I must say I dislike anyone who base their votes on the representatives faith. What about keeping church and state separate? When I vote I don't give a shit about the persons faith, I base my vote on what kind of issues he/she is likely to pursue/defend. However, I am well aware that not everyone (all faiths included) see it that way.


I agree.

I can't because it isn't. What kind of numbers did she get?

To my knowledge there is no other country in the world that is as preoccupied with supporting Israel (except for Israel itself) as the US is. I can see why the US Government does it, they need an ally in the Middle East or that whole area will turn away. By having a constant inbalance in the area the risk of allegiances against the US (or the rest of the western world for that matter) is slim to none.
The reason the Islamic countries in the area hate the US is the same as why most people on this site dislike, distrust, and/or just plainly hate the UN - because it's sticking it's fingers into other people's business.

Just because Jews in America (like liberman and Di Fi) are against America doesn't mean They are right. God is still for Israel. There are a lot of Jews(80-90%) Very liberal. They are decived. They don't see things in the way God wants them to see it. Everyone has their free will. I can't go into this any further because the topic has to go into Christianity and biblical predictions of the great tribulation and many will not know or believe what is written so it is going to be like beating a dead horse. So I will go onto another thread.

As for the Dispora, many times we, Jews, have been forced to leave our homes. As for the Bible, this is a book for interpetation. The first thing I learned studying the T*r*h, was that it is open for interpetation.
Ah, you say, isn't it the word of G*d? There are too many points to discuss here. Or as one Professor said to me I will discuss T*r*h with anyone 'in Hebrew'.
And for you information he was versed in The New Testamant also. We did discuss one point...the T*r*h is vague in places so that we discuss it. And the more we discuss and learn the more we grow. G*d is parent. This world  is ours, G*d does not meddle all that much. It is up to us. That is the greatest gift G*d gave us...free choice.  Yes there are times that G*d looked away from the jews. Those times are when we did not listen to the prophets. When we did not follow G*d's way.
From this I often wonder if it was G*d who said "Shit happens"
And that is where this is going. Israel will exist. How could a country survive with all their neighbors wanting them gone? There are many American Jews that do not even follow G*d. But there are many that do. We are loyal to Israel, but we are loyal to the USA. Jews fought in all the wars of this nation. Even on the side of the south. I am an American and I am a Jew. I fly the Red, White, and Blue.....every day.
I have noticed that there is an increasing number of anti semites here, but I also see more standing up for Jews. There is only one time G*d ever hated anyone people, just once. Outside that we are all G*d's children.
Israel does have a right to exist, because we have a covenant with G*d, we may piss G*d off, but we will exist, and against all odds it will.

It was almost 50/50, very close. A lot of that is due to the Jewish vote. And the funny part is, much like Al Gore, she demanded a recount and refused to accept the numbers. Unlike Al Gore she was completely ignored.

[b]To my knowledge there is no other country in the world that is as preoccupied with supporting Israel (except for Israel itself) as the US is. I can see why the US Government does it, they need an ally in the Middle East or that whole area will turn away. By having a constant inbalance in the area the risk of allegiances against the US (or the rest of the western world for that matter) is slim to none.
The reason the Islamic countries in the area hate the US is the same as why most people on this site dislike, distrust, and/or just plainly hate the UN - because it's sticking it's fingers into other people's business.[/b]

Like I said before:  

[i]WHY DO WE CALL THEM AN ALLY? If Russia ever attacked us what the hell would Israel do about it? NOTHING! When we have economic troubles, what does Israel do about it? NOTHING! Hey I see a pattern. Furthermore, we picked the ONE AND ONLY NON OIL PRODUCING COUNTRY IN THE REGION TO ALLY WITH. And of course the OPEC nations hate them like poison, wann know why gas costs so much? Why didn't we choose Jordan instead of Israel? Gas would be .50 cents a gallon. THEY ARE NOT HELPING US! If we weren't backing them up CRAZY FRICKIN ARABS wouldn't be blowing up shit in the US.

ISRAEL IS NOT OUR ALLY. We only have ONE real ally and that is England. If we went to war tommarow with someone, ENGLAND would be the only guy who shows up to help. So if you want to send money someplace, send it to ENGLAND.[/i]

Now this is my last reply. This thread has just taken a very scary turn that I don't wish to be part of. I've said my piece and I think you understand it. I've heard your opinion and I think I get it. We agree for the most part and are now splitting hairs.

Sucks being her.

Or they would blow shit up because we're supporting Jordan. Either way we agree.


I wish you would stay,if only to clue me in on what the scary turn is?

I do agree. I'm annoyed at 7.62__for_me though....

Why did you substitute the a and the o with *? I fully agree with you though. That's why I felt it was uttelry useless when 7.62__for_me started quoting scripture. For one thing he's taking a passage here and a passage there, and for another he might interpret it one way, you one, and I another one.

I'd love to discuss this subject, but I think a lot of people who are Christians might be offended (though none would be intended) if I did. You're welcome to email me though.
I think that is where some people fail to see how much they really can learn from the Bible - if they were willing to discuss it more. I know there are Bible study with in churches, but i often feel that they put restraints on how far, and which parts, they are willing to question (a vital part in any discussion) scripture.

Maybe so, maybe so. But I remember a time when Iraqi scud missiles were raining down on Tel Aviv and throughout Israel, when Israeli citizens were in bomb shelters and affixing gas masks upon their children because of Saddam Hussein's proclivity to use poison gas upon unarmed citizens. It was not Israel's war, but it was their civilians at risk.

But this was not a weak, unarmed, and undefended country whose citizens were being subjected to the possibility of chemical and biological attack by Scud missiles. This was a nation possessed of the finest air force in that part of the world. The Israeli Air Force has proven itself more then the equal of its hostile neighbors [i]combined![/i]

Israel's decision NOT to retaliate against Iraq for its launching of the Scud missiles against it was something that ONLY a trustworthy and valiant Ally would ever agree to do!  If they had decided NOT to follow the United States' request, the 28 nation coalition would have evaporated as quickly as it came together. No Arab nation would have risked the humiliation of attacking a neighboring Arab nation at the same time that Arab nation was being attacked by hated Israel! Governments would have fallen!

Do you remember the Israeli Air Force's attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak in 1981, that brought a crippling halt to Iraq's nuclear dreams?

Had Israel not attacked and destroyed this site, would the Coalition Forces of Desert Storm have even been able to come together for the purpose of opposing Saddam's Invasion of Kuwait?

So Israel made the Gulf War possible by (1)ending the nuclear threat of Iraq ten years earlier, and (2) not exercising its undeniable right of retaliation when it was attacked by Iraq during the Gulf War.

Now [b]that's[/b] an Ally and a true friend of the US!  Don't worry, Israel will be around the next time we need its help as well.

Regarding Pollard - You mean you think that WE don't spy on Israel?  Can they help it if they're even better than us in this respect?

Eric The(BlessIsrael,BlessUS,CurseIsrael,CurseUS)Hun[>]:)]

If nothing else you have to admire their dedication to protecting themselves! That's why El Al is the safest ailine in the world. they don't give a flying f*ck where you run to - they'll get you.
Also, when Israel wanted to buy Exocet SAMs from France, and France refused to sell them any, they just covertly obtained all the information they needed and built them themselves. During the war in Falklands Argentine used Israeli Exocets to sink the HMS Sheffield.

If the Jews are God's chosen children,does this mean that the rest of us are sh*t out of luck???Does God in fact play favorites???Are we all condemned to the firey pits of Hell???What about Buddists,Hindus,etc. all older religions than Judeo/Christianity???Just more fuel to add to the fires.

