17 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWasn't Matthew writing after Jesus' death and contributing to the efforts to create a new religion centred on Jesus and breaking away from Judaism?
that is what i have written, is it not, what trouble are you having understanding the
fact? The translation of the verse into Greek by Matthew, a Hebrew, clearly
demonstrates that it is understood to be made with reference to a virgin, that is why he
used the Greek term for a virgin, but sure, you can ignore all of that , it will not negate
the facts.
17 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFMatthew translated the Hebrew portion of the Bible in Greek for Hellenised Christians to
Wasn't Matthew writing after Jesus' death and contributing to the efforts to create a new religion centred on Jesus and breaking away from Judaism?
understand. If you construe that this is, 'contributing to the efforts to create a new
religion centred on Jesus and breaking away from Judaism', then that is your
perspective, although it appears to me to have no substantive basis other than mere
opinion.
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually, since it is an 'after the fact' record, it does negate it being a prophesy.
that is what i have written, is it not, what trouble are you having understanding the
fact? The translation of the verse into Greek by Matthew, a Hebrew, clearly
demonstrates that it is understood to be made with reference to a virgin, that is why he
used the Greek term for a virgin, but sure, you can ignore all of that , it will not negate
the facts.
17 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadno it doesn't, the prophecy itself was written hundreds of years prior, not by Matthew
Actually, since it is an 'after the fact' record, it [b]does negate it being a prophesy.[/b]
who was only a translator, how does that negate the prophecy. In fact, i challenge you
or anyone else for that matter to demonstrate which of the 37 messianic prophecies I
produced, with reference, in both the Hebrew portion of scripture and the Greek, which
Christ did not fulfil.
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo was Matthew translating the Bible for the breakaway Christians or for the Jews? Do modern Jews use Matthew's translation?
Matthew translated the Hebrew portion of the Bible in Greek, termed the Septuagint for
Hellenised Christians to understand. If you construe that this is, 'contributing to the
efforts to create a new religion centred on Jesus and breaking away from Judaism',
then that is your perspective, although it appears to me to have no substantive basis
other than mere opinion.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobielisten i could cut and paste all day from jewish websites refuting the meaning christians have given to the passages. but to do that i would be reducing myself to the petty squabbling that goes on between the two religions. ive read the jewish explanation of the text and why they think the christians have it wrong and it seems to be just as valid as the christian understanding.
no i made reference to the actual verse, if it was intended to be a sign or portent, then
of necessity the maiden must be considered to be a virgin otherwise no notable sign
would have taken place, this is not only reasonable, but logical, pure logic in fact, you
will now state why you do not think it to be the case, otherwise you have not made ...[text shortened]... Your introduction of Jehovahs
witnesses is illogical and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
as logical as you say it is, its not enough to completely dismiss the other view. to do so is simply making yourself look close-minded.
if everybody agrees the word was 'young woman' and the argument between christians and jews is over what is implied by 'young woman' why change the word in the bible to virgin? why not leave it as 'young woman' if its meaning is so clearly 'virgin' why not leave it as it was, people would understand the true meaning, right?
17 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOrigen, in discussing the Gospels is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the 'first was
So was Matthew translating the Bible for the breakaway Christians or for the Jews? Do modern Jews use Matthew's translation?
written according to Matthew who published it for those who from Judaism came to
believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language'* That it was written primarily with
the Jews in mind is indicated by its genealogy, which shows Jesus legal descent starting
from Abraham, and by its many references to the Hebrew Scriptures, showing that they
pointed forward to the coming Messiah. Modern Jews I suspect read the Bible in their
respective languages.
* The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6.
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieIts not only logical it makes a mockery of anything else and please do explain why a
listen i could cut and paste all day from jewish websites refuting the meaning christians have given to the passages. but to do that i would be reducing myself to the petty squabbling that goes on between the two religions. ive read the jewish explanation of the text and why they think the christians have it wrong and it seems to be just as valid as the ...[text shortened]... ly 'virgin' why not leave it as it was, people would understand the true meaning, right?
natural birth would have been a sign, quote all the Jewish scholars that you like, the
logic is unassailable. Again you personal attacks on my character are illogical and
irrelevant, try to refrain from doing so in future, its not that I mind, its just you are
doing yourself no favours be providing easy targets for me.
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFI would just like to state that Matthew is considered to have translated his gospel, not
So was Matthew translating the Bible for the breakaway Christians or for the Jews? Do modern Jews use Matthew's translation?
the Septuagint, that was my mistake.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif you take the meaning 'a young woman who is of marriageable age' then it would make perfectly logical sense that she was not a virgin. it all depends on the translation you choose to apply. your logic is not sound, it only works in the fixed way you choose to look at it.
Its not only logical it makes a mockery of anything else and please do explain why a
natural birth would have been a sign, quote all the Jewish scholars that you like, the
logic is unassailable. Again you personal attacks on my character are illogical and
irrelevant, try to refrain from doing so in future, its not that I mind, its just you are
doing yourself no favours be providing easy targets for me.
why did the christian bible retain the translation as 'virgin'. why not stick with the original wording and let individuals work out the meaning of the words. do you think your bible should keep the word virgin?
personal attacks! when did you get so sensitive robbie? im pretty sure ive seen you be derogatory to other posters on here, on more than a few occasions. the only thing ive accused you of is being close-minded and blinkered, which is about right, youve even admitted it yourself.
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo then I will pose my question again: wasn't Matthew writing after Jesus' death and contributing to the efforts to create literature for a new religion centred on Jesus and breaking away from Judaism?
I would just like to state that Matthew is considered to have translated his gospel, not
the Septuagint, that was my mistake.