First, why would translations not matter? Why would the English translation be equal or better then the understanding that the greek orthodox church has that uses the original greek books? If you would get the exact same things from the books then it would not matter, if it conflicts.. then you have a problem. Second, Tovia is not trying to prove christianity wrong in it self, he is fighting the Jews for Jesus movement and uses the same tactics those people are using. Bending understanding towards your own favour is used all over the abrahamic religions, as if Abraham was a liar and deceiver and all followers do not mind doing the same. From the Judaistic point of view christianity is clearly an abomination, i can understand that. And from GOD's point of view all abrahamic religions are an abomination, i can see that to.
The Jewish people also read the Talmud, in this, but i don't know where its page location is for it, it has a passage on jesus, but the name jesus is not the name, used, and so the name yeshua is, to changed it to yeshu, and for this reason it is going on to note, as follows, that hes a criminal, and this record of him is to say, his crimes are, he was leading the Jewish people Astray, and that he was using Witch craft. So, the leading them Astray, was him preparing to them, and the Witch craft, wax the miracle he was performing, also, the Witch craft, is also something that is pertaining to kaballa, its an ancient trained abilities that only the most trained people can manage to be able to actually do, is said about it. As for the Christians bible on this named man called Jesus, its yeshua, or yeshu
@LeonKerkdijk No sir. My comment is a fact not an opinion or a belief without merit. Paul changes the definition of the word zera (Hebrew: seed) in Genesis in Galatians 3.16 “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.” Zera is multiplied like the stars... Plural. Just like the word seed in English functions as singular or plural, you don't say seeds, you say seed! What an immature word game Paul plays. Only a fool would fall for it... Or someone who is bound to a belief that it is impossible that the NT was written by liars. Genesis 26.4 and I will *multiply thy seed as the *stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and by thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves. Some translations say *them. Matthew chapter one changes Isaiah's son into Jesus, and changes Isaiah's sign to Ahaz into a Messianic prophecy (Woahhh big creative liberties!) I've just given you plenty to think about and it's not an opinion, I just demonstrated it, you just can't believe it's that simple to expose a lie. Your eyes didn't fool you. Tanak says one thing and the NT authors bend it into the direction of Jesus. Nothing new under the sun. Turn back to the Hebrew Bible and spend some time appreciating the wisdom of the Jewish people.
@@Joqub Amazing. Every word of what you just said, was wrong! Paul did not change a thing. Promises were made Abraham and his seed. In Galatians 3:16, Paul briefly comments on the subject of the seed of Abraham before he develops further the difference between law and promise. The word ‘seed’ requires some explanation. In the plural it means ‘offspring’ and in the singular it means ‘descendant’. The addition makes it clear that the latter is meant here. Added to that, Paul indicates Who that Descendant is, namely Christ. In Him all promises of God will be fulfilled. Like the apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 3:15-16: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. *There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.* You and all the other anti-missionaries are guilty as charged.
@@Joqub A proper understanding of Isaiah 7:14, which is quoted once in the New Testament, inevitably leads to the conclusion that it is Messianic. Let’s take a look at the historical background of this verse. Judah was being attacked by a joint force of Israelites and Arameans who wanted to take Jerusalem and replace the king of Judah with the man of their choice. Unfortunately, king Ahaz was a faithless king, preferring to hire mercenaries than to rely on Yahweh. Isaiah told Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Ahaz refused. The Lord then responded, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The ‘almah will be with child [or, is with child] and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:13-14). Who is this child, Immanuel? Some believe this child was to be born to Isaiah, others say that he was to be the son of Ahaz, while still others believe that he was a child destined to be born of a woman at that time in the history of Judah; the exact referent of this prophecy is not clear from the text itself. It is safe to assume, however, that this prophecy refers to a child who is related to the future house of David, especially since the following chapters in the book of Isaiah, most notably chapters 9 and 11, are principle Messianic prophecies. What was the miraculous sign that was promised? While there are many theories, it is evident that the sign offered by God would have to be extremely significant; it would have to be a powerful miracle only God could perform. The question inevitably arises, “Does the word almah mean virgin?” The answer is, “No, not specifically.” The reason for this is that almah is derived from a Semitic root meaning “to come into puberty.” Just as the word elem means “young man,” almah means “young