No, we all get to go, only the Jews have boxed seats. [;)]

Ok first, to write G*d and words related to it, I use the Jewish convention, of not using the vowels. We do not write the name of G*d.Hebrew in itself did not origionaly have vowels. It is a language of stone cutters. Hence the right to left,rather than  the left to right that paper writers use. This is so that you do not cover what you just wrote.
This also brings up the lazy part of Hebrew. Many of our words have multiple meanings. You have to take them within the context and who it relates too. Our culture also must be taken into count.
Second, the bible as Christians know it, is often translations of translations. A monk was copying it and changed alittle here and it made the meaning different.
Third, is judiam a race or religion? Did the chicken or the egg come first? There are Jews that are all kinds of people. During WWII the Jewish Brigade had lots of blonde and blue eyed soldiers. A friend of mine was Israeli and as a policeman infiltrated Arab terrorist cells. I have sat in temple with all races, Ethopians, to even a muslim.
This is the fun part, there is evidence that Christopher Columbus was a Ladino, or Spanish Jew. Did you know that Col. Klink, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock were all jews? I have read that the Ninja, might also be a lost tribe. A friend of mine was in my homeland and said that he saw many Hebrew signs there, that was Scotland. And for those of you that might not know, when the British Mercenaries were helping the Arabs, We Scots, helped Israel.
There are two things that you will find world wide....Chinese restaurants and Jews.
As for Eric the Hun, thanks for your defense. Also Pollard gave Israel information that they were entittled to by treaty with the US. It was information that saved Israeli lives. He made a tough call, but the lives of many were more than his freedom.
Ponder this thought. Clinton befriended the Peoples Republic of China...one of the  most repressive governments in the world for money. He freed the Puerto Rican Terrorists, convicted of crimes of violence. To get votes for Hillary.
Yet for one of our strongest allies, Israel, he would not set one man, Pollard free. He did no harm to the US.

One last thing....as for going to heaven, As a Jew I must keep the laws of Moses, as a non jew, you need only keep the laws of Noah, that is 30% less, to go to heaven.
As a jew G*d will get mad at me but never really pissed off enough to totally cut me off.

I know that Hebrew doesn't use vowels, I just found it odd that you did it in english too. But I can understand why.

Like the King James version of the Bible is admittadly the worst translation ever (admitted by the monk who did the translation.)
That's also how the Virgin Mary became the [b]Virgin[/b] Mary. As I recall the Hebrew word for young woman is the same as for virgin, and as they say in the movie Snatch - "a suttle difference, an easy mistake to make..."

Post from skullworks -

Admitted by whom?

Do you know the identity of the 'monk who did the translation'?

We may have one helluva lawsuit if some monk committed some sort of gross negligence and this fact was glossed over by others.

post from skullworks -

The Hebrew word to which you refer to is [i]alma[/i], which corresponds to the English word 'maiden' and can mean either a virgin or a young girl, the same as our word maiden.

In context, however, it most assuredly means a 'virgin' -

If it's the Lord himself giving the sign, it would not be very likely that a 'young girl' conceiving would make much of a significant event. It happens all the time.

But for a [b]virgin[/b] to conceive and bring forth a male child that has convinced millions of people over the last two millenia that He is indeed, the Immanuel ('God With Us') spoken of by Isaiah, that would indeed be a miracle worthy of the Lord himself!

How many other Immanuels do you know like Jesus?

Eric The(INeedTheNameOfTheMonkForLitigationPurposesOnly)Hun[>]:)]

Sobbing over the Vatican archives....the young monk who was an expert in ancient language.....cried uncontrollably and could barely say.......


....celebrate.......the word was "celebrate".....

Excellent. 'Even Homer nodded.'[>]:)]

The monk Erasmus, in 1516.


His name was Erasmus and he compiled and translated the Greek "Textus Receptus," in 1516. The King James Bible was translated from the "Textus Receptus" in 1611.


All fun aside I personally think that some people look to hard at the words, instead of trying to see the meaning of them.


