The Whole Jesus Thing

ramoss, if you suggest that it is a poor translation you should be prepared to support that. Both with a better translation and why you think that there is a better translation.

actually, that is a very poor translation.
Why don't you read it in the Hebrew?? Or, why don't you go to your local
Rabbi (non-messanic), and he will explain it to you.I dont' appreicate that rude comment for one. Secondly, I don't have a local Rabbi. Why would I? I'm christian. Thirdly, what good would it do to read it in Hebrew even if I found some commentary or Hebrew translation? Do you really think there would be a difference? The translations really say the same thing.

The fire may be "everlasting" but it doesn't take an eternity for something to burn up in it. What is your evidence for saying that Jesus always referenced real world events?In Matthew 13:10-11, Jesus says: If a parable was describing something actual rather than allegorical, Jesus' statement would not make sense.Also, the notion that the saved would be able to see the unsaved suffering for eternity is illogical. How could anybody enjoy Heaven if they had to endure seeing others (including possibly friends and family) suffer. What does not correlate together is the notion that God is loving, long-suffering, not willing that any should perish, and your interpretation that he would punish someone in that way.

cctman, I suggest you show a bit more patience. I see no rudeness in what was posted to you.I'm also suprised that you don't know more about the Bible that is important to you.One thing that I've learned here is that the translations do not all say the same thing. There have been a number of individuals who actually do understand the Hebrew who have posted here.It seems you may have something to learn. Be patient. You don't have to agree with what is said and should ask for support (as I have already done) when you don't agree. But wait till the support is shown before dismissing things out of hand.

Yes, I do think that translations make a different. Translations are interpetations, and often reflect the beliefs of the translator.The Jewish word for evil is "Rah". You can see with the phrase that
the common analogy of 'LIGHT' being 'GOOD', and 'Dark' being evil is
showing that the 'RAH' is accurately translated as EVIL.It is typical in the Hebrew scriptures to have dual passages, where the same thing is said twice, in a different matter. The concept of "LIGHT" and "Darkness" is the same as 'GOod and Evil'. Thus we see
the mimicing of 'Light' as GOOD and DARKNESS as EVIL. This is a common technique in the Tanakh.

No. The NIV isn't really a translation; it's a redaction. They changed the Bible to conform to certain doctinal points. Not the least of which is, "God never does bad things."How do I know this? Because the NIV team said so. The NIV is not a literal translation; they never claimed it to be. Quite the opposite, in fact.

"The fire may be "everlasting" but it doesn't take an eternity for something to burn up in it."Why would you even make a comment like that when there is no way for you to support nor prove how or if an eternal fire in hell takes an eternity to burn up in it?There are many events within the Bible that we can not know how God created or did these things. That would be why they are considered in many cases mericles. So to suggests that we should start explaining things that aren't even suppose to be explained --> see God's response to Job, the creation, mericles, resurrection, parting of the red sea, bringing Lazareth from the dead, ect; God even tells us that there many things that we can not comprehend. God even questions Job and asks him Where were you when I created these things.Basically, you don't go chasing down desriptions in the Bible that are identified as mericles because there is no logical empericle explanation for them. Other wise they wouldn't be mericles. Science far from explains everything!"What is your evidence for saying that Jesus always referenced real world events?"My evidence is that which lies witin the Bible. Show me a parable that Jesus used where he did not identify with His audience with real world events or desriptions. If He did then wouldn't be a parable."If a parable was describing something actual rather than allegorical, Jesus' statement would not make sense."Actually, you have to understand the context of what is going on in Matthew 13 as well as throughout the NT. Jesus spoke in parables because too those that sought the truth the message was very clear to them, but to Jesus's enemies when they heard the parables, they would here only stories without meaning.This prevented Jesus from having his enemies trap Him earlier than they might have done. You have to remember Jesus new that He would have to die for us and he also new that he had to find a way to teach without having His enemies prematurely capturing Him as they always looked to do. Jesus was actually a genius for taking this approach.I am a little frustrated though because yuo are asking and saying things that require very little reading to understand. What I have said can be found very easy in the commentary in the NIV.I would suggest to you that you stop making statements first without doing some basic reading first."Also, the notion that the saved would be able to see the unsaved suffering for eternity is illogical. How could anybody enjoy Heaven if they had to endure seeing others (including possibly friends and family) suffer."Again another question that falls in the realm of trying to explain a mericle, that which can not be explained. How am I to define heaven for you and how everything works in it, if God did not give us this information? We do know that there is no suffering in heaven so that they would not look down and grieve."What does not correlate together is the notion that God is loving, long-suffering, not willing that any should perish, and your interpretation that he would punish someone in that way.
"Clarify your point with references and examples and I will attempt to show you your error in misinterpertation, but like I said before it would help if you did some basic reading and use the commentaries please! This message has been edited by cctman, 11-04-2004 08:32 AM