woman” or “maiden,” and this is exactly how these words are most commonly translated in the Tanakh. One might object that had Isaiah intended to speak of a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah. The problem with this objection is that there is no single word in Hebrew that unequivocally means “virgin.” Out of the fifty times that the Tanakh contains the word betulah, the New Jewish Publication Society translates it as “maiden” instead of “virgin” thirty-one times. Many passages in the Tanakh indicate that it would be absurd to treat betulah as corresponding precisely with “virgin.” Consider the following passages: “Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary” (Ezekiel 9:6). Here, it is obvious that betulah parallels bahur, i.e. young man. Virginity is not the issue in this passage; instead, it is the comprehensiveness of the command: slay everyone without the mark. “Lament - like a maiden girt with sackcloth for the husband of her youth” (Joel 1:8, NJPSV). The maiden (betulah) in this passage is no virgin since she has been made a widow. “Go down, sit in the dust, Virgin Daughter of Babylon . . . listen, you wanton creature, lounging in your security and saying to yourself, ‘I am, and there is none besides me. I will never be a widow or suffer the loss of children.’ Both of these will overtake you in a moment” (Isa. 47:1, 8-9, NIV). A virgin becoming a widow - does this really make sense? Obviously, betulah does not exclusively mean “virgin,” which means that neither betulah nor almah unequivocally means virgin. Since this is the case, it remains to be explained exactly what this Messianic prophecy means. The obscurity and ambiguity that underlie this prophecy are actually the keys to understanding Matthew’s interpretation of it. Having considered numerous biblical commentaries written by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, Dr. Michael Brown has drawn the conclusion that it is impossible to determine precisely what the prophecy meant to those who heard it originally, except that it was a promise of a supernatural birth that would be a great sign for the house of David, and that it would simultaneously serve as a reproach to unbelievers. The birth announcement in Isaiah 7:14 is patterned on other birth announcements in the Hebrew Bible, including the births of Ishmael (see Genesis 16:11) and Samson (see Judges 13:3, 5, 7). In fact, there is an intriguing text from Ugarit that was written about 500 years before Isaiah that announced the birth of a god to a goddess in the following words: “Behold, the maiden [Ugaritic ġalmatu, the equivalent of Hebrew almah] will bear a son.” These passages all indicate that this prophesied birth was extremely significant for the house of David. Reading this prophecy, Matthew was aware of the Messianic significance of Isaiah 9 and 11. The birth of Jesus was a miraculous sign because the almah was actually a virgin, yet she gave birth to the Messiah. Matthew also realized that Yeshua was Immanuel because he fulfilled the literal meaning of the name (God is with us). This prophecy was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus for two reasons: (1) the nonspecific nature of the text leaves the door open for interpretation within certain parameters, and (2) this prophecy concerns the royal line of David, which ultimately reaches its apex in the Messiah, whose birth is an event of the utmost importance. In order to see the logic of reading Isaiah 7:14 as referring to the Messiah (and in particular, to Jesus), one must understand the character of the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah 7-11. These prophecies offer snapshots, so to speak, of different stages in the life of the Messiah. In Isaiah 7, the Messiah’s imminent birth is foretold; in Isaiah 9, the Messiah has been born and has been declared to be a divine king; and in Isaiah 11, the Messiah reigns. These passages are all interconnected and are meant to be read together. Matthew does precisely this, reading all of these passages in their wider context (see Matthew 1:23, 2:23, 4:15-16). Who is Immanuel? The standard Jewish argument is that the birth of Immanuel had to be contemporaneous with the political situation of Isaiah’s day; however, this view is problematic since it does not consider the fact that the promise was made to the whole house of David rather than to a particular king, and that the prophecy associated with Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa. 8:1-4) became more important in Isaiah’s day than the prophecy of Immanuel. Joseph Blenkinsopp, a Catholic Old Testament scholar, analyzes the prophecies of Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, claiming that the parallelism of the two accounts suggests that they are different dimensions of the same “one sign-act.” Blenkinsopp holds that “within the prophetic world view, Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz represent different aspects of the divine intervention in human affairs at that critical juncture. They are, so to speak, the recto and verso of the same coin” (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, 238-239). While the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz is actually described, the birth of Immanuel is not. Maher-shalal-hash-baz becomes the tangible sign of the promise for Isaiah’s contemporaries whereas Immanuel’s birth is situated at some point in the indefinite future, a prophecy that had yet to be fulfilled.