Ah, but this is where you do the same thing as many Christians I've spoken to on this matter - they see the the miracle [b]surrounding[/b] the birth of Jesus, failing to see that the emphasis should be on the child, not whether or not the mother was a virgin or not. Surely you must agree that the child is more important than the birth?
You also pointed out another important point:
"But for a [b]virgin[/b] to conceive and bring forth a male child that has convinced millions of people over the last two millenia that He is indeed, the Immanuel ('God With Us') spoken of by Isaiah, that would indeed be a miracle worthy of the Lord himself!"
Imagine you're a priest who want people to believe in what you are preaching. The people you are preaching to are supersticious people. Wouldn't be easier to convince them of how important Jesus is if you start off by saying that his birth was a miracle itself.
I often feel that the miracles are being more emphasized than the teachings of Christ. What can we learn form his miracles? That he was more than a mere man, that he was benevolent, and so on and so forth. It's all things about [b]him[/b], not about his message. After all, he didn't come here to do miracles (unless, of course, you consider his message to be a miracle) but to spread his message. Do you see where I'm coming from? A lot of Christians don't like to hear such words about the Bible, as they confuse it with bashing of their religion. Or in the words of Thomas Jefferson:
[b]"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."[/b]

I don't know any Immanuels. [;)]


And I gave it to you - fire away!

Edited to fix several errors.

MIA-1,

Very good story.

However, I believe the planes mentioned were actually brought in by freighter during the evenings preceeding the war, they were quickly uncrated and the Czech made Messerschmitts' were assembled on the ground at what is know commonly known as Tel Nof Air force Base, they could not fly becuase of the range of the prop driven aircraft and the IAF had to mid air refuel capability at that time. The aircraft had 20mm cannon and were further armed with 70kg bombs.

Anyway, the newly formed IAF had very few operational aircraft, a total of four as of May 29, 1948. In the haste to engage the rapidly advancing Egyptian forces and to get the aircraft in the air the guns had not been checked properly and as a result some guns jammed on the first straffe on over 500 Egyptian ground vehicles near Ashdod.

The Israeli Givati forces exploited the confusion made during the surpsrise attack by the Israeli aircraft and gained the upper hand and repelled the Egyptian advance.

Of the four planes, one was shot down that day totaling a 25 percent loss of Israeli combat aircraft from the first squadron. The downed Pilot was a South African Vounteer who's name is known by every IAF pilot, Eddie Cohen.

Amazing, but true.

Post from skullworks -

The King James version (the 'Authorized Version of 1611') of the Bible was based upon primarily the 'Bishop's Bible' of 1568, which was in turn based upon a Revision of the 'Great Bible' of 1539 and the 'Geneva Bible' of 1560.  The 'Great Bible' of 1539 was based upon the Bibles previously translated by William Tyndale
1525-1530), Miles Coverdale (1535) and the so-called 'Matthews Bible' (1537).

And where did these translations come from? Erasmus? No.  John Wycliffe in 1380! Wycliffe used the Latin Vulgate and other ancient sources for his translation.

I guess this let's our poor dear friend Erasmus off the hook, 'cause however badly he admits he translated, other were translating the ancient scriptures several hundreds of years prior to Erasmus. And doing it quite well, thank you.

Moreover I do not remember any such quote from Erasmus, nor anything similar, nor can I imagine any likely instance in which I can conceive of him saying such a thing.   He is still quite respected in the Roman Catholic Church, if not elsewhere.

post from skullworks regarding the 'sign' -

We, who worship this 'Child', [b]fail[/b] to see that the emphasis should be on Him? That's simply ludicrous!  We see both the birth and the life of Jesus Christ as being miraculous in every sense of that term. The Lord said that He would give a 'sign', we didn't say it.

So when the 'sign' comes to pass, it is simply another 'proof' of the accuracy of the ancient prophesies concerning His birth. The Child is equally important to the circumastances of His birth. I believe the 'Wise Men' understood that!

There should be no greater emphasis on either the works or the teachings of Christ, for both served their intended purposes during His earthly ministry.

In John 5:36, Jesus taught that His works were sufficient testimony that He was who He said He was, and that He was sent of the Father. So the works, miracles, were significant to Him. So to us, as well.

post from skullworks -

So you [b]lie[/b] about what you've seen and heard, and what you believe, and what you are just about to die for, all for the sake of a clever little Jewish fable?