"cctman, I suggest you show a bit more patience. I see no rudeness in what was posted to you."First off it doesn't matter if u see his comments as rude, its my interpretation not yours."I'm also suprised that you don't know more about the Bible that is important to you."Thats a quick observation, based on upon what?"One thing that I've learned here is that the translations do not all say the same thing. There have been a number of individuals who actually do understand the Hebrew who have posted here."Then bring the Hebrew scholars here and I will gladly debate them if they think they can point out errancies within the Bible."It seems you may have something to learn. Be patient. You don't have to agree with what is said and should ask for support (as I have already done) when you don't agree. But wait till the support is shown before dismissing things out of hand. "We all have something to learn including yourself otherwise we wouldn't be human, hence my continuing of education. I just wish that the public education system was so one sided. But anyways thats another topic.This message has been edited by cctman, 11-04-2004 08:33 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramoss

​

The Jewish word for evil is "Rah". You can see with the phrase that
the common analogy of 'LIGHT' being 'GOOD', and 'Dark' being evil is
showing that the 'RAH' is accurately translated as EVIL.

---

Hi ramoss,I have to disagree with this assessment.Isaiah 45:7 "Who fashions light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates evil, I am HaShem who does all this."If this verse were structured as a literary parallel as you suggest, then the word used in the second part would be "tov" (good) instead of "shalom" (peace).As it is, "evil" is juxtaposed as the antithesis of "peace" and, as such, it is more reasonable to conclude that "rah" (evil) is used here in its meaning of "calamity" rather than in any immoral or unethical sense.And to cctman, while the NT does seem to speak of an eternal punishment in "hell", this later concept seems to be the result of a long period of syncretism and development.Just my 2 cents,AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 11-04-2004 10:05 AM

that will make reading your posts easier is how to quote. If you click on the RAW TEXT button you can see examples of how it's done. Using the quote function highlights the parts you are refering to and makes it easier to follow.

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

duplicateThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-04-2004 10:11 AM

quote:

---

Secondly, I don't have a local Rabbi. Why would I? I'm christian

---

Might I suggest that before you get upset about "rudeness" you consider the limitations of this forum as a medium of communication.The statement I have quoted above could easily be seen as anti-Semitic - the implication is that Christians would not permit Jews to live in the same neighbourhood. I don't believe that is how you meant it - more likely you meant that you did not know or have contact with any local Rabbis. But that does not mean that you do not have a local Rabbi - just that you do not know a local Rabbi.

Hi Cctman,You wrote: That statement does not make sense. Did you mean to include "soul" in there somewhere. What do miracles have to do with what we're talking about?Where, in the bible, is the story of Lazarus described as a miracle? You are contradicting yourself here. If the story of Lazarus was describing actual events, then everyone who heard would understand the meaning.The main point of the parable of Lazarus is that we need to heed God's word while we have the opportunity and that some people will not believe even if they see a miracle.In Luke 16:29-31, Jesus put it this way: This is mainly directed at the Pharisees who had just derided Jesus after the parable of The Unjust Steward. He is reiterating a pervading theme of the bible that the wicked fail to hear the messengers of God (Moses and the prophets) and repent. I have actually done more than some basic reading.

Cctman,Matthew 12:38-42 says: Note the message here. Just as in the story of Lazarus, the wicked (Scribes and Pharisees, in this case) seek a sign but Jesus tells them no sign shall be given but Jesus' resurrection.

*Blink*You did not just say that did you! [Sorry, inside joke]Revelation 21:1-4: