates from 600 years later- from the first half of the 10th century. It is also a fact that the texts of different copies differ, and none of these “late” extant copies are from Jewish scribes, who were always absolutely meticulous- and literate; to the point of knowing the entire text by heart; and their work is always checked by someone else even more experienced.

As I have mentioned, for Jews, each single letter of the Torah is important- to the point that an omission of a single letter invalidates an entire Torah scroll- and there are 304,805 letters in the Torah. Unlike the texts that you use, there is absolute linguistic consistency throughout, and unlike your copies (or copies of copies) it is in the original language as well.

I wanted to find a short article for you about your own texts- that encapsulates many of the ideas that we are discussing. This one seemed to fit the bill, quoting extensively from a New Testament scholar and professor:

leveltruth.com/articles/pamphlets/A4/The%20New%20Testament.pdf

A serious question for you: At the Council of Trent, The Vulgate was affirmed to be the authoritative version of the Christian Bible. If the Pope is infallible, as you believe, and clearly the Vulgate isn’t, how does that work out? Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?

As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were written by an extreme ascetic sect, the Essenes, that removed themselves both physically as well as spiritually from the rest of the Jews- and everybody else. If you haven’t visited Qumran, I highly suggest that you do. Then you’ll definitely get a better picture of who they are. I think of David Koresh or one of that type of sect when I think of them. The Dead Sea scrolls, like the Septuagint, contain many books (or manuscripts). Many of them aren’t in either of our Bibles, but they clearly considered them to be holy. So just I wouldn’t rely on the Branch Davidians or others like them to be the transmitters of truth and accuracy, I wouldn’t rely on the Essenes either.

As to Psalm 145 and the seemingly-missing verse, it isn’t that it is just “missing from the Aleppo Codex” or the Masoretic text. In fact, there is a discussion about it in the Gemara (Talmud), and a statement by Rabbi Johanan Ha-Nappah (3rd century CE) about that!

It couldn’t have possibly have been a Jewish copyist’s error because there were so many and they were so meticulous, and it couldn’t possibly have been purposely left out, lest people interpret it incorrectly referring to Jesus, because as we see, there are a whole host of verses that you think apply to him. Others would have been left out as well.

But they weren’t- because each word- each letter, is holy to us.

And the fact is that even the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the verse is different than your verse.

Even more than that: No such verse is found in other important ancient translations from the Hebrew - the Aramaic Targum, the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion - nor is such a verse quoted anywhere in the Talmud.

And by the way, Psalms 25 and 34: They also follow the alphabet- but not 100%.

After this, I hope I don’t get tossed and we can still remain friends.
 
Regarding Rabbi David Kimchi could you provide a Jewish on-line site that represents his true views of Micah 5:2? This is the Rabbi that we are talking about - correct?

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Kimchi.html
I could find no such site. Sorry. If I do, I’ll let you know.
“But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.”
So this is a reference to the Messiah, from ancient days, but just not Jesus the Christ - correct?
Micah teaches that the Messiah will be a military King, like King David?
Given the fact that as per verse 5 (And they shall break the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its gates; and he shall save [us] from Assyria, who comes into our land, and who treads in our border.), it is clearly talking about a military leader who will lead us in battle. For the purpose of our discussion, it’s now a moot point. It can’t possibly be Jesus.

But yes- the Jewish belief is that the messiah will be a military King like King David.
 
It is against a faithful Jews’ nature to try to deceive others. So it can’t have been the writers’ intent to skip a verse in order to keep us from recognizing something.

I suppose it must have to do with the meaning of the letter nun. As many here probably know, there’s a nun and a nun sofit (at the end of words in order to close them) in the alphabet, and each letter has its meaning. Since the nun is bent while the nun sofit is straight like this “I” and just a bit longer, the nun is considered to be humble. Maybe it’s too humble to appear in the verse or something?
Just trying to make an appraoch 😊
Good approach!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top