Motivations – Jeremiah 2:11

Motivations – Jeremiah 2:11

 

From the very inception of Christianity, Christians found it necessary to engage in the psychoanalysis of those who reject their claims. John’s Jesus gets the ball rolling in chapter 3 verses 19 thru 21 “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone that does evil hates the light and does not come to the light lest his works be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light so that his works may be made manifest that they have been wrought by God.”

 

John’s Jesus outdoes himself a few chapters later (8:44) where he explains that the Jews are children of the devil and it is this inherited evil nature that prevents them from loving the child of God (i.e. himself).

 

Throughout history, Christians have kept up the “study” of the Jewish “motivation” to reject Jesus. Even in today’s age of open communication, Christian theologians, apologists and clergymen offer their opinions into the Jewish motivation for their rejection of Jesus. These include the argument that it is the persecution of the Church that prevents Jews from “seeing the light”. The argument that postulates that the Jews are stricken with a special “spiritual blindness” is also quite popular. Others Christians move closer to John’s Jesus with theories that vilify the Jews, with a specific focus on the spiritual leadership of the Jewish people. These apologists argue that the spiritual leadership of the Jewish people rejected Jesus because their power-base as leaders would be threatened with the acceptance of Jesus. They take this accusation one step further with the slander that the spiritual leadership of the Jewish people consciously changed the synagogue liturgy and their commentaries of the Bible in order to sustain their rejection of Jesus.

 

Needless to say, the past 2000 years of history do not reflect positively on this Christians study of Jewish “motivation”. The upshot of this study was death and suffering for millions of people.

 

Let us step back and ask some basic questions. If you are going to pass judgment on someone’s motivations for taking a specific decision, most people would acknowledge that you must consider the following factors before rendering your verdict.

 

  1. You must be aware of the meaning and implications of the decision from the standpoint of the person you are judging.
  2. You must understand all of the arguments presented to justify the decision from the perspective of the person you are judging.
  3. In light of the injunction; “do unto others as you would have done unto yourself” – you should ask yourself; – How do I feel when people psychoanalyze my motivations?

 

If you are a Christian and you have already delivered your verdict as to why the Jewish people reject the man you consider to be divine – I will ask you the following questions.

 

  1. Do you realize the implications of the decision from the standpoint of a Jew? Do you realize that if Jesus was not who you believe he was, then the veneration that he demands is idolatrous? Do you realize that the heart of the Jew’s covenant with God demands that the Jew reject any worship that is not validated by the Sinai revelation? Do you realize that the relationship that the Jew shares with God does not allow for the veneration that Christianity demands for Jesus?
  2. Can you articulate the Jewish arguments that justify the decision to reject Jesus? Do you realize that there are several hundred passages in the Scriptures that you acknowledge to be God’s word that demand that the Jew reject the claims made about Jesus? Do you realize that the very same system that was used to validate the prophets of the Jewish Scripture clearly and unequivocally INVALIDATE the claims for Jesus?
  3. Did you ever ask yourself how it feels to be psychoanalyzed? Did you ever stop and consider the historical record of the psychoanalysis that you are engaging in?

 

In the book of Jeremiah (2:11), God pays a backhanded compliment to idol-worshipers who maintain loyalty to their idol. The prophet makes it clear that it is the quality of loyalty that keeps the respective idolatrous nations in line with their own deities. Is it so difficult for the Church to acknowledge that Israel’s rejection of Jesus is rooted in the same quality of loyalty? Is it so difficult to fathom that a nation that was called into a special relationship with the Creator of heaven and earth will not give her heart to an inhabitant of God’s earth?

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Advertisements
This entry was posted in History. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Motivations – Jeremiah 2:11

  1. I think the difficulty Christians face is that if they were to acknowledge that Israel’s rejection of Jesus is rooted in loyalty, they would have to honestly consider the question, “Is Christian loyalty to Jesus really being loyal to the G-d of Israel?”

  2. Shomer says:

    John’s Jesus outdoes himself a few chapters later (8:44) where he explains that the Jews are children of the devil and it is this inherited evil nature that prevents them from loving the child of God (i.e. himself).

    Within the New Testament I clearly see two Jesusses. One of them was
    > a Jewish Rabbi called Yeshua and he was a Rabbi as any other Jewish Rabbi on the face of the earth and the other is
    > a pagan semi-God, depicted as a carven image on a crucifix.

    Now, when you discern Jesus’ statements you will discover the difference. One Jesus pretends that the Jews were conceived by the devil and the other one said, “(….) salvation is of the Jews.”(Joh 4:22)

    I cannot imagine that the same Jesus had said that salvation is of those that are of the devil. Thus the key to the understanding of the contradictions is: There is one Hebrew Yeshua and one Babylonian Jesus united by syncretism. And there are a lot more contradictions “made by Jesus” in the so-called New Testament. If Christians came to the light they would see but because they think their spiritual darkness is the light every-one else is in darkness. I do know how it works!

    @Jeysin
    “God” is a mistranslation because ELOHIM is someone else.

    > Isa 65:11-12 But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number. 12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

    When you look up this scripture from your Hebrew Yeshayahu scroll, you will discover that “troop” is “Gad”. Now, where is the difference between Gad and God? I tell you, there is none. The “number” in V. 11 is the goddess “Meni”. On the other hand, the Shomer Yisrael is ELOHIM YHVH but never ever a triune Babylonian Gad/God. Do you see which divinity Christians are really loyal to? And do you see which action of HQBH they will face according to Isa 65:12?

  3. naaria says:

    One reason for an “Elijah” (John the “immerser” in the NT) is to clear a wide path through the wilderness, so that when a messiah calls out to all the Jews/Israelites in exile throughout the world, they will stream into Jerusalem. But there was no real path set out. And no one called out to the Jews. That is not the failure or “spiritual blindness” of the audience. It is the ineptness or the flawed nature of the one who God supposedly chose to do the calling or to do the leading of the people, the nation. Some say their messiah was not meant to succeed with the Jews, so that non-Jews could accept the God of Israel. I guess because there was such anti-Jewish sentiment that many could not accept a Jew as a leader unless he was very critical of Jews or Jews rejected his call. I don’t want to psychoanalyze here, but we can get some insight by reading what Roman writers wrote about Jews and what Josephus wrote in his histories, especially in “Against Apion”. At the same time, the NT is critical of the Pharisees preaching to the “god fearers” and making proselytes of Gentiles (going half way round the world to make one convert. Or was that Christians?) We see in the early Christian writings that gentile skeptics of the Jesus/Yeshua movement were always asking “why aren’t Jews following this dead, supposedly Jewish leader?”. If he were just a “normal rabbi” named Yeshua, why should any Jew think he follow a long dead rabbi. There would be even less reason for non-Jews to follow an normal and quite insignificant, long dead “Rabbi Yeshua. Their answer was the “Jews were spiritually blinded”. That was an excuse in the 2nd century c.e.; to some the same answer is valid today. In the NT, one reason given is that Jesus a prophet and no one listens to a prophet (except outside his hometown, which must of been, at certain times, all of the Galilee and Judea?). Another is that Jesus ONLY spoke to the people (& never in secret like the Gnostics) in parables? Why, so that in hearing they would not hear, or else they just might believe and then they would be saved. In other words, the Jews weren’t blind, the “teacher” Jesus was given the job by God to teach, but he didn’t want them to get the message? I guess this was like Jonah, but Jesus couldn’t run away? Jonah’s hometown was not Nineveh, so he knew the king and the people would heed his warning. Maybe not, because Jonah waited in the desert hoping the city would go up in smoke? Is this the “sign of Jonah”, Jesus/Yeshua was expecting? I don’t know.

  4. Messianic says:

    Your article is random and lacks substance and I was very reluctant to read it for fear of catching the phantom illness you think Christians inflicted on the Jews reading further I was surprised to see what appeared to be running dialogue between you and your peculiar therapy methods .

    The history of the interdependency of Jewish and Christian bibles prior to 1611 is not well understood and certainly does not seem to be understood in the context of your peculiar world view of Christian textual history.

    When making a claim of on-going analytical analysis of an entire population or religion it would be helpful to give a nod or at least an acknowledgment of the tremendous iinter-textuality that is a fact within your own text.

    The bible used by most of those found within your target audience is the KJV, the KJV bible was influenced by prior Jewish translators and in turn influenced later Jewish bibles in english .

    The influence of the KJV on later Jewish English bibles is well documented and attested to , An editor of the current Jewish Publication Societies Tanack, Harry M Orlinsky who led the Jewish Bible translations away from the earlier KJV model used in prior JPS editions , remarked that all translations of the Hebrew Bible are basically Jewish.

    So a man responsible for the most widely used English Jewish bible used today doesn’t seem to see a 2,000 + year ‘gap’ caused by phantom therapy methods to be present?[1]

    But yet you do? I guess we will ignore all of the jewish methodology used in the KJV too, after all there is a 2.000 year Gap right? The established relationship between Jewish and Christian ‘English’ bibles is understood and even admired by most interested in the history of texts .

    The bible used by Jews who spoke and read English the tradesmen the shopkeepers , you know the common man? was the KJV . Until a Jewish one was produced in the early 1800’s while your lofty claims of a 2000 year old conspiracy of evil intent is cute and cynical it isn’t proven in the area of scholarship or in the area of textual history .

    If you were striving for an emotional appeal based on post enlightenment freud-ology’ you achieved it- But I could be treated to the same level of ‘scholarship’ from a random atheist at a star trek convention

    [1]Translation that openeth the window: reflections on the history and legacy
    By David G. Burke pg 122-123

    • Larry says:

      Catholics do not use KJV versions of the bible. I’ve heard it compared to a liquor bottle in a brown bag. Until recently I never read a KJV bible and have decided not to finish it. It is mostly used by prodestant fundamentalist. This is hardly the target audience, that is assuming that this blog and it’s teaching are only for a few. With all these versions of bibles it’s no wonder there is a different chriistianity being taught on all the different TV stations.

      • Messianic says:

        do you mean protestants?,

        Hebrew Catholics do exist for sure you can find them on hebrewcatholics .org. by target audience I mean Messianics ,

        Though the hebrew catholic guys do have fascinating theology .

        One does not ‘read’ a bible they study it- maybe that is the trouble you are having.

        And they study it normally with methods established in specific texts .Diversity in a religion does not imply ‘division’ Larry .

        And Judaism also has a rather diverse collection of ‘bibles’ That to the casual ‘reader’ might imply a different version.

        And I don’t have cable so I am not bothered by TV station teachings?

  5. Messianic
    Who precisely are you addressing?

  6. smookey says:

    I would assume they are speaking to you Rabbi Blumenthal since they used the term “freudology”.
    The intertextual history they are speaking of is accurate. This is no secret among scholars who have studied the textual history and the undeniable connections that exist.

  7. smookey says:

    BTW…. I find the following statement that you posted: “In the book of Jeremiah (2:11), God pays a backhanded compliment to idol-worshipers who maintain loyalty to their idol. The prophet makes it clear that it is the quality of loyalty that keeps the respective idolatrous nations in line with their own deities. Is it so difficult for the Church to acknowledge that Israel’s rejection of Jesus is rooted in the same quality of loyalty? Is it so difficult to fathom that a nation that was called into a special relationship with the Creator of heaven and earth will not give her heart to an inhabitant of God’s earth?”
    to be a bit offensive as a legitimization of my faith as a Jew. Surely you could have found a approach that is more validating of our faith as Jews than G-d having “backhanded ” admiration of idolators/

    • Messianic says:

      Hi Smooky,
      Your made a very accurate point , often these type of discussions stem from poor apologetic s aimed at introducing textual superiority to the reader, I would love to have a discussion with you on the rich textual history found in christianity. btw- we have had the same Moshiach for 2,000 + years-

      Judaism has had many 🙂

  8. Messianic says:

    Mr Pharisee
    I am addressing your blog post called ‘ Motivations it is located on this page at the top, a better more honest title would have been ‘Meditations’

  9. Smookey
    I didn’t write this post to validate my faith – for that you have the testimony of God’s firstborn son. I wrote this post so that people who are outside of my faith can see how thier judgement appear to others.

  10. Messianic
    How does the issue of translations affect my article?

    • Messianic says:

      From the very inception of Christianity, Christians found it necessary to engage in the psychoanalysis of those who reject their claims.

      Christianity thought it necessary to develop a close textual relationship from its inception,

      That is the reality of Christianity , Developing an ongoing conspiracy in in lieu of western society to dismiss this reality is self indulgent and does not acknowledge the contribution of Christianity to the development of current English Jewish bibles.

      IS my objection clear ?

      The consequence[english jewish bibles] of what you label a conspiracy resulted in what your target audience actually uses ., so it seems a bit hypocritical of a ‘point’

      I am not going to waste my time giving you endless examples of this , unless you need them to comprehend what it is I am objecting to,.

      My first impression of your article- it was a penning from a cynical atheist who resented the achievements of today’s field of textual scholarship .

      The accusation that Christianity should view you as consistent idolaters is like watching a book burning .

      I am not sure I can be more clear and if you still can not understand my objection , I will simplify it – a random rant on societal views is as enlightening as sticking my hand in a meat grinder 🙂

  11. Messianic
    I still don’t understand your objection. If you think that using different translations of the Bible does anything to help Christianity’s theological claims – you are mistaken. Even with the most “Christian” translation – the Jewish Bible still says that Jesus is not the Messiah.

  12. smookey says:

    R. B I appreciate your response although I was not suggesting a motivation for your statements. I was addressing a specific point that u made and correlation with idolatry. I am bewildered at your use of this as a response to Christians perception of Judaism.

  13. Messianic says:

    From the very inception of Christianity, Christians found it necessary to engage in the psychoanalysis of those who reject their claims.<: Rabbi 'B' claim

    The premise for you opening statement is INVALID based upon a REVIEW of the textual traditions associated with Christianity..

    These TRADITIONS were developed using Rabbinic grammatical works , The textual history disproves your assumption on motivation,.

    The last time I commented on this blog the only answer you gave was 'I don't understand'.

    I am sure you do understand- but don't have an answer

    Thanks ever so much for your answer

  14. Messianic
    Can you explain what textual traditions have to do with statements that judge motivation? (such as the ones I quote from John, such as the ones that flood the writings of the Early Church – and continue up until today).
    I don’t know what’s going on in your mind – but the impression that you give is that you have been taught one answer for Jewish objections to your beliefs – and that is “textual traditions” – and you apply it to every question whether it is relevant or not.
    Wake up and smell the coffee.

    • Messianic says:

      The only fair answer or discussion that we can have is through agreed upon methodology and textual analysis,

      You would need to know my beliefs to actually form an objection to them, so I am not basing my critique of your article on a Jewish rejection of them ,

      A religion is defined by its behavioral displays from the community and it’s reaction to the communities outside of it by most sociologists , And in turn the motivation is given analysis through it’s art, literature etc

      This is where textual traditions and methods are relevant,

      Christianity depends on Jewish grammarians in order to produce it’s English text , The current English texts would not exist without them

      quote:Rabbi David Kimchi first became famous by his Michlol (“Completeness”), which is like an encyclopedia of Hebrew grammar. This grammar had great influence over many Christian Hebraists such as Johann Reuchlin, the great humanitarian and champion of the Talmud in the middle ages.[1]

      Johann Reuchlin who is considered the father of christian Hebrew grammarians, could not have produced his work De Rudimentis Hebraicis—grammar and lexicon .

      I have demonstrated a textual codependency, from a Jewish work to a Christian work.

      Using this method of literary credence- does your claim remain true? On Christianity’s motivation?

      [1]
      http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111880/jewish/Rabbi-David-Kimchi-RaDaK.htm

  15. smookey says:

    messianic,
    If your point was how christianity stole the Jewish bible and readjusted it to try and prove jc well all I can say is you have no point.

  16. Mitch says:

    I am also having difficulty following the logic of messianic’s posts, or the relevance. The rabbi is responding to the tendency among many Christians to psychoanalyze the Jew’s rejection of Christian claims, and he showed that this is even present in the NT, with John’s gospel. I also fail to see any relevance about English Jewish bibles or textual history- the article discussed the frequent Christian tendency to explain why Jews have rejected Christian claims.

    On the ‘children of the devil’ topic (which was quoted by rabbi): “Others argue, as they did for 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, that John is talking about Judeans and emphasizing a geopolitical or ethnic concern, not about Jewish beliefs and practices. It is true that whereas all Judeans are Jewish, not all Jews are Judean; some Jews are from Galilee, Tarsus or Cyrene. However, as seen in the discussion concerning 1 Thessalonians 2, this is a distinction without a difference for the congregation. Any person in John’s church who heard the term Ioudaioi in the Gospel would associate the term with those who affiliate with the Jewish synagogue, observe the Jewish Sabbath, and otherwise claim to be the heirs of Abraham.

    In like manner, so falls the argument that John is really talking about the Jewish “leaders” rather than the Jewish people. This view frequently appears in today’s liturgical readings, where, in order not to inculcate anti-Jewish views, pastors and priests speak of how the “Jewish leaders” rather than “the Jews” sought Jesus’ life. This generous translation is well-meaning, and it does help in preventing an anti-Jewish impression, as long as the congregation doesn’t think too hard about the argument. However, since the vast majority of Jews chose to follow these leaders, and not Jesus, Peter, James, or Paul, the reading of “Jewish leaders” ultimately also offers a distinction without a difference.

    The argument that therefore John’s language cannot be considered “anti-Jewish” tends to be based more in Christian apologia than in historical evidence.”

    The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, By Amy-Jill Levine

    So as far as I can see, the rabbi’s point is well-taken- that, indeed, Christian characterizing of Jews negatively in response to their rejection of Christianity’s claims has roots right in the beginning.

    • hyechiel says:

      Dear Messianic;
      All our Messiahs have one thing in common; failure to have what G-d promised to happen.
      All you havve to do is look outside your window and see the violence, wars and crime, not to mentioned the world is still at odds with itself and each other.
      Hope this helps. I also hope you realize that we do have two different theologies. Neither one of us would accept Hindu Theology, why should either one of us expect either one to acept the others’ theology?
      Shalom;
      Yechiel

  17. Rambamist says:

    Rabbi Blumenthal,

    I believe Messianic’s opening post sought to disprove your notion that Christians “psychoanalyze” the Jew’s rejection of jesus as their method of motivation. The way you are blanketing your claim it makes your post seem to say that that is all they do.

    Messianic seeks to prove this claim false by moving directly out of the realm of psychoanalysis (implying theological or mindset reasoning) into textual analysis of rejection based on superior textual authority.

    I am by no means a christian. I am 100% Jewish and a follower of the Rambam, hence the name. So, dont get any ideas that I am pushing that type of agenda in my post. However, I do feel that this line of reasoning, by messianic, through textual analysis of rejection and the claim thereof should be answered.

    Messianic,

    If I have misunderstood your point and position please feel free to correct me.

    Shalom,

    Rambamist

    • Messianic says:

      You understood it perfectly. Thank you .

    • Mitch says:

      Rambamist, could you clarify further? Because despite re-reading all the posts multiple times, honestly have no idea what the relevance of textual authority has to do with the claim that Christianity has historically psychoanalyzed the Jew in order to explain his rejection of Christian teachings. Unless I am terribly misunderstanding rabbi blumenthal’s post here, that is all he is saying- that by characterizing Jews as blind and as children of the devil, Christians who harbor such thoughts do not understand or appreciate the depth and reasons behind why Jews have rejected Christianity’s claims.

  18. Mitch says:

    I think I might (maybe) now understand the point messianic is trying to make.

    This was what messianic wrote earlier:

    “From the very inception of Christianity, Christians found it necessary to engage in the psychoanalysis of those who reject their claims.<: Rabbi 'B' claim

    The premise for you opening statement is INVALID based upon a REVIEW of the textual traditions associated with Christianity..

    These TRADITIONS were developed using Rabbinic grammatical works , The textual history disproves your assumption on motivation."

    So if I am understanding correctly, messianic, are you saying that rabbi blumenthal’s claim that many Christians sought/seek to create a psychological explanation for the Jewish rejection of Christianity’s claims cannot be true due to the fact that Christianity has relied on Jewish grammarians and scholars to help translate the Christian Bible.

    Is that the point you are trying to make?

  19. Mitch says:

    So is your claim that Christians could not have (and do not have) created psychological explanations for the Jewish rejection of Jesus, considering that Christians have relied on Jewish linguists for their translation? Is that it?

  20. Mitch (and Messianic)
    It seems (if I understood Rambamist correctly) that Messianic misunderstood my article and he thought that I was explaining why Christians are motivated to be Christians. (Did I get you right Messianic?)
    I wasn’t doing that and I wouldn’t do that – I was just pointing out that Christians often engage in a psychoanalysis of the Jewish rejection of Christianity – and they then genereously share their “findings” with the world at large – and it was this specific tendency that I was critiquing.
    Rambamist – I have a question for you – Did you also understand my article the way Messianic understood it?

    • Messianic says:

      {messianic} is not a he, And No I didn’t misunderstand your article, claiming I misunderstood in order to dodge the obvious is an ineffective dodge

      This is exactly what your ‘Article’ does to Christianity your refusal to address the textual traditions pretty much proves this ,

      I would suggest you re-read your article entitled communications to get a reminder of how to effectively communicate , Or change your name to the :I don’t know Rabbi ;

      Since the last four replies have been I don’t know and I don’t understand,, I won’t waste your meditation time

      thanks

      • Mitch says:

        I had difficulty understanding what you were trying to say, messianic, but I attempted to in my posts at 2:36 and 2:44 pm. Is that what you were trying to communicate? It was not clear to me.

    • smookey says:

      So….psychoanalyzing why xtians psychoanalize?

      • Mitch says:

        Smookey, to be fair, I don’t think the rabbi is psychoanalyzing christians, and I’m not sure how you got that impression. For whatever reason, many christians have attributed jews’ rejection of jesus to their spiritual inferiority- that is all he is saying. What is so controversial about that?

      • Messianic says:

        It’s his blog he can do whatever he wants , so yes Smooky 🙂

  21. Messianic says:

    Hi Mitch, the father of psychoanalytical methods is Freud, some have speculated that he based his model of a ‘normal’ or perfect Man on Jesus,

    If Christianity is going to be assigned the blame for Freud’s methods- than it would be in the form of a critique of Protestant Post Enlightenment methods found : Christianity’s – texts or doctrines statements of faith

    <>

    Mitch I am sure they have, whats the point if if can’t be demonstrated though?

    thanks

    • Mitch says:

      Messianic, you wrote: “If Christianity is going to be assigned the blame for Freud’s methods- than it would be in the form of a critique of Protestant Post Enlightenment methods found : Christianity’s – texts or doctrines statements of faith.”

      I am quite certain that is not at all what rabbi blumenthal is talking about. I think you are reading far more into this article than there is. All the rabbi is saying is that the frequent christian tendency to attribute reasons for the jewish rejection of jesus – including blindness, willful disobedience, sinfulness and stubbornness, etc – does not do justice to the depth of jewish objections to christianity. That’s all the rabbi is saying. The impression I got from you, however, is that you deny that many christians have historically given rationales as to why jews rejected jesus (some of them listed just above, Including wilful disobedience, etc).

      “Thus far, Augustine was at one with the mainstream of the patristic tradition. His prefigurative reading of the Old testament was derivative and pedestrian, as was the way he transformed prophetic rhetoric and Jesus’ denunciations of the Pharisees into a rigid stereotype – the stubborn, sinful Jew – then used that stereotype to explain away the Church’s missionary failures. On such issues, Augustine’s writings on the Jews are important only because they were the primary vehicle that carried these ideas to medieval theologians such as Aquinas.” Aquinas and the Jews , John Y. B. Hood, p. 12.

      “…Christians have perceived Jewish unwillingness to integrate into the Christian fold as evidence of Jewish blindness and spiritual obtuseness.” Reassessing Jewish life in Medieval Europe, Robert Chazan, p. 197.

      Unless I am misunderstanding him, I think these 2 quotes reflect exactly what rabbi Blumenthal is saying- that many Christians have attached psychological reasons for the refusal of the Jews to accept Christianity, and that by simply characterizing the jews as blind, etc for their refusal to accept jesus, these christians miss the real reasons why jews have rejected jesus.

      So if I am understanding you at all, the fact that Christian Hebraists existed, and that they learned from Jews, in no way precludes the reality that they still claimed Jewish belief was due to blindness, sinfulness, and so on.

      • Mitch says:

        Perhaps it would be better for you to paraphrase what you think the rabbi is trying to say in this article, because I think there is a miscommunication here.

      • Messianic says:

        Mitch you’re right, I am assuming his points are carried forward to obvious conclusions in his logic 🙂 that’s unfair to make someones point brilliant simply to argue it .

        So I agree his article was simply a rambling social commentary on what can be assigned to any number of polemical positions fond in today’s ‘Judaism.

        Thanks for reminding me ‘

  22. Rambamist says:

    Rabbi Blumenthal,

    I understood where you are coming from when I read the article. It was concise and clear from a certain standpoint. When I read it I felt that you are in essence (IMO), as Smooky pointed out, attempting to psychoanalyze the Christian to determine why they are psychoanalyzing us to determine our reasoning of why we reject jesus and at the same time trying to get the Christian to see things through our eyes with your questions. it is a valiant effort but the argument is flawed. When the idea of actual text-source based criticism and analysis comes in and how it relates to an objection is introduced the ball game changes. it no longer becomes a fight on one front based on the psyche. You will find yourself defending your beliefs and the textual renderings.

    When Messianic posted her response I could see how and where her points make sense and how the textual based argument would be a flaw in the article you posted. Although I would have articulated it a bit differently and come at it form a different angle I think Messianic makes her point. Actual text-source based criticism and analysis have become very popular amongst christians since the middle ages. Dr Brown has become fond of that in his books especially when he discusses the messianic prophecies.

    Shalom,

    Rambamist (I.E. Talmid HaRambam)

    • Mitch says:

      Messianic, I don’t know where you get the impression that we agree, because we do not. I cited 2 scholarly books saying what the rabbi is saying – giving some examples through history of the kind of christian analysis of jewish rejection of jesus that he spoke of – including labels of blindness, etc. There is no doubt whatsoever that this has been a historic reality- from augustine, luther, and certainly today. You have still not shown why textual traditions have any relevance, and certainly textual traditions do not make disappear a proven historical fact.

      • Mitch says:

        Rambamist, you wrote:” When I read it I felt that you are in essence (IMO), as Smooky pointed out, attempting to psychoanalyze the Christian to determine why they are psychoanalyzing us.”

        I see nowhere where rabbi blumenthal attempted to psychoanalyze christians! He merely stated an obvious historical fact – that from early on, the jewish rejection of christianity was characterized as a result of spiritual inferiority, etc- not as an honest (although from their perspective, incorrect) reading of scripture and loyalty to god. There is really no debating this point as there is a long history from possibly the gospel of john, augustine, luther, and heck, so many christians today who often attribute judaism’s rejection of jesus to spiritual inferiority. No one can really dispute that fact. When you bring up proof texts and whatnot, you’ve moved into another area which the rabbi said nothing about.

        You perhaps misunderstood – the debate between jews and christians, and the major disagreements, were not addressed in the article. It did not (!) Attempt to psychoanalyze the christian- merely saying that when they attribute jews’ rejection of jesus to these kinds of spiritual illnesses, they miss the real objections. What on earth do textual traditions have to do with the fact that luther thought jews rejected jesus because they are blind? Does it render that historical fact as false? Please clarify, but I should repeat again that you have misunderstood the rabbi if you think he made any attempt to analyze the christian mindset.

      • Mitch says:

        Rambamist, you also wrote- “When the idea of actual text-source based criticism and analysis comes in and how it relates to an objection is introduced the ball game changes. it no longer becomes a fight on one front based on the psyche. You will find yourself defending your beliefs and the textual renderings.”

        At this point I am quite sure you’ve missed the rabbi’s point. He is not using the sad reality of many christians’ attributing of spiritual inferiority to the jews as a defence of the jewish position. That seems to be your point – that when you mention prophecies, etc- this is not even a discussion or defence of the jewish view- merely a request that christians try to see the jewish view as one based in honesty and a desire for truth. It is merely a request for a civilized dialogue based on mutual respect. So yes, unless I have misunderstood the article, it had nothing to do with defending the jewish arguments, or about trying to psychoanalyze the frequent christian proclivity to do this to jewish ‘unbelievers.’ If that was your assumption in the article, then textual issues (even scriptural issues) are not even being discussed at this point.

      • Messianic says:

        Mitch
        Nothing you have posted comes close to addressing any point I made . I am not making a polemical point, that might be the confusion .

        Mitch you are making a polemical point, Mitch Rabbi B is also making one ,

        Mitch I am not making a polemical point .

        Mitch the ‘book’ you cited is also polemical

        Mitch this might be a method of communication in your faith- where you randomly attack anthers belief as ‘truth’ , Which seems to be what Rabbi B was complaining about to start with?

        And the only answer either of you has given me was also polemical?

        I have attempted to have a discussion based on textual traditions but neither of you have the ability or the right ‘motivation’ for such a discussion.

        Please do not make me read another I don’t understand point alright? You guys are starting to sound like Jehovah Witness after a tragic head injury {that is a protestant group]

        Thanks

  23. Thomas says:

    I’ve been following this chat, and I think I should add some clarification. Rabbi B. has been in discussion with Christians for a while, and I noticed that just last week (prior to the article), some fellow told Rabbi B that the reason the Jewish people have largely not accepted Christianity is because of power (Jesus is a threat to their power structure- whatever that means). Mike Brown also repeatedly infers that Jews are supernaturally blinded, and that is the reason for their non-acceptance of Christian doctrine. I have also seen someone tell Rabbi B that he is sure that Rabbi B *knows* Christianity is true, but for some reason refuses to accept it. Examples are manifold, and Mitch gave a few examples of this in history.

    Rabbi B is making the point (a rather straightforward point, frankly) that it is difficult to discuss theological truth with someone who thinks you’re a liar, or stricken with supernatural blindness, or something along those lines. A real discussion can only occur when they think you are just in interested in truth as they are, and that you are able to have an actual interaction on that topic. That is where all other issues (prophecies, textual issues, historical issues) come in, but at this point, Rabbi B is only asking those who *do* call Jews liars and blind to appreciate that Jews have actual reasons why they have trouble with Christian doctrine, and then from there the *real* discussion can go from there. If one thinks his blog post was about prophecies and proof of the Jewish truth claim, I think there has been a misunderstanding. Maybe I haven’t understood the blog post, but reading the article, and his clarification, and knowing where this post is coming from, I’m pretty sure I am- and that Rabbi B is making a minimal claim, and it is primarily an appeal for an honest interaction, not a proof of the Jewish belief.

    • Messianic says:

      Messianics do not normally want to convert Jews to Messianism, We normally do not have much to do with Judaism other than studying the history of textual-transmissions ,

      Yes, I am sure many evangelic-messianic types have called him ten kinds of unsaved and?

      Ok Thomas so after I take the christians are evil shahadah you are advocating- THEN a discussion happens?

      So first I ‘confess’ christians are ‘evil’ and they hurt someones feelings …..Pardon me but this sounds kinda like a Karaite-Noachide cult from some obscure part of the american south ?

      Is part of the cult to type at ;east once- I don’t understand?

  24. Thoams
    Thanks for clarifying – You articulate exactly what I was trying to get across

    • Messianic says:

      Rabbi B

      Ok I confess christians are evil and take your blog shahadah, , Now how can christians have a 2.000 year old textual conspiracy when the source of all hebrew grammar comes from jewish works?

      Especially the works I quoted 5 posts back?

      thanks

  25. Mitch
    Thanks for your comments as well – I appreciate your sources.

  26. Messianic
    Are you comfortable when apologists from your own camp use accusations that people who don’t believe like yourself must be “blinded”, “children of the Devil”, or motivated by a desire for power?

    • Messianic says:

      I usually dismiss them as unbalanced and needing therapy 🙂 I offered a critique of Mr Brown in June on your blog-, Making the exact same point of a fair platform to have a discussion.

      I don’t think any person of faith is motivated by power over others ,I acknowledge the behavior as wrong in my first post .

      I am uncomfortable having a discussion on a groups behavior and assigning an emotional paradigm for it ,

      I only want to discuss the transmission of textual methods that allow for each to arrive at different conclusions

  27. Messianic
    You indicated a willingness to discuss textual traditions. Is there anything specifc you wanted to discuss?

    • Messianic says:

      Yes
      Does the book of Mathew use “asmachta”, stylizing ?

      Is the expectation to dwell or be known as from or of this geographical location?

      The LXX shows us there were many different transliterations of “Nazirite’ This reflects uncertainty as to how to convey the term In Greek.

      The Mishnah also refers to different pronunciations[1].Some of these variants are very close to what we find used to describe Jesus in the Gospels[2]

      Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

      Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots

      I am going to demonstrate the methods used in Mathew and the method used in this particular verse ,

      Is Mathew 2v 23 is anticipating the expectation of a nazir ie a nazarite, Is this a simple vow?

      1-Mathews use of Torah verses in his expectation is that, not very often is it literal .

      2-He alludes to existing traditions of the time or hermeneutics.

      On the surface, this would seem to be less of a proof text than a tangential link to a scriptural verse often decontextualized.

      This is commonly found in non-halakhic [non-legalistic] midrashim . The midrashic account is linked to a scriptural phrase even if that phrase didn’t intend that specific interpretation.

      In Aramaic, this is often termed an “asmachta”,meaning that the view espoused midrashically merely uses the scriptural text as a leaning post and not as a source.

      At times these “asmachtot”may be based merely on an odd choice of phraseology alone. In other words, there is license to deduce much from that which is rather implicit..

      Formulations of: “that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophets” are in effect not rigorous proof texts but of the asmachta type.

      Many of the controversies about hermeneutic deductions in the NT from the OT revolve around such asmachta styles.

      They cannot in all honesty be dismissed as fraudulent, once one understands that this form of a hermeneutic was widespread in Jewish writings of the time

      [1] nazir 1:1

      [2]The Missing Jesus By Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, Jacob Neusner pg 122

  28. Messianic
    I don’t believe that Christianity is engaged in a textual conspiracy. There is no question that mistranslations play a role in confusing some people but I think that the differences between Judaism and Christainity have little to do with translations and more to do with their differences in their general approach to Scripture.

  29. Rambamist says:

    Im all up for discussing textual traditions. I did a bit of this when I was in College for my Hebrew major. So what do we go over? The textual tradition of the Masoretic Text and its variations? The transmisson of the NT and its textual Variations, starting with Matthew, comparing the Greek, Aramaic, and in some cases a Hebrew text?

    • Messianic says:

      Yes, Rambamist

      Let’s start with The transmisson of the NT and its textual Variations, starting with Matthew, comparing the Greek, Aramaic, and in some cases a Hebrew text.

      Which Greek manuscript or text do you prefer?

      Which Aramaic manuscript or text do you prefer?

      Which Hebrew manuscript or text do you prefer?

      My view on the Greek manuscript evidence for Mathew parallels the points made in Bruce Metzgers book -New Testament studies: philological, versional, and patristic, in chapter six he details the oldest evidence for it .

      The Sahidic/ Greek Codex is especially interesting , page 93 of the above book details the documents associated with it .

      I am sorry it took so long to respond , I use delitzsch hebrew new testament and a variety of Aramaic NT .

      If you want to compare textual variants just let me know which text .

      thanks

  30. Messianic
    I agree with you that the authors of the NT were using midrashic methods of reading Scripture – these methods were popular at the time and even ignorant people – who attended the Sabbath lessons of the Pharisees were exposed to these methods. The problem that I have with the Nt is that they don’t seem to be aware of the limitations of these methods and the framewrok in which they operate. I mentioned this concept in My critique of Brown’s vol. 4 point # 1, vol. 5 point # 31 and in The Elephant and the Suit on page 15

    • Messianic says:

      Correct the nt has limitations and no text exists to show a ‘proof’ of the methods used in it’s transmissions .

      And yes, The elephant and the Suit addresses it well

      Thanks

  31. Brian says:

    General comment:
    I have read the post here on this page, and I must say some of it is appalling.
    Messianic comes off here as if she somehow has some sort of intellectual superiority of some sort; and even makes an attack by making a comparision and degrading others.
    I will post that comment here.

    Please do not make me read another I don’t understand point alright? You guys are starting to sound like Jehovah Witness after a tragic head injury {that is a protestant group]

    Seriously?
    So an attack is made here not only on everyone who has posted, but on other christian groups as well.
    The link she posted regarding Chabad and their article doesn’t give some kind of textual authority to christian “translations” and their accuracy, nor does the article imply that at all; actually it does the opposite.

    The Lenigrad codex, The Aleppo codex, and portions of the dead sea scrolls are not translations, so by implication that somehow through her perception that any possibility of Jewish influence on accurately translating Hebrew into many other languages such as Greek and English would guarantee that by that definition the English translations are accurate; thereby rendering the possibility that christian scholars have been distorting the Jewish bible through conspiracy impossible; is an insidious claim, not only can she not attest to the intergrity of the christian scholars; The possibility of error in translation isn’t addressed either; even if there was a possibility that any of the scholars were Jewish; you have to understand language and how translation works before you can go around even making such claims.
    Also the christian writings are reworks from a progression from Platonism, and gnosticism that are the true origins of what has become what is known today as christianity, and the critera of what christian text are accepted canon is extensively diverse worldwide, however they were all written in Greek “not” Hebrew; and if the same scrutiny that is held towards all Jewish writings, was recipicated for “ALL” christian writings, this might not be a discussion at all.

    Regardless:
    The Rabbi never even makes this contention in the first place; actually he does the exact opposite in what he writes here in his post; “THE” text { christian bible } itself ; by what is written in it, with regards to the Jews, and its influence on how “WE” are perceived by christians, because of”
    I don’t think from its inception would be and accurate assessment, with regards to christianity; however, from the time it was developed, and as it evolved and was translated from the Greek;
    { and not accurately I might add } Its story line paints the “Jews” with a broad brush as liars, and children of the devil.
    What would be an more accurate statement would be: From the churches inception, moving first from the edict of Milan, and then officially creating christianity as the official religion of Rome in 325 AD; Rome made itself the final authority on what was the accepted religion.
    Anything else was not. [ “crusades” ring a bell? ]
    The first christian bibles were not available to the public and were all written primarily in Latin, and they were highly inaccurate.
    This is really irrelevant anyways because their parishioners never were allowed to read them anyways, they simply believed what they were told, and if they went against that they were excommunicated or even killed, or at least labeled heretics, and persecuted.
    The inquisition was none less than assertion of that authority, and the Jews and others were receipients of persecution among others because of that.
    The holocoust was also perpetuated by christian Idealology, the same Idealology that I see today that postulates the same hatred and anti semitic views, that somehow Jews are blinded to the truth, and are responsible for not having recognized their G-D and having him killed.

    The norm when christians debate Jews is to take on the perception, that it is the Jew that is wrong, and that: “because they are christian” only they have divine revelation, and where do they learn this speculation? Might I suggest? 2 Corinthians 3:13-18 and 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 ; for starters.

    The Rabbi; unless I am mistaken, is called to those who would debate Jews, to articulate things from the Jewish perspective before making this annalysis, he then asserts that even G-D commends Idolaters for their loyalty to their god; so christians even if they disagree with the Jewish position should acknowledge the Jew and his loyalty to his G-D rather than some pre conceived bias, based on textual assertions from the NT text alluding to some sort of Jewish conspiracy.

  32. Brian says:

    Messianic,
    Transmission of textual methods is none other than Sophism & Rhetoric in an attempt to make the text fit your theology using your method.

    • Messianic says:

      Brian since you can’t demonstrate you understand the method I used, or understand the motivation,I am not sure what you want me to comment on- I am sorry you felt I was being arrogant and it upset you.

      It was humour on the article, which may have been missed with your sensitive textual view . Again my apologies

  33. Brian says:

    Messianic,
    I have no difficulty with my understanding; your motivation is known.
    I don’t think bashing a Jehovah witness, and implying that those posting here are liken to one with a head injury is humorous.
    Sometimes a comment isn’t in order; sometimes just reading, listening and learning helps.
    In order for someone to teach they first need to learn to listen; (I am still listening yet to this very day ).

  34. Brian says:

    Messianic,
    None less than your delusional assertions.
    I don’t; I listen to lectures called parashah weekly, along with many others.
    You have a sick sense of humor, to use others at your expense; whom of which you do not even know, in your humor; I suppose you would enjoy someone doing the same to you?

    • Messianic says:

      Which delusional assertions exactly?

      That is great -you listen to weekly teachings

      Yes I have been told my sense of humour is odd ,

      And I have not ‘used’ anyone , Now do you have an actual comment or is this an inquisitional point?

      And yes I have had satire expressed on my person 🙂 and I enjoyed it

      Any other questions Brian?

  35. Brian says:

    Messianic,
    Do you really wish to go there?
    Here is one of your comments:
    “Christianity depends on Jewish grammarians in order to produce it’s English text , The current English texts would not exist without them”
    So tell me; The rabbi qouted from the New Testament, which one of those text that were scribed in Greek originally; would Jewish grammarians been involved in, and please be specific as to who they were, and give names.
    I have friends that are both christian and Jehovah witness who have read your comment who disagree, and certainly I highly doubt anyone who posted on this thread would agree with you,
    so if you find that to not be a valid comment, that is your problem, because everyone I showed your sick sense of humor, found it quite repulsive.
    Yes! Your satire reflects back on you quite well.

    • Messianic says:

      I’m glad you have freinds 🙂

      And of course hebrew grammarians would indicate it was the tanack not the ‘other’ book There are no ‘original” greek texts- what we have are compilation of texts.

      My point was on English bibles and the history of them , following the chronology and works cited as source material with them ,
      This book details The Radaks influence on the KJV and the enviroment that led to using his works

      *Translation That Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible (Society of Biblical Literature Biblical Scholarship in North America)

      This work also gives an over-view of the rabbinic influence on the Antwerp Polyglot Bible

      **The Kabbalistic scholars of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible
      By Robert J. Wilkinson, Robert Wilkinson

  36. Brian says:

    Messanic,
    There are “NO” New Testament writings that were ever originally written in Hebrew; They were “ALL” in Greek.
    You need to go back to your research; RaDaK and his work was to refute christian works not develop them.
    RaDaK { דוד קמהי David Kimhi } Lived ( 1160-1235 ) and would not have had any part in the development of the king James bible; Begun in 1604 completed 1611.
    I noticed that you changed up your wording from Jewish Grammarians to Hebrew.
    The Greek works are not a compilation of Jewish works they are totally seperate works; by hellenist.
    Regardless if christian scholars were influenced by Jewish and rabbinic works doesn’t authenticate the text.
    The christian translators adjusted their translations to conform to the Greek septuagint and the Latin vugate { pig Latin } . The New testament was translated “ALL” from the Greek except 190 readings that are from the Latin vulgate.
    The first complete English christian bible was hand written by John Wycliffe 1380 AD
    The first translations were first Vesta Latina then vulgate, entirely from the Greek.
    I think you need to have someone define polyglot for you.

    Regardless,
    You still haven’t given me a specific name of a single Jewish grammarian, “who” had anything to do with any christian translation “directly” !

    Additionally,
    What does any of this have to do with the scripture from the New testament; that the rabbi quoted from?
    What he quoted from didn’t originate from Jewish sources; rather it originated from christian ones; namely the “new testament”.
    He wasn’t discussing translations, he was quoting from the English translation of the Greek NT, and how it reflects on christians perceptions of the Jewish people, and how they judge them, and how they are perplexed as to why the Jews cannot accept jesus as their G-D.
    He also comments: Do they not understand the ramifications of the Jews accepting jesus as being G-D, according to the Jewish bible.

    I think this is were your delusion began.

  37. Rambamist says:

    Hello Brian,
    You Said: “There are “NO” New Testament writings that were ever originally written in Hebrew; They were “ALL” in Greek.”

    This is factually inaccurate. the Church Fathers and Church Historians record that Matthew wrote his gospel in “the Hebrew Tongue” and some say “the Hebrew language” or “the Hebrew dialect.” Today we have what is called the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew. Many try to knock on this work as simply a polemic but when I was doing a paper on this in college for my Hebrew major I noted that the text itself is closer to the Hebrew of the Mishnah for a majority of the text than it is to late medieval Hebrew. However, the text does exhibit some medieval compilation and introduction of spanish, latin, and greek loan words. The point I made in my paper that based on a removal of the loan words and an analysis of the syntax of the Hebrew it is definitely older than the times of Rabbi Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut.

    Furthermore we have what are called “Aramaic primacists” who make the argument for an Aramaic original because of the idioms used in the Greek text to suggest that it came from a Semitic source text. We can see the Aramaic Peshitta as their source of argument and its preservation by the Syrian orthodox Church.

    You Said: “You need to go back to your research; RaDaK and his work was to refute christian works not develop them.
    RaDaK { דוד קמהי David Kimhi } Lived ( 1160-1235 ) and would not have had any part in the development of the king James bible; Begun in 1604 completed 1611.”

    That should be a ח not a ה in RaDaK’s Name. Sorry I couldn’t resist. lol

    If i were messianic, my next words would be “So What!” So what if he was a polemicist. What keeps a christian theologian, who was taught Hebrew by a Jewish Convert, from picking up grammatical works from the RaDaK 350 years later and applying it to translating the Hebrew bible into English? Absolutely nothing!

    You Said: “The christian translators adjusted their translations to conform to the Greek septuagint and the Latin vugate { pig Latin } .”

    Of course they did! Any translation is left up to the bias of the translator. What the Christians did was employ an understanding from another source and apply it to their translation of the bible. Judaism does that as well in their translations when a Hebrew concept in the Tanakh is difficult we consult the Targumim, the Rishonim, the Talmud, and other sources for understanding from those who came before us. The one bible that Christians did that does not do what you are describing is the NRSV.

    thats all I have to say on the matter please feel free to dispute my claims on the matter.

    Shalom,

    Rambamist

  38. Brian says:

    Rambamist,
    Of the 27 copies of the Hebrew Matthew they “ALL” have been determined to be translated from the “GREEK” placing the Hebrew in the Shem Tov Matthew to be from a certian period doesn’t make it a Jewish work.
    I don’t think I will take the words of church clergy and christian historians as fact.
    The Hellenization of Judaism was taking place long before christianity came on the scene.
    The so called “Aramaic” primacy has also been proven false.
    I made a typo with a ה instead of a ח your point?
    If I were me; I would say: SO WHAT! All this doesn’t change anything, and all of this is irrelevent to what the rabbi was talking about when he quoted from “John” and the point he was making.
    The point I made with Messianic was what “Jewish” grammarian had anything to do with any christian translation “directly”.
    Rambamist; What keeps a Greek christian theologian, who was allegedly taught Hebrew by whomever who may have, or not have learned Hebrew well, who may have, or may not have read whatever works Jewish or not; from mis translating, fabricating and lying in attempt to distort change and delude.
    Do you understand what the word “Targumim” means?
    The NRSV or any other christian bible for that matter; none of them are completely accurate, most if not all, do not even accurately translate the Greek into English; I can give one such example σοφία in the new testament is translated: “wisdom” ; The word could never be that in English ever, it is actually the word Sophia; a name, originally it would have been Athena or some other Hellenistic variant, but never wisdom.
    Sophia is the wife of god in the original coptic religion that has become what you know today as christianity, and it had a whole pantheon of gods; another word is ᾅδης some christian bibles translate it hell, others translate it accurately as Hades whom of which is a character in Greek mythology who is the god of the underworld.
    So not part of Judaism!