Yet these very disciples who were unwilling to follow their leader Jesus to the Cross, were more than willing to speak openly in Jerusalem and in Rome in defiant witness to His life, His works, and His message, after His death? And to suffer grievous death for that testimony? And all to perpetuate a bold lie!

Do [b]you[/b] see where I'm coming from?

Eric The(I'Know'OneImmanuel,AtLeast)Hun[>]:)]

I have to stand with SteyrAUG on this. I like to stay out of topics like this, but AUG ahs a very valid point that few people today seem to recognize.

Tyler

Itis interesting that there is no mention of what Hebrew version it came from?
Try this one...Mary was not Joseph's first wife, she was one of his wives. James was older than Jesus. as were his other siblings. Remember Jews are allowed to have more  than one wife.

Post from the Wind -

Why 'try' anything more then what is found in the Scriptures?  Only if there is a factual impossibility of an event occuring, should any alternatives be offered.

The history is that Joseph 'knew' not Mary, [u]until[/u] after the birth of Jesus -

So it is extemely likely that the use of the term 'firstborn' anticipated the birth of later sons, as well as daughters, to Joseph and Mary. These siblings are referred to several times in the scriptures as Jesus' bothers and sisters.

One of the leaders of the Early Church was James the Just, the brother of Jesus, who was executed (by being thrown off the Temple's roof) in 62 Anno Domini.

What likely happened is that Joseph died after having an additional six children by Mary, following the birth of Jesus, and that he died prior to the start of Jesus's earthly ministry, but this is not scriptural, merely conjecture.

This conjecture is based solely upon his absence from the scriptures after Jesus is lost and then found in the Temple at about age 12.

Anything more is pure speculation, however pious such speculation might be.

BTW, all Hebrew texts of the Old Testament have this story (Lord himself shall give a sign, an 'alma', etc.). It is in the Septuagint Version as well.

Do you believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or that it really wasn't Moses, just another scribe whose name 'happened' to be Moses?[:D]

Eric The(Sorry,ItWasAnOldHebrewSchoolJoke)Hun[>]:)]

Jesus was an observant Jew, as was Joseph. They followed the law. There is alot of historical  confusion. Such as Joseph was a poor carpenter. In the community at the time Joseph provided many of the household goods. Furniture, utensils, and homes were his stock in trade. He was most likely very wealthy in the community.
Then there was the Uncle of Jesus, Joseph of Arimethia. He was a tin merchant. Tin is critical to the making of metal at that time and only came from Britian in any quanity. This made the family very wealthy.
Jesus had the oppurtunity to study, that was for a younger son of a rich man. As the older son would be preparing to take over the family business. To a Jew to have a son study the T*r*h is a great honor. Jesus taught from the root of all Judiasm. He studied from the grandson of Rabbi Hillel, one of our greatest. You can never blot out the culture and society as that was where they lived.
As to Moses writing the T*r*h. There are many thoughts on that. My belief is not that of all Jews, as it is said that 2 jews, 3 opinions. Moses saw G*d, the transfer of knowledge was like a burst of light. It transfigured Moses. It was not a word for word, dictation. It was there, the language of the oldest T*r*h is of 800 to 1500 years after Moses. but it is an honor to pass it down from one generation to the next.This was the same  as it was with groups, as the Druids.
It just took that long for it to be recorded. The basic understanding is very similar. The is always a change here and there, mostly for the culture of the times. 500 years ago it was said by Rambam, our great rabbi, If we are ordered my the muslims to convert to save our lives, it is ok for they believe in the one G*d. To be ordered to convert to Christianity to saves our lives, it is better to die.
That is not the case today. The muslims seek to destroy us. Yet the Pope, from his heart, has apoligized for thousands of years of persecution. It brought a tear to my eye when he did that.
Times change, it is part of life!

Reply to TheWind -

He was certainly an observant Jew, and, if I may say so, He was the most perfect Jew that ever lived.  As He oft said, He came to fulfill
the Law, and that 'not one jot or tittle would be set aside until all was fulfilled.'

