Nobody Dies for a Lie

[37818]

Based on your experience within this universe.....

...which is my point....

Your entire argument assumes that this concept is true absolutely...but it is actually based on your causal experience within this universe....

Would the word "reality" be a better word to use than "existence?" What do you consider to be uncaused? Even with an infinite set, series of connected causes with no first cause, it, that set, that series would have to, at the very least, be deemed uncaused.

This does not get me away from my personal knowing God (Like as if 2 Corinthians 5:17 or Romans 8:16 were never written).

And then there is the phenomenon of those who were even former professing Christians not really knowing the gospel of grace.

[Cow Poke]

Surely it's the argument that matters.

If it's not his original work, and it's not properly attributed, it's a violation of TOS. And, it's unethical. You're good with that?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny - this looks familiar - is this your original work?

Sorry for the limited reference. It was an very old Tweb thread post by a Jewish member using the handle "Goose." I refer to his posts sometimes, because he was very good at Hebrew translations of the texts. His posts were simply very matter of fact Hebrew translations of the Torah and Tanakh and the Jewish understanding of the text.

Nothing new nor controversial from the Jewish perspective. An English discussion of the same thing without the specific Hebrew translation can be found here: http://www.bibleandjewishstudies.net...ishmessiah.htm

[Cow Poke]

Sorry for the limited reference. It was an very old Tweb thread post by a Jewish member using the handle "Goose." I refer to his posts sometimes, because he was very good at Hebrew translations of the texts.

In my official capacity as a mod, might I kindly remind you to give proper attribution in the future? (And your apology seems to indicate you "get it")

[Littlejoe]

For example the Jewish view of the Messiah

Hebrew description from a Jewish perspective

There is a large difference between the Hebrew word מוֹשִׁיעִים(One’s saving) and מָּשִׁיחַ (Anointed one) as we so see in the BDB.

מוֹשִׁיעִים is a derivative of yasha or rather…….

H3467
ישׁע
yâsha‛
BDB Definition:
1) to save, be saved, be delivered
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to be liberated, be saved, be delivered
1a2) to be saved (in battle), be victorious
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to save, deliver
1b2) to save from moral troubles
1b3) to give victory to
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 929

That derivation is so shown in one of the plural forms of H4190 in Ps 68:20 in the KJV as “salvation’s” or “Saving acts”. This example pointing to the acts themselves and not the one doing, or being used, to perform the saving acts…….

H4190
מושׁעה
môshâ‛âh
BDB Definition:
1) saving act, deliverance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H3467
Same Word by TWOT Number: 929d

What we see in Neh 9:27 is מוֹשִׁיעִים which in this plural form points out those who are used for the purpose of performing act’s of physical salvation. Saving a people from the destruction of war, etc.

The word “Mashiach” which simply means “Anointed” is totally different as………

H4899
משׁיח
mâshîyach
BDB Definition:
1) anointed, anointed one
1a) of the Messiah, Messianic prince
1b) of the king of Israel
1c) of the high priest of Israel
1d) of Cyrus
1e) of the patriarchs as anointed kings
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H4886
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1255c

It denotes one who has been chosen. One can be anointed/chosen and not be so chosen to perform an act of saving but rather other acts like killing, etc.

While very interesting, I'm not seeing the tie-in to Isaiah 9. Maybe you could put it together?

Meanwhile I did find this: Maimondes interprets Isaiah 9:6 as pertaining to the Messiah, though obviously he doesn't have Jesus in mind when writing this, and he doesn't see Mighty God as a reference to the Deity of Jesus, as he was basically showing how an imposter in Yemen was NOT the Messiah. (apparently the identity of this Apostate is in question)

He says in his Epistle to Yemen:

"How odd is your remark about this man, that he is renowned for his meekness and a little wisdom, as if these were indeed the attributes of the Messiah. Do these characteristics make him a Messiah? You were beguiled by him because you have not considered the pre-eminence of the Messiah, the manner and place of his appearance, and the marks whereby he is to be identified. The Messiah, indeed, ranks after Moses in eminence and distinction, and God has bestowed some gifts upon him which he did not bestow upon Moses, as may be gathered from the following verses: "His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord." (Isaiah 11:3). "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." (11:2). "And Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins." (11:5). Six appellations were divinely conferred upon him as the following passage indicates: "For a child is born unto us, and a son is given unto us, and the government is upon his shoulder, and he is called Pele, Yoetz, el, Gibbor, Abiad, Sar-Shalom." (Isaiah 9:5). And another verse alluding to the Messiah culminates in the following manner "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7). All these statements demonstrate the pre-eminence of the Messiah."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epist...Yemen/Complete translation, english

[carpedm9587]

Would the word "reality" be a better word to use than "existence?"

I am not sure word substitution improves the situation.

What do you consider to be uncaused?

I do not have an answer for this, other than "I don't know."

Even with an infinite set, series of connected causes with no first cause, it, that set, that series would have to, at the very least, be deemed uncaused.

Again...based on what we know within this universe...agreed. However, when speaking of the universe itself, we do not know if this language even applies.