    • Matityahu ben Avraham says:

      First, “The so called “Aramaic” primacy has also been proven false.”

      Brian, it has been proven false by whom? It has been disputed by Greek Primacists, but it hasn’t been proven false.

      Second, Messianic is NOT saying that that the RaDaK had a direct hand in it, but rather the KJV translators used the works of the RaDaK and other Hebrew Grammarians in their translation works.

      Third, sophia and hades have actual word meanings. Sophia means WISDOM. The goddess was NAMED Sophia BECAUSE she was the goddess OF WISDOM. Hades is called that because he is the god of the UNDERWORLD (Hades).

      I highly recommend that you actually think about what you are righting before you write it. It seems that the only thing you are bent on is bashing Christians and the NT. You should try to make the conversation more of a fact-based dialogue in seeking the Truth, rather than an emotionally based attempt to degrade the humans you disagree with.

  39. Rambamist says:

    Hello Brian,

    You Said: “Of the 27 copies of the Hebrew Matthew they “ALL” have been determined to be translated from the “GREEK” placing the Hebrew in the Shem Tov Matthew to be from a certian period doesn’t make it a Jewish work.”

    This is completely false. there are list of ten manuscripts of the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew. 8 of the 10 Show harmonizing effects of the Greek. the British Museum manuscript and the Leningrad manuscript are the least corrupted. In fact, George Howard did a critical aparatus of the Shem tov hebrew Matthew and makes this notation in his book “the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.” if you are referring to the Du Tillet and Muenster texts they are listed as variations in hte critical aparatus and not part of the main text. the Delitzch Translation does not count it is in modern hebrew. Now you would also have to explain the Sefer Nestor HaKomer (7th century CE) which lines up closer to the British Museum manuscript and the Leningrad manuscript over the Muenster and Du tillet manuscripts that do show revision towards the greek.

    You Said: ” I don’t think I will take the words of church clergy and christian historians as fact.”

    Of course you wont! People who follow their own religion have no authority whatsoever to comment about their own history. Just like we Jews have no Idea what we are talking about when talking about our own history. Yeah that makes sense!

    You Said: “The so called “Aramaic” primacy has also been proven false.”

    According to whom? Greek Primacists? Linguistically there are a lot of idioms in the GNT that only make sense in a semitic language. In fact the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew highlights those linguistic idioms that make no sense in greek or in english (See Matthew 5 and its discussion in text).

    You Said: “I made a typo with a ה instead of a ח your point?”

    I was poking fun. no need to get your panties in a bunch.

    You Said: “If I were me; I would say: SO WHAT! All this doesn’t change anything, and all of this is irrelevent to what the rabbi was talking about when he quoted from “John” and the point he was making.”

    Actually it would be relevent because it illustrates the problem in Rabbi Blumenthals argument that christians must “psychoanalyze the jew” but that some actually go based on a textual analysis for the reason of rejection.

    You Said: “The point I made with Messianic was what “Jewish” grammarian had anything to do with any christian translation “directly”.”

    Jerome had the help of Jewish scholars on the Vulgate. Their names are not known but he makes note of their assistance. However, the problem is that direct or indirect there is Jewish grammatical influence.

    You Said: “Rambamist; What keeps a Greek christian theologian, who was allegedly taught Hebrew by whomever who may have, or not have learned Hebrew well, who may have, or may not have read whatever works Jewish or not; from mis translating, fabricating and lying in attempt to distort change and delude.”

    Nice way to avoid the uncomfortable reality that some converted jews, whom you assume did not learn Hebrew that who may have converted under duress, would not have been coerced into teaching hebrew to christians. Some may have been very learned and taught them happily. You assume too much.

    To answer your question: Absolutely Nothing!

    You Said: “Do you understand what the word “Targumim” means?”

    Hmm Let me think, I have Bachelors Degree In Hebrew, I studied Aramaic, Phoenecian, and a little Arabic…….Gee why dont you educate me on what a “Targum” is!

    While you are educating me on what a targum is, can you explain how Artscroll arrives at their “Insert meaning of Targum Here” of Shir HaShirim when the actual Hebrew text says somethign comepletly different? What sources did they use to arrive at such a reading?

    You said: “The NRSV or any other christian bible for that matter; none of them are completely accurate, most if not all, do not even accurately translate the Greek into English;”

    Do you even know what the NRSV reads? Do you own a copy? Second, you do know that classical greek and Koine Greek are different right? Some words from previous eras adopt new meanings and concepts with evolving ideas. This happens with every language including Hebrew.

    Shalom,

    Rambamist

  40. Brian says:

    Rambamist,
    Nobody in the scholarly world agrees with you, except a few and they have been proven wrong.

    “Of course you wont! People who follow their own religion have no authority whatsoever to comment about their own history. Just like we Jews have no Idea what we are talking about when talking about our own history. Yeah that makes sense!”

    christian history isn’t Jewish history and it certainly doesn’t define it either.
    Since you are accepting christian history; Then you can accept the surviving citations from christian gospels (namely gospel of the nazarenes, gospel of the ebionites, and gospel of the Hebrews) preserved in the writings of Jerome Epiphanius and others.
    You can also accept all of the other christian writings “NOT” included in christian canon, such as the Nag Hammadi etc.

    Don’t impose your suppositions upon me, in order to fulfill your own inadequacies, and perverted tendencies.

    Actually it would not be relevent, unless of course you are saying that what all the christian bibles say in John are all wrong, and do not say exactly what is written in the text.

    So…Based on your claim, for which there is no proof; except maybe the word of Jerome or not, and the assumption that he was just one heck of a honest guy; some Jewish grammarian aleggedly guided him in translating both Hebrew and Greek into Latin. “Astounding!”
    Are you also claiming the vulgate to be accurate?

    I didn’t say someone who was influenced to some degree by a Jewish grammarian; I said: A Jewish grammarian who was: “directly” involved.

    So do you!

    תרגום is plural, and it means translations (namely from Hebrew to Aramaic)

    Hmm…I didn’t know that they gave out a degree for being a שמאק

    I am completely familiar with “ALL” of the christian translations; including the nrsv, and yes I have a copy of all of them.

    So are you claiming it is completely accurate?

    Yes I know about the Greek, and btw did you know Greek is a semitic language?

    Yes I understand language, and no that doesn’t change the original meaning of the Torah, and G-D does not change.

  41. Brian says:

    Matityahu Ben Avraham,

    By scholars by “majority” surviving citations from christian gospels (namely gospel of the nazarenes, gospel of the ebionites, and gospel of the Hebrews) preserved in the writings of Jerome Epiphanius and others. will help you with that.

    Your statement about RaDaK and Jewish grammarains isn’t exactly true; they were influenced by their works, but used Greek works and ideas when they translated, and not the Jewish ones;
    Kinda like acting Jewish, taking on Jewish looking names, yet believing in christian ideals.

    “Third, sophia and hades have actual word meanings. Sophia means WISDOM. The goddess was NAMED Sophia BECAUSE she was the goddess OF WISDOM. Hades is called that because he is the god of the UNDERWORLD (Hades).”

    Sophia is regarded as being wisdom, it doesn’t mean wisdom.
    Virgin goddess of wisdom, warfare, strategy, heroic endeavour, handicrafts and reason. The daughter of Zeus and Metis, she was born from Zeus’s head fully-formed and armoured. She was depicted crowned with a crested helm, armed with shield and spear, and wearing the snake-trimmed aegis cloak adorned with the head of the Gorgon. Her symbols include the aegis, the owl and the olive tree.
    What I just posted there is a description of Athena; Sophia is merely a progression of avatars in Greek mythology, but hey they do not get all the credit she was also Isis in Egypt, and אשרה Asherah in the Tanakh, and is also known as Eastore’ or rather Easter “goddess of fertility” Ironically a translation in the KJV bible; Acts 12:4; she is also the origin of the word “everyone thinks make them a smart person”[ philosophy ] Literally { love of Sophia } she also had three daughters; Faith, Hope, and Chairity. 1 Cor 13:13
    Since MR. so called Rambamist who has his big o college education accepts everything church clergy state historically to be accurate information, then he is obligated then to accept this information as well; church history acknowledges Sophia, Faith, Hope , and Charity and regards them as martyred, and venerated saints; You can find many icons of them in many cathedrals, like Hagi Sophia { Constantinople } ; St. Sophia Cathedral { St. Petersburgh Russia } and abroad; including the one in Jerusalem.

    You stated Sophia was a goddess, and that Hades was the god of the underworld; I totally agree with you!
    You 100 % correct, and you prove my point.
    The Jewish bible clearly states that there is “NO” other G-D and that he, and he alone is G-D
    Deut. 6:4; also see Exodus chapter 20

    I actually do think about what I am writing; you might perceive that I am “bashing” christians, however that is not true; I simply disagree with their assertions with regards to claiming that christianity is either an extension of Judaism, or a replacement of it.
    Actually I do base my assertions on fact, with regards to the Jewish scriptures, rather than my own personal emotions.
    I think making all kinds of conjecture and arguments for the new testament, with all sorts of he said, she said, they said, and making up excuses for inconsistencies, and contradictions with christian works, based on emotions, instead of sticking to what the new testament states, and how it holds up in light of the Jewish bible, and not the other way around; instead of marginalizing Judaism and the Jewish bible in light of the christian works.

    So Matityahu, Really to an extent I agree with you; It goes both ways, I will respond in like, when it comes to my religion, and honestly I do believe that is exactly what the rabbi was implying here on this thread.
    So let’s all just stop with all the nonsense and judge the NT by its merits in light of the Jewish bible; not judge the Jew by assertions regardless of where they come from, even if it is the NT.

    • Matityahu ben Avraham says:

      “By scholars by “majority” surviving citations from christian gospels (namely gospel of the nazarenes, gospel of the ebionites, and gospel of the Hebrews) preserved in the writings of Jerome Epiphanius and others. will help you with that.”

      Can you please translate ALL of that in English and tell me what point you were TRYING to make? Because Jerome, Ephiphanaius, and other church fathers recorded that Matthew was written in Hebrew (Jerome even went further and said that Hebrews was written in Hebrew).

      “Your statement about RaDaK and Jewish grammarains isn’t exactly true; they were influenced by their works, but used Greek works and ideas when they translated, and not the Jewish ones;
      Kinda like acting Jewish, taking on Jewish looking names, yet believing in christian ideals.”

      Thnx for conceding to Messianic’s point that the Christian translators were INFLUENCED by the works of the RaDaK and other Hebrew Grammarians. 🙂

      “You stated Sophia was a goddess, and that Hades was the god of the underworld; I totally agree with you!
      You 100 % correct, and you prove my point.
      The Jewish bible clearly states that there is “NO” other G-D and that he, and he alone is G-D
      Deut. 6:4; also see Exodus chapter 20”

      NO, i DO NOT prove your point. I did the exact OPPOSITE, they were CALLED what they are called BECAUSE of the function they serve in Greek mythology. Also, Exodus 20 says that “There will not exist TO YOU other gods upon my face.”. Thus forbidding the sons of Israel from worshiping other gods. Even if you are to insert this as being an affirmation of Monotheism, both Christians and Jews agree that there is only one God.

      As for Easter being in the KJV, there, the term Easter was used in both Coverdale and Tyndale in place of Passover even in the Torah. the reason being, is NOT because they worshiped Easter, but because Pesach (or in Greek, pascha) fell in the month of Easter (the name of an actual month in England at the time). Also Jews in England were calling passover “Easter” for the same reason. the KJV seemed to have uniformed the text by translating it the terms pesach and pascha as passover everywhere it is used, but seemed to have skipped the location in Acts.

      You seeming actually reply based on emotion and not facts from what I read in your discussion posts, and you do bash Christians, and even act as if they POSSIBLY couldn’t record events and even translate accurately and HONESTLY.

      I will leave you with words from Pirke Avot:

      Avot 1:6 II Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [it] from them. `Joshua b. Perahiah says, “Set up a master for yourself. “And get yourself a fellow disciple. “And give everybody the benefit of the doubt.”

  42. naaria says:

    All this discussion about translations and textual criticism, etc. is interesting, but beside the point that “From the very inception of Christianity, Christians found it necessary to engage in the psychoanalysis of those who reject their claims.”. Unless one is saying that the gospel of John was not written at the inception of Christianity (and it may not have been, according to some early church leaders). Or unless one is saying that the text of the gospel is not the original text and/or that it has been greatly changed (or new material added to the NT) by the later editors, redactionists, or translators (whether or not they were influenced by the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of “Jewish grammarians” or those Jews or non-Jews who taught them Hebrew). Or unless one objects to the words “Christian” or “Christianity”, and would prefer other words (but that would not somehow change the “psychoanalysis” of the author of John or of later “Christians”, including many Christians today). Or unless, perhaps one prefers a different word, a more acceptable synonym, other than “psychoanalysis”.

    But as one raised as a Christian, I can find little objection to anything that Rabbi B wrote in the article above. It is very insightful and accurate. And I suspect that it’s accuracy is what is really disturbing to some. Perhaps, the critical words of the author of John’s gospel (or Matthew’s or of other canonical NT writings) or Jesus, are more applicable to modern Christians (or Yeshua believers) than to Jews of either the 1st century c.e. or today? Because, as one who most often reads modern English NT’s (1611 KJV & onwards), I have read, seen, or heard that “psychoanalysis” of Jewish “motivations for rejection of Jesus” by most pastors and most fellow Christians around me. I seen it a long time ago. For those who disagree (because of a learned, “blind”, or biased point of view), re-consider the 3 factors and the 3 questions in Rabbi Blumenthal’s post above.

  43. naaria says:

    I know about the Shem Tov Matthew’s and Syriac and Coptic texts, etc. It doesn’t matter what was “original”. At least the way I see it, the “ungodly” anger, the hatred, the narrow-mindedness/blindness, the anti-Jewishness of the gospels, especially in Matthew & John, and other parts of the NT are unacceptable no matter who wrote them or how they got translated or when.

  44. Rambamist says:

    Hello Brian,

    You Said: “Nobody in the scholarly world agrees with you, except a few and they have been proven wrong.”

    Um…….I cited specifically Dr. George Howard’s book would you like some more? I have yet to see one scholarly citation from you. All I am seeing are blanket, unsubstantiated, claims like this which mount to nothing but what the uninformed actually claim. See Dr. Howards book “the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew” inside in the appendix there is a discussion of the volumous differences between the Greek text of matthew and that of the Shem Tov as preserved by the British Museum manuscript.

    You Said: “christian history isn’t Jewish history and it certainly doesn’t define it either.
    Since you are accepting christian history; Then you can accept the surviving citations from christian gospels (namely gospel of the nazarenes, gospel of the ebionites, and gospel of the Hebrews) preserved in the writings of Jerome Epiphanius and others.
    You can also accept all of the other christian writings “NOT” included in christian canon, such as the Nag Hammadi etc.
    Don’t impose your suppositions upon me, in order to fulfill your own inadequacies, and perverted tendencies.”

    Nice, Strawman anyone? Honestly, my next question to you would be “Did you even read what I said?” What is apparent from your comments above is that you only want to talk about what you want to talk about. Just because Christian history isnt Jewish history does not mean that they could not record an event accurately that actually historically happened. You presuppose that you are right and everything else is wrong. For example: If Jewish History recorded the Franks conquered Spain, but Christian history records that it was the Visigoths and along with this christian claim we have a big sign found in Spain that dates back to the fall of Rome that says “the Visigoths were here” would this be enought to say that maybe we didnt record it accurately? This isnt a blanket statement about Jewish history and knowing your strawman capabilities you will turn it into one. It does illustrate a point that i was trying to make.

    You Said: “So…Based on your claim, for which there is no proof; except maybe the word of Jerome or not, and the assumption that he was just one heck of a honest guy; some Jewish grammarian aleggedly guided him in translating both Hebrew and Greek into Latin. “Astounding!”
    Are you also claiming the vulgate to be accurate?”

    Well If you want to get into textual argumentation and textual criticism according to Professor Emanuel Tov in his book “Textual Criticism of the Hebrew bible” The Vulgate’s source text is the Masoretic text. And it is pretty accuarate according to him with the exception of the usual theological differences showing. The point is that he and most scholars recognize this as the source text and that Jerome, being a latin and greek speaker, would had to have had help, and precisely the help he noted in the preface to the Vulgate.
    I never said he had a Jewish Grammarian to help him translate Greek into Latin. You are putting words into my mouth. So you can get over you inaccuracies now.

    You Said: “I didn’t say someone who was influenced to some degree by a Jewish grammarian; I said: A Jewish grammarian who was: “directly” involved.”

    Directly or not they were very involved in the translation process and thus an influence on their christian authors.

    You Said: “תרגום is plural, and it means translations (namely from Hebrew to Aramaic) ”

    Someone must have fallen asleep during hebrew class…lol Targum is singular, Targumim (Yod-Mem ending) is the plural meaning Translations. apparently you are confusing a general term (translation) with the specific term Targumim B’Aramit or Targumei Aramit (Translations in Aramaic or Aramaic Translations respectivly).

    You Said: “Hmm…I didn’t know that they gave out a degree for being a שמאק”

    Whoa! Whats with the insults? If we are going to play this game of insults: “I am surprised that an ignoramous like yourself is allowed to make such dumb statements on this blog. Honestly, if my son ever makes statements like this I would have to slap him and hard for just being an idiot.” How’s that for playing the insult game? Can we get back to the discussion now or are you going to keep this part of the game up?

    I graduated with a 3.97 in my degree, so what are your credentials? Are you a Jewish studies major of any kind? Are you a Rabbi? Are you a High School Student?

    You Said: “I am completely familiar with “ALL” of the christian translations; including the nrsv, and yes I have a copy of all of them.”

    Im sure you do.

    You Said: “So are you claiming it is completely accurate?”

    Im not gonna lie it would be nice to see a quoted text you are quoting. But if you are asking me about the NRSV I would say it is fairly accurate but it is not perfect, no translation is perfect.

    You Said: “Yes I know about the Greek, and btw did you know Greek is a semitic language? ”

    That is a bold claim! I know the Greek alphabet was derived from Pheonecian, from my pheonecian professor, but the language? Please cite sources that indicate this or are you making what I call a “dairy Aire” argument?

    You Said: “Yes I understand language, and no that doesn’t change the original meaning of the Torah, and G-D does not change.”

    Wait a minute….back up Did i even say any of that? Ah this is what is called a Strawman. Can you not just comment on my words and stop making up your own words and putting them into my mouth?

    Shalom,

    Rambamist

  45. Brian says:

    Matityahu & rambamist,
    With regards to Matthew and alegged Hebrew, Aramaic primacy.
    rambamist, George howard views make up a very small circle; except by you of course.

    George Howard (Hebraist), Associate Professor of Religion and Hebrew at the University of Georgia has argued (1995) that some or all of these three medieval Hebrew versions may have descended (without any intervening translation) from ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew, which may have been used by early Christians in the 1st or 2nd century, but were nearly extinct by the time of Jerome, late in the 4th century.
    However the surviving citations from Jewish-Christian Gospels (namely Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Ebionites and Gospel of the Hebrews) preserved in the writings of Jerome, Epiphanius and others, lead critical scholars to conclude that those Gospels themselves either were Greek or were translated from Greek Matthew. In fact, most scholars consider that the medieval Hebrew manuscripts were descended (by translation) from medieval Greek or Latin manuscripts, and therefore that it is extremely unlikely that any of the unique readings found in these medieval Hebrew manuscripts could be ancient.

  46. Brian says:

    Matityahu,
    I didn’t concede anything to Messianic at all, quite the opposite;
    Just because someone was influenced doesn’t mean that any Jew was directly involved, and if you research it for yourself, the translaters didn’t use any of the Jewish work at all when they translated; rather they used the Greek and Latin.

    “NO, i DO NOT prove your point. I did the exact OPPOSITE, they were CALLED what they are called BECAUSE of the function they serve in Greek mythology. Also, Exodus 20 says that “There will not exist TO YOU other gods upon my face.”. Thus forbidding the sons of Israel from worshiping other gods. Even if you are to insert this as being an affirmation of Monotheism, both Christians and Jews agree that there is only one God.”

    Really? They are in your bible not mine, and you yourself acknowledged that they are gods in Greek mythology….Mosst of christianity views jesus as part of a godhead, or trinty rather, that isn’t “ONE” that is three, last time I added.
    Either way I can establish historically the origins of christianity had an entire pantheon of gods.

    Yo really need to do a little more homework on Easter buddy, Jews never celebrate it.
    However are you prepared to tell “NO” christian celebrate Easter, on Easter Sunday?
    Are you also going to tell me they do not have Easter egg hunts in their churches, and hand out chocolate bunnies, and baskets and such? Please……….
    The point is…It is not translated passover.

    You actually; completely respond with both bias and emotion; So tell me Mat;
    Do you consider christians to not be bashing Jews when they tell them that their religion is false, and that they are going to burn in some hell for not accepting jesus as being G-D, and that we have no clue as to what the truth of our religion handed down to us generation after generation, and that we had to wait for christians to come along; { Because we are aleggedly to stupid to see who are G-D really is } ?

    No! You do not, however when a Jew points out what christian scriptures says about Jews, such as John 8:44 all of a sudden we do not even Know our own language “Hebrew” and somehow we just got things all messed up, and we needed to wait for you Messianic, and the rambamist to come along and tell us about your GPA and how stupid we are; and you construe that as bashing????

    I am not sure where you find logic in that.

    Question?
    Since we are so uneducated; why do you keep referring to Jewish works?

  47. Brian says:

    Rambamist,
    I am not going to argue with about translations; you’ll just have to go back to school and relearn the portions you didn’t get.

    In order for someone to be involved, they would have to actually take part.
    What you are claiming would be like someone talking about how one would go about helping the poor, by giving them money; then having someone who overheard the conversation, then go round up the poor and force them to perform hard labor for mere pennies.
    The person was influenced by that person, however, that person that they were influenced by wasn’t responsible for their horrible behavior.
    Your contention is insidious.
    Besides if you did some reasearch you will find the translaters didn’t use any of the influence they obtained by looking at the Jewish works; instead they used the Greek and Latin, for their translations.

    Yes; very good, I think it is great that you figured out that תרגום is singular and תרגומים is plural, funny that you didn’t even know that it meant translations in Aramaic from hebrew though.

    You are now going to scold me about insults? Hmm… You seem to have no difficulty in suggesting I wear panties, or somehow I am just some uneducated idiot.
    You seem not to have a problem doing that, yet somehow when the tables are turned, then it isn’t; and trust me, you do not know me from a can of paint to suggest that you would get away with slapping me.

    You seem to have a endeavoring need to convince everyone that you have this extravagant education, and they just need understand just how smart you are with this big O 3.97 G.P.A in your indoctrination of someones elses claimed knowledge under, and through their predisposed curriculum.
    Your education isn’t in and of itself, rather it is by someone elses direction.