@@Joqub The Septuagint, i.e. the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was completed over two centuries before Yeshua, renders almah as parthenos, which normally means “virgin.” This fact has been used by missionaries as proof that almah means virgin. This is not entirely accurate however, since the Septuagint describes Dinah as a parthenos even after she was raped (Gen. 34:3); yet, there is something significant in the Septuagint translation of almah into parthenos. Did Rashi claim that almah in Isaiah 7:14 means virgin? He has been misquoted as such by David Stern in Jewish New Testament Commentary, as revealed by Tovia Singer (entry posted June 21, 2011, on Noahide - The Ancient Path). Although Tovia Singer is correct in pointing out Stern’s error, Stern did not intentionally misquote Rashi; instead, Stern took for granted that Victor Buksbazen was accurately citing Rashi when he said in his commentary The Prophet Isaiah that in Isaiah 7:14, “almah” means “virgin.” Stern, being a scholar who possesses integrity, corrected his later editions of the Jewish New Testament Commentary and issued an apology for not checking the original source (JNTC 1992, 7). In his closing comments on Isaiah 7:14, Rashi states, “And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl [‘almah’] and incapable of giving birth” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). This text indicates that the birth was to be at the very least unusual, and possibly even miraculous. Rashi does not say that the almah would be a virgin, but he does indicate that she would be a young girl, for whom giving birth would not be considered normal. While it is not certain, there is a possibility that the translators of the Septuagint deliberately intended to convey the sense of a virginal birth in Isaiah 7:14. If a word other than almah had been used in the original Hebrew, one that meant woman or wife rather than young girl, later interpretations of a virginal birth would have been entirely unfounded. The fullest meaning of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 has only gradually come to light. The Word of God contains within it the possibilities of its later interpretations, and the very fact that particular verses have been interpreted in certain ways reflects something of the nature of those verses. Over the centuries, the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 matured until it was realized that this prophecy is fulfilled in Yeshua, the Messiah, the mighty God, whose conception was virginal. Although it is true that he was never called Immanuel in the New Testament, neither was Solomon ever called Jedidiah in the Tanakh, although it was said that he would be called by this name (2 Samuel 12:24-25). Furthermore, millions of Christians adore Yeshua as Emmanuel, which is evident from a famous Christmas hymn that starts with the words, “O come, O come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel.” In short, the claim that Matthew misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14 is not true; instead, his interpretation, which follows the best interpretive methods of the rabbis, is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
First, why would translations not matter? Why would the English translation be equal or better then the understanding that the greek orthodox church has that uses the original greek books? If you would get the exact same things from the books then it would not matter, if it conflicts.. then you have a problem.
Second, Tovia is not trying to prove christianity wrong in it self, he is fighting the Jews for Jesus movement and uses the same tactics those people are using.
Bending understanding towards your own favour is used all over the abrahamic religions, as if Abraham was a liar and deceiver and all followers do not mind doing the same.
From the Judaistic point of view christianity is clearly an abomination, i can understand that.
And from GOD's point of view all abrahamic religions are an abomination, i can see that to.
The Jewish people also read the Talmud, in this, but i don't know where its page location is for it, it has a passage on jesus, but the name jesus is not the name, used, and so the name yeshua is, to changed it to yeshu, and for this reason it is going on to note, as follows, that hes a criminal, and this record of him is to say, his crimes are, he was leading the Jewish people Astray, and that he was using Witch craft. So, the leading them Astray, was him preparing to them, and the Witch craft, wax the miracle he was performing, also, the Witch craft, is also something that is pertaining to kaballa, its an ancient trained abilities that only the most trained people can manage to be able to actually do, is said about it. As for the Christians bible on this named man called Jesus, its yeshua, or yeshu
You didn't get mad when the NT authors changed the words of the Hebrew Bible, to make the NT!
That is what the Talmudic -rabbis- are guilty of, not the authors of the New Testament.
@LeonKerkdijk No sir. My comment is a fact not an opinion or a belief without merit.
Paul changes the definition of the word zera (Hebrew: seed) in Genesis in Galatians 3.16 “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.”
Zera is multiplied like the stars... Plural. Just like the word seed in English functions as singular or plural, you don't say seeds, you say seed! What an immature word game Paul plays. Only a fool would fall for it... Or someone who is bound to a belief that it is impossible that the NT was written by liars.
Genesis 26.4
and I will *multiply thy seed as the *stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and by thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves.
Some translations say *them.
