The Hebrew word for "king" is "melek", the word for "queen" is "malkha". The word for "king or queen" is also "melek".

But here we go. Jesus wasn't a "melek".

And this is where the literal becomes symbolic again, right?

You wanted to talk Acts Lula, but yet you totally ignore the quotations of Acts that I have previously sighted as examples. Why?

Leauki posts:

This is news to me...could you explain what you mean and where it comes from if other than your own brain?

Who approved St. Stephens death? Who took his bloody clothing? What did Jesus say when it came to fruit trees bearing good fruit unto good trees and bad fruit unto bad trees. What did he say when it came to acts being a reflection?



I have said nothing about the church that is not the truth. If that is an attack, so be it. Could it be that it is an "attack" because you so closely associate it with yourself and don't want to be reminded of the truth? You have a problem with the church and Paul of Tarsus being "attacked", however you don't have a problem with attacking the Muslim faith with your own remarks about how they treat women, how they are not the "holders" of truth, but the only truth that is held according to you is that of the Catholic Church. You are acting the hypocrite. I don't truly believe that you are one, but that because you associate yourself so personally with the church and what it did do, even though you yourself are not guilty of the things I cited other than probably "public worship", you feel that it's an attack on you personally. That is your own self importance that is making you feel this way. And to be offended because of what I have said about Paul of Tarsus is only because of the same reason. He appeals to your sense of self importance above your sense of the "God" within you. It would be to your benefit alone, if you would stop and think about why you are feeling this way.

Okay, good we are getting somewhere...

Now, focus in on what comes out of producing good fruits....

What does Acts say about St.Stephen as he was being stoned?

I guess it doesn't help that the Latin version says

"circumdederunt me venatores concilium pessimorum vallavit me vinxerunt manus meas et pedes meos"

= "[...] they encircled my hands and my feet"

The verbs are all in third person plural perfect tense (as opposed to the Hebrew).

Guess we have to go back to the Septuagint and check whether it translates "like a lion" as a verb and assigns a conjugation to it.

I found "lekarut" = "to dig". But it is spelt LKRVT and contains no Aleph. The root would be KRT.

An Aleph is not easily added by mistake, but a Yud (/y/) could easily become a Vav (/v/, /u/, or /o/). A Yud looks like an apostrophe ('), a Vav looks like a capital I.

There are perfectly good Hebrew words that do mean "pierce".

I wonder why G-d always uses unclear words when He is trying to make a point?

Luther's translation (which was from the Hebrew) translates K'RY with "dig" (allthough the conjugation still doesn't make sense to me), despite the Aleph.

The Latin text uses "encircle" instead.

King James uses "pierce".

How do we know which version is the holy truth?

I expect someone to explain to me that the true version is of course the one that "predicts Christ", and we know that Christ is the messiah because the Bible predicted him; the Bible we chose based on whether it predicts him, that is...

Says who?

I haven't seen all those ancient versions.

So far I have seen the following texts:

- The English text you (Lula) quoted: "they dug"

- Luther's German text, from the Hebrew: "they dug" (essentially)

- The common Hebrew text: "like a lion"

- King James and other English translations: "they pierced"

- Latin Vulgate: "they encircled"


You and I try to solve this problem in two different ways, Lula. You try to find someone who says what you want to believe, I try to look for the texts in question and read them.

I think the difference between the two methods is exactly the difference between Christianity and other religions. You seek for answers in dogma, others seek for answers where the knowledge lies.

I found, using Google as I have never seen the text in question, that the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) apparently say "K'RV" ("ka'aru", /a/ vowels guessed). That word doesn't exist. It can either be "K'RY" ("like a lion") or "KRV" ("they dud", past tense).

Do you think it more likely that a Yud is accidentally written a bit longer and becomes a Vav (as I said, they look similar), or that an entirely different letter is just added to the word (Aleph)?

I write Hebrew myself and I can tell you that the first happens a lot, the second really never (unless I don't know the spelling of the word).

I cannot read Greek and don't know what the Septuagint says.

My guess is that the "dig"-based translations derive from a text common around the time the dead sea scrolls were written and the non-word K'RV was in that text. Translators had to decide between K'RY and KRV to make it a word and some went for KRV.

That's fine in a way but I wouldn't base a religion on it.

As for any "argument" that in any way refers to other people I don't know saying that X is true without telling me why, I just don't accept that. I'm not the type for it. And I don't care how many hundreds of years they have believed it.

Personally, I trust the Masoretic text and don't think that digging hands and feet makes sense. (Piercing them would, but that word is simply not an option according to either Hebrew text. Although I am not sure how dogs would do that, and there is no other subject in the sentence.)

 

I have been following this discussion and find it very interesting.  The psalm, as I understand it is about a person suffering.  Jewish tradition, according to the JPS Study Bible commentary, is that it is a "lament by David over the future exile, more specifically the threat against the Jews by Haman in the book of Esther."  For this reason, this psalm is read at Purim.

 

It seems to me this lament is about abandonment.  I can see Jesus using it, or alluding to it.Divine abandonment seems to be a major theme in the psalms. But it is the psalmist who is in distress, it is the psalmist who feels he is but a worm since God apparently abandoned him.

The JPS Study Bible suggests that it is common for the psalmists to mix metaphors, etc.  Hence bulls as predators, as well as dogs.  Bashan, the area in northern Transjordan, is famous for "its fat, strog cattle."  At his lowest point, says the study Bible commentary, "the psalmist calls on God to save him..."

So, as is typical in biblical tales, a deal is struck, deliver me from death, illness, whatever this pain is about and I will praise you.  The psalmist is talking about the Holy One, HaShem, not himself, (i.e. Jesus).