    Let me ask you? You have a christian scholar with a 4.0 G.P.A in theology; A muslim scholar with a
    4.0 G.P.A in studies of Islam; A Jewish scholar with a 4.0 G.P.A in Jewish studies; and a unborn infant child still in the mothers womb.
    Who among them has the most knowledge?
    “There are right and wrong answers to the question.

    I do not believe I qouted any text; however I do believe most christian bibles qoute the referenced passages made by the rabbi relatively the same.
    Well at least now you acknowledge that translations are not accurate; however when it comes to christian works most translate mostly the same, with some variations, and the new testament text is not part of the Jewish bible.

    I find it interesting that you claim you have studied language, and it hasn’t occurred to you that all languages have semitic origins, including Pheonecian, and Greek, and Arabic..Etc.

    No, you didn’t state that directly, however you did suggest throug modernization of languages that original meanings change; so if you intended that to exclude Torah, maybe you should be more specific.
    No, you didn’t directly say G-D changes, however do you understand that by implication that G-D would become a created being (namely a man) jesus; that you are in fact suggesting a change.

  48. Brian says:

    Naaria,
    Thank you!
    I agree; you are totally right; It doesn’t matter, everything needs to be viewed in light of the Jewish bible, and not the other way around.
    I was simply holding the same scrutiny towards christian works that christians usually do with works by Jewish sages, that are not part of the Jewish bible, and as you can see, it isn’t well recieved.
    I find when I come accross people caught up in messianic christianity, who portray themselves as being “true” Judaism they will use Jewish looking names, and venture into insidious arguments in effort to dispell the facts and avoid the topic, then claim some theological superiority.
    I have some friends that are involved in that as well, however we do not mingle for that very reason.

  49. Rambamist says:

    Hello Brian,

    You Said: “I am not going to argue with about translations; you’ll just have to go back to school and relearn the portions you didn’t get.

    In order for someone to be involved, they would have to actually take part.
    What you are claiming would be like someone talking about how one would go about helping the poor, by giving them money; then having someone who overheard the conversation, then go round up the poor and force them to perform hard labor for mere pennies.
    The person was influenced by that person, however, that person that they were influenced by wasn’t responsible for their horrible behavior.
    Your contention is insidious.
    Besides if you did some reasearch you will find the translaters didn’t use any of the influence they obtained by looking at the Jewish works; instead they used the Greek and Latin, for their translations.”

    Nice Argument by analogy! If I want false analogy arguments I should come to you for all of my future needs. My next question is what does this have to do with anything I have said?

    You Said: “Yes; very good, I think it is great that you figured out that תרגום is singular and תרגומים is plural, funny that you didn’t even know that it meant translations in Aramaic from hebrew though.”

    This is probably the most laughable statement I have ever heard in my life. You said Targum תרגום was plural not I. Second, When was the last time you picked up a Hebrew dictionary and looked up the meaning of תרגום as it is used in speech and writing? The term Targum applies to all translations of the Hebrew into another language. My guess is that you are trying hard not to look like you didn’t say that Targum was plural so will re-quote you for everyone to see: “תרגום is plural, and it means translations (namely from Hebrew to Aramaic).” Your words not mine!

    You said: “You are now going to scold me about insults? Hmm… You seem to have no difficulty in suggesting I wear panties, or somehow I am just some uneducated idiot.
    You seem not to have a problem doing that, yet somehow when the tables are turned, then it isn’t; and trust me, you do not know me from a can of paint to suggest that you would get away with slapping me.”

    Are you really that dense? For one, me making a snide remark about you not being able to take a joke has nothing to do with insulting you! As for your education I asked you a question about it. I did not make you out to be a fool or as uneducated even though I could remark that you are now officially a Wikipedia scholar! I would also recommend doing some genuine research instead of parroting what you find on the open source Wikipedia, which by the way gave me a good laugh.

    You said: “You seem to have a endeavoring need to convince everyone that you have this extravagant education, and they just need understand just how smart you are with this big O 3.97 G.P.A in your indoctrination of someones elses claimed knowledge under, and through their predisposed curriculum.
    Your education isn’t in and of itself, rather it is by someone elses direction.”

    Is your favorite song done by Pink Floyd, the song “Another brick in the wall? Im guessing your favorite part is as follows: “we don’t need no education….We don’t need no thought control…..” Please this is the weakest personal attack I have ever seen in my life. I have come against Christians with stronger attacks than this. When you are done dispensing with Insults lets discuss the problems you are facing with the text of the Hebrew Matthew and the Transmission of the text.

    You said: “Let me ask you? You have a christian scholar with a 4.0 G.P.A in theology; A muslim scholar with a
    4.0 G.P.A in studies of Islam; A Jewish scholar with a 4.0 G.P.A in Jewish studies; and a unborn infant child still in the mothers womb.
    Who among them has the most knowledge?
    “There are right and wrong answers to the question.”

    What does this have to do with anything? Does it really affect the price of tea in china? Here is what I am seeing coming from you. You cant answer anything I throw at you so you are now degrading to Insults and random comments that has nothing to do with our discussions. If you are incapable of keeping up let me know I will ask Rabbi Blumenthal my questions. He is a very capable scholar and very thorough.

    You said: “I do not believe I qouted any text; however I do believe most christian bibles qoute the referenced passages made by the rabbi relatively the same.
    Well at least now you acknowledge that translations are not accurate; however when it comes to christian works most translate mostly the same, with some variations, and the new testament text is not part of the Jewish bible.”

    Wow, this one really went over your head! I was commenting about what part of the my comments you were quoting in your response. You make random remarks and i have to play a guessing game on what you responding to.

    You said: “I find it interesting that you claim you have studied language, and it hasn’t occurred to you that all languages have semitic origins, including Pheonecian, and Greek, and Arabic..Etc.”

    Brian you must be blind or something because I never said any of this. Perhaps if you would stop putting words into my mouth, read and responded to things I actually said, things would be easier. Greek Does not have a semitic origin other than its alphabet being possibly derived from Phonecian. As for Phonecian and Arabic being of Semitic origin I have only a one word response to this….DUH!!!! I did have courses on these languages or did you miss that part?

    As for all languages having a semitic origen I can only laugh at this statement and then ask you to map out the semitic origin of Ancient Etruscan? Please go into detail mapping this semitic origin in Ancient Etruscan. I would love to hear your professional opinion on this one. LOL!

    You Said: “No, you didn’t state that directly, however you did suggest throug modernization of languages that original meanings change; so if you intended that to exclude Torah, maybe you should be more specific.
    No, you didn’t directly say G-D changes, however do you understand that by implication that G-D would become a created being (namely a man) jesus; that you are in fact suggesting a change.”

    Once again you put words into my mouth. Do you ever not make a strawman with what people say? I see you are doing the same to Matityahu and to the same degree. Come back when a sensible discussion can happen. I am finished with you!

    • Messianic says:

      Hi Rambamist ,

      Since Rabbi B gave me permission to discuss ‘textual-transmission’ wanna give it a go? It looks like your done with the social-cultural debate .

      The Antwerp Polyglot is the text I would like to discuss .

      *The Kabbalistic scholars of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible
      By Robert J. Wilkinson, Robert Wilkinson

      This will be the main source I will be using or we can discuss this in e-mail your choice .

      Thanks

  50. Brian says:

    Rambamist,
    I don’t think it is possible to have a sensible discussion with a moron like yourself.

    “Nice Argument by analogy! If I want false analogy arguments I should come to you for all of my future needs. My next question is what does this have to do with anything I have said?”
    The statement reflects just how false your argument is; I will do the same if I need any false statements, like the ones you have made.

    BTW I didn’t take any information from the source you mentioned, however if it there it is there;
    either way it illustrates how weak your claims are if the information is that widespread.”

    So what I typed targum instead of targumim when I was referring to the plural big deal!

    No; I don’t think it is possible for me to top your ignorance.
    If you think inferring that I might wear panties is joke, seems to me that your pretty stupid to me;
    Their are people that would knock your head off for that statement.
    So now your going to try to convince me that you haven’t been inferring that somehow I need to be enlighted by you, and you need me to know just how smart you are; as if I have no knowledge about anything, and no education.
    Then now you are going to suggest that even more.
    You have even more serious issues than I thought previously.

    I am not facing any problems with anything you are.

    Frankly I do not give crap what your so called education is; The education given in a Jewish college is going to be different, than that of one based in christian theology, with christian bias, as well as one with Muslim bias.
    It doesn’t mean education isn’t necessary, it just means that what you learned is with someone elses bias, knowledge isn’t in and of yourself.

    I have met many people with PHDS who didn’t have even a drop of common sense, and couldn’t even figure out how to even change a light bulb.

    It has to do with transmission of knowledge; since you don’t know the answer, and can only revert to stupid comments;
    The answer is: The unborn infant child; because the child before birth is in possesion of all of G-D’S knowledge, and after the child is born, the child forgets everything that was known in the womb.

    From what I have seen here on your post, you haven’t asked the rabbi anything, nor have you respected him, all you have done is dictate to eveyone and emphasize your gpa, and how important it is that everyone understands how educated you are. ( dude! ) nobody cares!!!!!!

    Nothing went over my head at all.
    “Im not gonna lie it would be nice to see a quoted text you are quoting. But if you are asking me about the NRSV I would say it is fairly accurate but it is not perfect, no translation is perfect.”
    What text did I qoute?
    What is the topic of the thread at the heading? Or do you not get it still?

    I didn’t miss anything, other than you obviously missed the entire course.
    http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/semetic+languages This is really basic; I am not going to scan my research of the last ten years, and post it here.
    Greek uses some semitic letters in its Aleph Bet, it isn’t the Hebrew language, however it has semitic origins.

    No straw here; do you always say that when the conversation becomes too difficult for you?
    Your pretty good at showing your level of education too.

    • Matityahu ben Avraham says:

      Brian, at least if your going to insult people. LEARN HOW TO SPELL!! Learn how to use correct grammar too while at it. I actually it laughable that your arguing against Rambamist as if he’s a christian. He is as his poster name entails, “Talmid HaRaMBaM” (Student of the RaMBaM). Now in case you missed anything in Jewish history, the RaMBaM was NOT A CHRISTIAN. He classified Christianity as an Idolatrous religion, and thus not fit for Jews to follow.

      Now as regard to your post to me:
      You unkowingly DID concede to Messianic’s point. She NEVER claimed the RaDaK was DIRECTLY INVOLVED. YOU should go back to her ORIGINAL post and READ THE DARN THING VERY SLOWLY. and USE YOUR BRAIN!!!.

      About Christians being Monotheists, you really need to go learn what they actually believe. I happen to disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity, but that does NOT exclude it from being Monotheistic. Monotheism by DEFINITION means “worship of ONLY ONE GOD.” The Athenasian Creed opens its definition of the Trinity with, “And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.” Toward the end of the creed, it says the following: “For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.”
      As you can see it begins and ends with a strong affirmation that there is ONLY ONE GOD. It then goes on and says that the ONE GOD exists as three hypostases, or “persons”. Judaism, Islam, and some CHRISTIAN sects are UNITARIAN MONOTHIESTS, meaning that they believe God is ONE Being that is ONE PERSON.
      “Really? They are in your bible not mine, and you yourself acknowledged that they are gods in Greek mythology.” I said that Hades and Sophia were Greek gods, YES, the words themselves aren’t gods. If you really want to go around on this, G-d calls HIMSELF “El and Ba’al,” BOTH of which are Canaanite GODS!!!. And no those gods do NOT appear in MY Bible.
      And I NEVER claimed or stated that Christians don’t go to church on Easter Sunday or have Easter egg hunts in their church yards.
      You asked the following question:
      “Do you consider christians to not be bashing Jews when they tell them that their religion is false, and that they are going to burn in some hell for not accepting jesus as being G-D….” My answer is simple, NO. The reason I don’t is because THEY believe that their religion is the Truth and EVERYONE that does not “accept Jesus” is GOING TO HELl. It’s not just Jews, it’s also Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, and even other Christian groups that don’t believe Jesus is G-d. It is NOT bashing people to tell them what ones BELIEF is.

      “No! You do not, however when a Jew points out what christian scriptures says about Jews, such as John 8:44 all of a sudden we do not even Know our own language “Hebrew” and somehow we just got things all messed up, and we needed to wait for you Messianic, and the rambamist to come along and tell us about your GPA and how stupid we are; and you construe that as bashing????”
      Interesting, I never addressed ANYONE about the issue of anti-Jewishness of the NT or lack thereof. And who is “us”? The ONLY one on this discussion board that we are seeming having a problem in the education problem, is YOU.
      And then finally, “Question?
      Since we are so uneducated; why do you keep referring to Jewish works?”
      Who is “We” again? And refer to the Mishnah because I hold it to be Authoritative. WAY more authoritative than YOU ARE, that’s for sure. The reason why I posted THAT particular passage of the Mishnah is because YOU seem to have this big conspiracy theory that Christians can’t tell the truth and thus always lie and mistranslate passages.
      Now I’m with Rambamist on this one, being that you obviously CAN’T have an intellectual discussion, and USE YOUR BRAIN while reading what people post. I’m done with you.
      Shalom u’varacha.

  51. Brian says:

    Matityahu,
    Jews do not follow the new testament, nor do they suggest someone should go buy a christian bible.
    I know how to spell just fine.

    I didn’t unknownly cocede anything at all, and I know full well what she was implying.

    Your going to school me on christianity? Seriously; I was raised christian and was involved with it for 43yrs I know exactly what they believe.
    Read the other parts of the creed..
    13. So likewise the father is almighty; the son is almighty; and the holy ghost is almighty.
    14. And yet there are not not three almighties, but one almighty.
    15. So the father is G-D; the son is god; and the holy ghost is god.
    going down to number 25
    25. And in this trinity none is before or after another; none greater nor less than another.
    26. But the whole “THREE PERSONS” are co-eternal together, and coequal.
    Did you not get that? Three does not equal “ONE” and G-D is not a person!!!!!!!!

    Matityahu; I hate to tell you this, but you really need to do some extensive reasearch, don’t be a sheeple; Sophia, and Hades etc.aren’t the actual gods depicted in the NT, however they are in reference to them, and you can find icons {Idols} of them in churches abroad.

    Here is a link where you can’t find out more with regards to Sophia.
    http://www.crcsite.org/ViriginSophia.htm

    No, Mat it isn’t bashing when you tell someone what your belief is, however it is bashing when you tell them they are stupid, and do not know their own religion, and that they are sons of the devil, and they are going to burn in hell.
    If that is true Mat, why don’t we see christians trying vehemently to convert all these other groups instead of Jews?

    I never said anything about you overstating your education, or talking about your G.P.A I have no idea what you are even talking about; I believe rambamist is the one who vehemently desired to impress upon me his unwavering knowledge.

    I have no problem with the education department whatsover; besides what does all this nonsense have to do with what the rabbi said in the first place?

    We; Would be us who are of Jewish beliefs { exluding those who believe jesus is G-D}

    I don’t have a conspiracy theory, however based on my experience “most” christians who debate with Jews think that Jews are liars, and are engaged in some conspiracy by not admitting that, somehow jesus is G-D.
    I do however believe that christians are being mislead by the NT and church teachings.

    I don’t think you ever translated anything; however, “yes” christian bibles are full of mistranslation intentional or not, and there isn’t a scholar alive that will tell you otherwise.

    There is nothing wrong with my brain, thank you! In order to have an intellectual discussion, I would first have to have someone with some intellect to dialogue with.

    I don’t think I was having a discussion with you to begin with for you to be done with me; I do believe you jumped into one I was having, so thank you from dismissing yourself.

  52. naaria says:

    The last dozen plus posts were somewhat interesting. But some other people might say that the arguments are quite immature. And I see the writing and the grammar is pretty sloppy. My excuse is that I am trying my best to type this on a “smart phone”.

    One thing I was wondering about is the login names that some of you have selected. The name you chose may tell us something about where “you are coming from” or what you value. I believe ‘ben Avraham’ is chosen by converts (but Moslems also think they are from Abraham, but no evidence to show that is true). But from whom does the Matityahu come from? Is it related to the Maccabees or to the Christian Matthew? And from the little that I know about Rambam, I believe that he was a rationalist, and you, the Rambamist, appear to think quite differently and have a much different temperament. I know I chose my name for a purpose, part of my world view. Someone told me it meant a couple of things that I didn’t intend it to mean. But I hope, I showed otherwise.

    • Rambamist says:

      Shalom Naaria,

      I understand the problems that you are having with typing on the smartphone. I love to hate the auto correct function on these phones. Proper grammar does go quite out the door when those are involved. I exp perience this all of the time on mine when I am typing an SMS message or in Paltalk mobile chat rooms.

      As for the name “Ben Avraham” converts arent the only ones who adopt this. Those Jews who have a Jewish mother but no Jewish father can adopt this, Some who’s father was named Avraham as their Hebrew name would adopt this. As for Matityahu, have you ever heard of Jewish music artist Matisyahu? I davened with him when he visited the University I was attending, he was a nice guy! Matityahu, a very Jewish name, is simply a non Ashkenazi pronunciation of that name and would be equivalent to Matthew in english.

      I chose Rambamist because I consider myself a part of that movement. I reject the Lurianic Kabbalistic Tradition, the Sefer Zohar (for the most part), and Sefer HaBahir. they make no sense to me as a rationalist Jew. I am working on applying the Mishneh Torah and the responsa of the Rambam to my life practices and study. If you are wondering if I am off Derekh you should consider the words of Rabbi Yosef Karo in Akdat Rachel which said that even the minority in congregations who choose to follow the Mishneh Torah should not be coerced or forced to follow other codes of Jewish law. he wrote this knowing that he based his own code, the Shulchan Aruch, off of the Mishneh Torah to a great degree.

      As far as my arguments are concerned I fail to see how they were anything but rational, at least until it denigrated to personal attacks. I did not intend to attack anyone, my intent was to use common speech to point out that someone was overreacting to my poke at a misspelling of a name. At no point did I lose my temper or have a bad temperment I have been very calm this entire time. I hope i can put to rest some misconceptions for you!

      Shalom,

      Rambamist

    • Matityahu ben Avraham says:

      to answer your question. it has neither to do with the christian Matthew nor Maccabbees. It happens to be my name. plain and simple.

    • Matityahu ben Avraham says:

      I accidentally posted this to the Rambamist, it was meant to you:
      To answer your question. it has neither to do with the christian Matthew nor Maccabbees. It happens to be my name. plain and simple.

  53. naaria says:

    Rambamist, thanks for clearing some things up. I know that if I arrive in the middle of “something that is going on” that there was a “before” and not to succumb to any first impressions. Some people are “easy to read”. But others, you need a little more insight. I favor the Rambam, but I am only in “pre-school”.

    It is good to get off the worn path at times. But you can go astray or get lost. And then you might get part way back, hitch a ride or join up with the wrong crowd. Or you can run off the road, lose control and hit a tree or a pedestrian or overturn your car. There are some people who think they can beat you by trying to “run you off the road”, especially when you “get’em all riled up”. They are the ones that will usually “wind up in the ditch”. But you have to see where they’re really coming from to.

  54. Brian says:

    Rambamist,
    I am not going to start another argument with you; however I believe your assessment of yourself in your dialogue is one with personal bias.
    While I am not claiming to be innocent myself, might I suggest? Comments that you might think are trivial, and joking around, just might not seem so funny to someone else.
    I also believe that attempting to assert vehemently; that whomever you are having dialogue with, pay particular attention to how educated you feel you are, isn’t exactly the best approach.
    I am sure that there are things that you know, that I do not, and likewise, I am sure that there are things that I know that you do not, and there are others that have qualities that neither of us possess.
    I personally do not try to put emphasis on the extent of my education; I do however, try to share what knowledge that I have acquired from many years of study, and I enjoy learning some things from others that I do not know.
    I certainly didn’t come by what I do know alone; I learned from many who came way before me, and those that have taught me, and many years of study (It wasn’t by wikipedia either btw), and I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface yet.
    I am quite confused as to what exactly your beliefs are; I had gotten the impression from you; that you were suggesting, that I should consider the nrsv version of the christian bible.
    Are you christian? What exactly are your beliefs?
    I am not trying to be funny here, I am asking a sincere question.
    My views are “Orthodox Judaism” personally.
    I tend to like how the rabbi approaches things in his dialogue, and breaks things down in detail, and sticks to what the Jewish writings say, and how christian writings hold up in light of them, and not the other way around.
    I see on a continual basis; (and not just with the rabbi here) but with anyone having dialogue with christians abroad; That typically most christians always seem to try to divert the topic to irrelevant non related topics, which never generates a healthy fruitful conversation tilted toward truth and understanding.
    I don’t always proof read what I write on different threads, and when I go back and read some of the things I have written, I see many things I mistyped, sometimes I think it is my PC, other times, because I am tired, and to a great degree because I am disabled, and I am frequently in much pain, and I am in and out of it, from the pain medication.
    Forever expand!
    Blessed be HaShem!

    • Rambamist says:

      Hello Brian,

      I would like to start of by saying that we are all biased in everything we do. Whether it is personal bias, religious bias, or whatever bias we want to apply to every situation.

      I usually only bring in my education background when my ability to read or translate is brought into question. my prupose for doing that is not to degrade you but to show that I am fully capable at a given task.

      When I had a course on New Testament Studies I used the NRSV in that class. That is the only reason I suggested it other than the fact that it is more “Scholarly” than the others.

      As far as my beliefs are concerned. I am not, I repeat not, a christian. My theology lines up closest to Orthodox Judaism. Granted it is not your typical Orthodox Judaism. I align with a group called the Tamidei HaRambam (Students of Maimonides) or “Rambamists.” We are Rationalist Jews who, to varying degrees, reject the Lurianic Kabbalistic tradition, the Sefer Zohar and Sefer HaBahir. I reject all three in my beliefs since they contradict what I, and others, consider a rationalist approach based on the teachings of the Rambam. In regards to Halachah, I follow the Mishneh Torah rather than the Shulchan Aruch and later additions to that work. It is the only composition of jewish law that is not influenced by the Lurianic Kabbalistic tradition and does not have or allow rulings based on the Zohar or any other kabbalistic text. I adhere to the thirteen principles of faith as given by Maimonides. So there you have it!

      Shalom,

      Rambamist

  55. Brian says:

    Rambamist,
    I guess I just didn’t understand your defense of christian works earlier.

    I don’t think it is necessary for you to assert your education, I am not going to question your education; like you many of us have a education, and individually, it too will have a bias.
    I also studied the new testament, both from English and the Greek along with much of the other many christian works not in christian canon.
    I am certain we both have a trove of information, that we have learned; that combined would expand both of our horizons.

    I am happy to hear that your views are not christian.
    I hold closest to Orthodox Judaism; however I don’t use hellenized definitions to impart the word and knowledge of HaShem.

    The word “theology” [ study of Theotokos ]; a ecclesiastical word to describe the virgin Mary, mother of god.
    The hellenized word “philosophy” [ love of Sophia ] is another one that defines the same person, only with another word; she is described as wisdom in the new testament; she is also described as being the virgin mother of god.
    http://www.crcsite.org/ViriginSophia.htm
    There is a site that you can look at, posted above, it is a christian work.
    You will find much of all this in the Greek of the new testament.

    I understand language is dynamic, and the original meanings get lost in translation, and take up different roles, and use in modern times, however their origins remain the same.
    This all isn’t intended to be a argument, just a explaination why I don’t favor the use of those words.

    Thank you for a better discussion, than the one we had before.
    Shalom,
    Brian Jamieson……As myself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s