To understand just how Jewish Jesus was, you may wish to read a very comprehensive book on His life, written in the 1880's by Alfred Edersheim, [i]The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah.[/i]

It runs about 1550 pages (I did say the book was very 'comprehensive'), but it portrays a vivid picture of Judaism at the time of Jesus, in incredible detail.

Eric The(BaruchHaShem...)Hun[>]:)]

OK, Iswore I was going to stay out of this, but Ishould have known that sooner aor later I was going to have to put my two and a half cents worth in.  First of all, some brief bio info, so you'll know where I'm coming from. In 1956, right after high school graduation, I went to Israel in their equivalent of the VISTA program, Sherut L'Am ( Service to the People). We were put on Kibbutzim to help with the crops,but 2 months after I got there I met, and fell madly in love with, an Israeli girl who was doing her Army service as a part of the Army that founded and manned settlements in the dangerous parts of the country, which at that time was in the desert near the Gaza strip. Of course, like any romantic 18 year old, I hied myself down to where she was, and presented myself as a "volunteer". They let me stay because even though I wasn't worth shit as a farmer, I was the best damn shot on the post, and I told them I'd pull guard duty in the watch tower any time they wanted.  For the next 4 months I stood a lot of guard duty, and managed to keep any infiltrators from Gaza away from injuring the crops.  In October 1956, England and France invaded Egypt over the Egyptian take over of the Suez Canal, and Israel attacked the Egyptians thru Sinai. Part of our settlement's people were activated to go in as support troops to back up the Paras and Tankers who led the assault.

The truck we were in was ambushed on the El Arish road by probably the last Egyptian machine gun team to stand and fight, and the lady I was madly in love with was killed.

A year later, back in the States, I joined the U.S.Army, served with the 82nd Airborne, and was honorably Discharged. 39 years later I met and married a lady who happened to have been raised in Israel (tho she was born in Tennessee).  We have a beautiful 4 year old son, and as you might imagine, we stay interested in happenings in the Middle East.

My wife and I are Americans. We are Jews. We have personal histories that give us a reason to be concerned with what happens in Israel.

So how do we feel about what goes on in the Middle East? Some times we think the Israelis are doing just the right thing, and sometimes we think they're wrong as hell.  Some times we think the U.S. has the right approach to a given situation, sometimes we think that our (the U.S.) government is wrong as hell.  Know something?  Most Israelis I talk to have exactly the same attitude.  Israel is not a monolthic dictatorship. It's an ongoing and multiopinioned democratic republic; just like we are.  That's why Netanyahu lost out to Barak, who lost out to Sharon. You can find just about any political opinion you could imagine being talked about on the streets, in the newspapers, and over the airwaves in Israel. Try that in any Arab country and see what happens.  The Counsel General of Israel hare in Atlanta for a number of years was an Israeli Arab. Seen any Jews representing an Arab country's diplomatic service lately?

I could go on for another 10 or 15 pages of why the U.S. and Israel are, and should be, close. But the bottom line is this. If Israel should be overwhelmed, the only country in that part of the world who ever gave a rats ass about the U.S. and its' interests would be gone, and if you think Arab oil prices are high now, wait and see what would happen if there were no Israel to be an unspoken threat. Anybody want to pay $5 a gallon?

Post from shamayim -

Amen.  But, of course, Israel will never be overwhelmed again!

Besides which, who wants to pick out their friends based upon the price of a gallon of gas?

Eric The(ThanksForYourServiceToIsrael&TheUSA)Hun[>]:)]

I've always been taught that the King James Bible was based on scriptures that were not previously found in England, in order to make sure that they were not poor translations or had been edited by "scholars."
Therefore I find it strange that all this english names pop up in your response. It makes me curius about your sources for this information. (I'm not saying your lying or anything, I just find it strange that we've been given conflicting versions of the history of the KJV.)


I likely instance would be if he did make a hasty translation of the scriptures at hand. I didn't say anything about whether or not he was respected. One thing doesn't always have anything to do with the other.


Okay, you misunderstood me, that or I wasn't clear enough - a lot of Christians are more caught up with the miracles than with the teachings. I think my reasoning is easier to comprehend when you're on the outside looking in.


Okay, this is where it gets problematic (only in the respect of how your arguements work on me, and vice versa,) [b]the proof you are talking about is written in the very book which authenticity and accuracy I'm questioning.[/b]

I wasn't talking about the Wise Men, I was talking about the average person back then. We're talking about a time where a falling comet, a plague, anything out of the ordinary was a sign from God.
You could not say that this prophet was born from normal sircumstances and expect people to listen to him - there must be a miracle regarding his birth in order to make him special from the get go.


(To be continued)

(Continued from above)

I think his word is more important. I also think people fail to see what can be taught from the miracles.

Like the miracle with the fish and the loaves of bread. My take is that a lot of people who showed up didn't bring food, but at the same time many did. As the sermon grew late people grew hungry, but those that did have food didn't share. Then when someone offered Jesus some fish and a few loaves of bread, and Jesus proceeded to hand them out, others realized that they were being selfish and decided to share too. So instead of "merely" being about how Jesus somehow, by a miracle, made the fish and bread last for everyone it is (in my humble opinion) about how if we share what we have we can provide for the many. It's a lesson about how to be a good person, not about how Jesus did another miracle.

And as I said, his words were not enough to convince people at that time.

You embroid the story, to make it more spectacular. What you should believe and understand is the word of Jesus. I think you can learn more from them than the miracles. As I believe I already said - the miracles only goes to show who he was, not what he was teaching. They were like a resume of sorts. "Yes, he's done miracles, so he's legit - let's listen to him."

No no no, I'm saying that a minor part of it was a lie -the teachings were not. And you must remember the romans did not care one way or the other if Jesus made any miracles, it was his teachings that they didn't like. And the deciples were not lying about his teachings.

Perfectly. But I'm afraid there's still some misunderstandings.

I must admit I find our dialog very interesting and I'm respecting you more for every turn this thread is taking!

Reply to skullworks - Thank you for your last post.

I'm not too familiar with websites that would support my contention that 'English' Bibles, written before Erasmus's New Testament Translations, were the primary bases for the King James Authorized Version of 1611.

You may want to try this link, bacause its goes to the New Catholic Dictionary - a 'liberal' source -[url]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm[/url]

It has a subdivision on the 'English Bibles.'

Insofar as Erasmus is concerned -

Well, he had at least four versions made during his lifetime, I would think that the last one would be his best and that any errors of translation would have been corrected in the final edition.

He is still considered as authoritative as a source of Catholic doctrine. So he is respected by them, which is to say a lot.


That is certainly a shame, to hold to one and not the both. They are more like children who have to 'see' it in order to 'believe' it.

The miracles are nothing without the message, but when the message is rightly understood, the miracles become a further enlightenment, or a specific fulfillment, of the message.

When John The Baptist's disciples come to Jesus to ask on behalf of the imprisoned Baptist, 'are you the one whom we seek, or should we look for another', Jesus points to His miracles as proof that He is who He says He is, or as John the Baptist puts it, Jesus is the 'One whose shoes I am unworthy to unloose.'

And it does, indeed, get sticky, when -

And we may just have to agree to disagree about this because it is, as lawyers sometimes put it, the 'ultimate question.'

If we [u]knew[/u] that the Bible, as written by King James' boyz, or anyone else, was the Holy Word of God, what idiot in their right mind would ignore it?

But to assuage your fears that maybe it's not been translated correctly, just look at some extrinsic evidence that shows you how bibical transcriptionists viewed their work.

The Book of [i]Isaiah[/i] in the Hebrew Bible has always been attacked as a late compilation and full of extraneous materials added by the Rabbis, long after Isaiah was dead and gone.

The oldest copy of [i]Isaiah[/i] was from a copy of the Hebrew Bible dating around 1300.

Suddenly, there were the Dead Sea Scrolls. In them, we have a complete [i]Isaiah[/i] dated from c. 250 B.C.  When compared, the two versions of [i]Isaiah[/i] written more than 1500 years apart(!), were the same, word for word, with every jot and tittle the same.

It's not the same for writers of human history, they seldom 'worship' their subjects, but when it comes to scribes and holy men writing the words of their gods, we can expect a certain amount of care in the transcription.

More later. [>]:)]

You're welcome.

Oh, I didn't want to limit us to the internet, I was thinking more like books. You have to take pretty much everything posted on the internet with a grain of salt.

I checked that link out. There were a number of errors regarding Swedish bibles (I wanted to see how well read up they were on that subject too.) The oldest scripture we have in Sweden is the [b][i]Codex Argenteus[/i][/b] (The Silver Bible) and is a translation from Greek to Gothic. It's dated to somewhere between 300-500 CE.

Or he was going through the motions during the third one. To argue about which edition of his was the most accurate is futile, unless someone already has done a comparison for us.

I never disputed that, however, the fact that he's so highly regarded within the own ranks would explain why no one is willing to criticize him.

I think a lot of people are "guilty" of admoration of Christ rather than willingness to learn from him. He didn't want people to pay tribute to him, he wanted us to listen to him.

(Once again - To be continued)

(Continued from above)

Like I previously stated I can see a past need for the miracles, but the words stand by themselves just fine. It's a basic message about humanitarianism.

I'm glad to hear you say that, a lot of Christians (that I've spoken to) are not willing to agree to how complicated this issue is, nor to agree to disagree.

Those of us who don't subscribe to a God in the first place. I know a lot of Christians who don't read anything but the New Testament, that or they pick and choose from the Old Testament. How are you supposed to get a complete understanding of what he is saying unless you read where he was coming from, what his cultural heritage was, what he based [b]his[/b] beliefs and values on?



Ah, don't you just love an intelligent dialog? [:)]

If I'm not mistaken one of the two originals of the Dead Sea Scrolls' Book of [i]Isaiah[/i] is actually on display at the Shrine of the Book Center in Jerusalem.

post from skullworks -

You can't. In order to even begin to understand Jesus and His Message, you must understand the Jewish expectancy of a Messiah, what a Messiah would do when He came, and how this Jewish Messiah would be a 'lamp unto the Gentiles.'

I have found some websites for Alfred Edersheim, who I previously mentioned in connection with his masterful work on Jewish cultural and spiritual life in the First Century. The best is his 'Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah.'

That address is [url]http://www.ccel.org/e/edersheim/lifetimes/[/url]

Just scroll down and read what Edersheim has to say about Jesus and Jewish laws and customs.


Yes, they are mere men, but also inspired by a Holy Spirit (in my beliefs) that directs them.

I'd say that the scribes who copied the [i]Book of Isaiah[/i] from 250 B.C. to 1300 A.D., over and over again, word for word, with no telling how many editions, copies, etc., that were made necessary during this fifteen hundred year period, were not just mere men! They must have thought themselves on a mission from God!

Eric The(EdersheimRules)Hun[>]:)]

As I recall the reason only one of them have been made public is the source of concern.

We do agree.

Thank you for your effort.

Yes, I've heard that argument before, I won't argue with it since it's a matter of belief and not exact science or fact.

Yes, most of them probably did, but that does not absolve them from being falible. That plus what I said before about mixing politics into it. The original scribes who translated the material were often corrected by those of higher "rank." And this is where my thoughts on how the material was "corrupted" comes in.

If you want a proper T*r*h, it will cost $50,000 or more dollars. They are still made the same was as 2000 years ago. Copied by hand . Most important is that if a mistake is made, the work is destroyed and started over.
We are all human nad when it comes to translation, to interpetation, that is where the changes are made.
Rabbis are the interpeters of the T*r*h nad the law. For every Rabbi there was one who disagreed. That is why we have ultra-orthodox, orthodox, conserative, reform, reconstructionist, and other jewish groups.
As you said...it is the message. What did Jesus say? How should you live? That is what is important. We need too look at the message....