This does not get me away from my personal knowing God (Like as if 2 Corinthians 5:17 or Romans 8:16 were never written).

That is for you to determine...not me.

And then there is the phenomenon of those who were even former professing Christians not really knowing the gospel of grace.

I have no idea how this relates to the discussion.

[37818]

I am not sure word substitution improves the situation.

How would you describe it?

I do not have an answer for this, other than "I don't know."

A thing has to exist in some way to be. Ultimately I cannot conceive of there not being an uncaused existence any more than I can conceive of absolute nothingness. It for me it is a logical necessity.

Again...based on what we know within this universe...agreed. However, when speaking of the universe itself, we do not know if this language even applies.

Then the problem is one of language. Or worst yet, trying to explain what is not really understandable.

That is for you to determine...not me.

Genuine Christians know God. The lost do not. The Christian NT teaches this.

I have no idea how this relates to the discussion.

It has everything to do with one being able to know God.

[carpedm9587]

How would you describe it?

Describe what?

A thing has to exist in some way to be. Ultimately I cannot conceive of there not being an uncaused existence any more than I can conceive of absolute nothingness. It for me it is a logical necessity.

Logical? Causation is a property that arises from the function of our physical universe.

Then the problem is one of language. Or worst yet, trying to explain what is not really understandable.

Now you're getting it...

Genuine Christians know God. The lost do not. The Christian NT teaches this.

I'll leave that to you and your bible. That is not a basis for my beliefs.

It has everything to do with one being able to know God.

[37818]

Describe what?

The situation for which you argued, word substitution would not help. That is, "reality" for "existence."

Logical? Causation is a property that arises from the function of our physical universe.

You are referring to causation. I am referring to uncaused existence, which is not causation, but must be in order for there to be any kind of causation, ever.

Now you're getting it...

What ever it might be, it is contingent on being [existing, having a reality].

I'll leave that to you and your bible. That is not a basis for my beliefs.

Of course it is not. And you never understood it.

And it would seem that you do not want to.

[shunyadragon]

The situation for which you argued, word substitution would not help. That is, "reality" for "existence."


You are referring to causation. I am referring to uncaused existence, which is not causation, but must be in order for there to be any kind of causation, ever.


What ever it might be, it is contingent on being [existing, having a reality].



Of course it is not. And you never understood it.

And it would seem that you do not want to.

The reality remains that Natural Laws and our possible eternal existence may possibly be "uncaused."

[carpedm9587]

The situation for which you argued, word substitution would not help. That is, "reality" for "existence."

Change "reality" for "existence" does not alter your problem about causation.

You are referring to causation. I am referring to uncaused existence, which is not causation, but must be in order for there to be any kind of causation, ever.

Here - try this: give me an example of causation that is NOT related to anything within this universe.

What ever it might be, it is contingent on being [existing, having a reality].

Of course it is not. And you never understood it.

And it would seem that you do not want to.

Actually, I am not automatically predisposed to reject things simply because they are in the bible. I accept many things in the bible in many ways. I accept a great deal of the history related there. I accept and value some of the common sense wisdom recorded there. I admire (and use) may of the teaching stories.

But before someone makes a claim that I need to accept "X" from the bible, they have to substantiate that the bible is an authoritative source for "X." Much of its history has been corroborated, so I accept those elements as such. Much of its wisdom dovetails with my own experience. Those things for which there is no basis - or at least none have been provided - I take with a grain of salt.

It may surprise you to know I still have my bible, and my breviary. They even occasionally get used!

[psstein]

Burden of proof is on you!

ETA: You very well may have an argument for the messianicapologetics site, but not the other two.

Jews for Jesus can claim to be Jewish, but violates one of Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith:

The days of the Messiah will come.

Source: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ples-of-faith/

Speaking only from an academic viewpoint, the chasm between Judaism and Christianity appeared towards the end of the first century/beginning of the second century CE/AD (whichever, I don't care either way).

The Byzantines claimed they were Roman, although as time progressed, they became less and less connected to the West.

[One Bad Pig]

Jews for Jesus can claim to be Jewish, but violates one of Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith:

Source: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ples-of-faith/

True, but Maimonides doesn't necessarily speak for all Jews.

Speaking only from an academic viewpoint, the chasm between Judaism and Christianity appeared towards the end of the first century/beginning of the second century CE/AD (whichever, I don't care either way).

Well, Judaisms. Pharisaic Judaism is pretty much all that survived the fall of Jerusalem, but the book of Acts indicates that they weren't the only branch hostile to followers of the Way.

The Byzantines claimed they were Roman, although as time progressed, they became less and less connected to the West.

The remnant of Byzantine Greeks living in Istanbul still call themselves Romaioi. They are, after all, descendants of the last remnant of the Roman empire, which fell in 1453.

[Mountain Man]

Based on your experience within this universe.....

...which is my point....

Your entire argument assumes that this concept is true absolutely...but it is actually based on your causal experience within this universe....

This smells rather strongly of special pleading.

[carpedm9587]

This smells rather strongly of special pleading.