Just my two cents.

 

 

That he forgave those who stoned him. It does not say however that Saul was one of those. I does not also account for the others forgiving him whom he admits that he dragged out of their homes because of their belief in the gospels.

This is what Paul says in his discourse in Jerusalem to the people in Acts 22 verse 1-5

Discourse to the People

"Brethren and fathers, listen to what I have to say in my defense. (please note that Jesus himself offered no defense) And when they heard them speak to them in Hebrew, the became even more quiet, And he said: "I am a Jew, and I was born at Tarsus in Ciliia, but was bought up here in this city, a pupil of Gamaliel, and instructed according to the strict acceptation of the Law, according to the Law of our fathers, I was zealous for the Law just all of you are today. And I persecuted this WAY (please note that he doesn't mention Jesus, nor even Jesus as being the way) even to the death, binding and committing to prisons both men and women, as the high priest can bear me witness, and all the elders. In fact I received letters from them to the bretheren in Damascus, and I was on my way to arrest those who were there and bring them back to Jeruslalem for punishment."

He does go onto describe his encounter on the road, in verses 7-8

"and I fell to the gound and heard a voice saying to me, "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?" And I answered, "Who art thou Lord? And he said to me, "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou art persecuting".

First of all it wasn't Jesus he was persecuting according to his own tesitmony, but those that preached about his truth and believed in Jesus. Second he didn't refer to Jesus as being the "Christ" or the saviour either. He simply refers to him as "Jesus of Nazareth".

In one passage Ananais is refered to as a disciple, yet Paul later in Acts 22 verse 12 refers to Ananias this way, "Now one Ananias an observer of the Law, respected by all the Jews who lived there, came to me and, standing beside me, said to me, "Brother Saul, regain thy sight. And instantly I looked at him."

In Acts chapter 9 verse 10 Ananaias is described this way;

"Now there was in Damascus a certain disciple named Ananias." And "And he saw a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands upon him that he might recover." and "So Ananias departed and entered the house, and laying his hands upon him, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord has sent me-Jesus, who appeared to thee on they journey-that thou mayest recover thy sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Strange that none of these descriptions do not have simply subtle differences as with the apostles descriptions, but are radically different. Care to explain?

Later Paul says in Act 23 verse 6 Before The Sanhedrin

""Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisees: it is about the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial."

Nothing here about Jesus either. The argument between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was that the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, no angels or spirits, whereas the Pharises believe in both. The Pharisees insisted that Paul could have indeed spoken to angel of a spirit, so they could not find any guilt in him. They sure found guilt in Jesus, why is that do you think? No mention of Jesus by either the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Nor does Pual bring anywhere into the conversation that the way of Jesus was the only way. That his way was indeed the truth and the light, and he the son of God.

This is what Paul says to the jews in Rome in Act Chapter 28 verses 17 - 22 At Rome

"Three days later he called together the leading Jews, and when they had assembled he said to them, "Brethren, although I have done nothing against the people or against the customs of our fathers, yet I was handed over to the Romans as a prisoner from Jerusalem. After an examination they were ready to release me, since I was innocent of any crime that deserved death; (please note that Saul LEGALLY persecuted unto death with the blessing of the sanhedrin those that followed Jesus) but as the Jews objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar-not that I had any charge to bring against my nation. This, then, is why I asked to see you and speak with you. For it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain." But they said to him, "We ourselves have received no letters about the from Judea, and none of the brethren, upon arrival, has reported of spoken any evil of thee. but we want to hear from thee what thy views are; for as regards this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against."

Paul stayed there for two years after this. Apparently they had not found him guilty of the same heresies that jewish populations found in the apostles. They had heard nothing of him, and yet they had heard about the disciples as evidenced by the statement that they had heard about the sect. Care to wonder why this is?

I just want to commend all here in their civility towards one another given these very controversial subjects keeping in mind we are all coming from various backgrounds and belief systems.

A special bow to Sodaiho for his allowing us to take his blog all over the place regarding these spiritual things. It's been very interesting to get the diff thoughts and ideas here.

KFC,

The translation is called "Literal", but it isn't literal.

You can see the word כארי ?

That's K'RY = "like a lion".

Here is the word with Vav instead of Yud at the end: כארו

See how a Yud can easily become a Vav in hand-lettering? This is how the word appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the word like that means absolutely nothing.

And this is KRV ("karu" = "they dug"): כרו

None of the three mean "pierced".

My theory is that כארי ("like a lion") became כארו (nothing) in the Dead Sea Scrolls and survived intact in other Hebrew versions of the text.

The opposing theory is that כרו ("they dug") was the original, became כארו (nothing) in the Dead Sea Scrolls and was finally purposefully corrupted by the Jews to כארי ("like a lion").

Neither theory can explain how it could mean "pierced". I don't know where that word comes from. It's not in the German Bible translation nor in the Latin. I wonder if it is in the Greek? It's not in either known Hebrew version.

To agree with me, all you have to believe is that in some texts the Yud at the end of כארי would have changed into a Vav as in כארו .

To agree with the other theory you have to believe that an Aleph was accidentally added to the middle of כרו so it would become כארו _AND_ that the Jews later purposefully changed the Vav to a Yud for the word to become כארי .

KFC, do you believe that an Aleph א is more likely to appear in the middle of a word than a Yud י is likely to become a Vav ו accidentally?

Try it out! Write down the three words (two words and one collection of letters).

Some circles call him...Yeshua Hamashiach ben Yoseph. The Messiah like Joseph (ie servant).