Matthew chapter one changes Isaiah's son into Jesus, and changes Isaiah's sign to Ahaz into a Messianic prophecy (Woahhh big creative liberties!)
I've just given you plenty to think about and it's not an opinion, I just demonstrated it, you just can't believe it's that simple to expose a lie. Your eyes didn't fool you. Tanak says one thing and the NT authors bend it into the direction of Jesus.
Nothing new under the sun. Turn back to the Hebrew Bible and spend some time appreciating the wisdom of the Jewish people.
@@Joqub Amazing. Every word of what you just said, was wrong!
Paul did not change a thing. Promises were made Abraham and his seed. In Galatians 3:16, Paul briefly comments on the subject of the seed of Abraham before he develops further the difference between law and promise. The word ‘seed’ requires some explanation. In the plural it means ‘offspring’ and in the singular it means ‘descendant’. The addition makes it clear that the latter is meant here. Added to that, Paul indicates Who that Descendant is, namely Christ. In Him all promises of God will be fulfilled.
Like the apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 3:15-16: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. *There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.*
You and all the other anti-missionaries are guilty as charged.
@@Joqub A proper understanding of Isaiah 7:14, which is quoted once in the New Testament, inevitably leads to the conclusion that it is Messianic.
Let’s take a look at the historical background of this verse. Judah was being attacked by a joint force of Israelites and Arameans who wanted to take Jerusalem and replace the king of Judah with the man of their choice. Unfortunately, king Ahaz was a faithless king, preferring to hire mercenaries than to rely on Yahweh. Isaiah told Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Ahaz refused. The Lord then responded, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The ‘almah will be with child [or, is with child] and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:13-14).
Who is this child, Immanuel? Some believe this child was to be born to Isaiah, others say that he was to be the son of Ahaz, while still others believe that he was a child destined to be born of a woman at that time in the history of Judah; the exact referent of this prophecy is not clear from the text itself. It is safe to assume, however, that this prophecy refers to a child who is related to the future house of David, especially since the following chapters in the book of Isaiah, most notably chapters 9 and 11, are principle Messianic prophecies.
What was the miraculous sign that was promised? While there are many theories, it is evident that the sign offered by God would have to be extremely significant; it would have to be a powerful miracle only God could perform. The question inevitably arises, “Does the word almah mean virgin?” The answer is, “No, not specifically.” The reason for this is that almah is derived from a Semitic root meaning “to come into puberty.” Just as the word elem means “young man,” almah means “young woman” or “maiden,” and this is exactly how these words are most commonly translated in the Tanakh.
One might object that had Isaiah intended to speak of a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah. The problem with this objection is that there is no single word in Hebrew that unequivocally means “virgin.” Out of the fifty times that the Tanakh contains the word betulah, the New Jewish Publication Society translates it as “maiden” instead of “virgin” thirty-one times. Many passages in the Tanakh indicate that it would be absurd to treat betulah as corresponding precisely with “virgin.” Consider the following passages:
“Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary” (Ezekiel 9:6). Here, it is obvious that betulah parallels bahur, i.e. young man. Virginity is not the issue in this passage; instead, it is the comprehensiveness of the command: slay everyone without the mark.
“Lament - like a maiden girt with sackcloth for the husband of her youth” (Joel 1:8, NJPSV). The maiden (betulah) in this passage is no virgin since she has been made a widow. “Go down, sit in the dust, Virgin Daughter of Babylon . . . listen, you wanton creature, lounging in your security and saying to yourself, ‘I am, and there is none besides me. I will never be a widow or suffer the loss of children.’ Both of these will overtake you in a moment” (Isa. 47:1, 8-9, NIV). A virgin becoming a widow - does this really make sense?
Obviously, betulah does not exclusively mean “virgin,” which means that neither betulah nor almah unequivocally means virgin. Since this is the case, it remains to be explained exactly what this Messianic prophecy means. The obscurity and ambiguity that underlie this prophecy are actually the keys to understanding Matthew’s interpretation of it.
Having considered numerous biblical commentaries written by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, Dr. Michael Brown has drawn the conclusion that it is impossible to determine precisely what the prophecy meant to those who heard it originally, except that it was a promise of a supernatural birth that would be a great sign for the house of David, and that it would simultaneously serve as a reproach to unbelievers.
The birth announcement in Isaiah 7:14 is patterned on other birth announcements in the Hebrew Bible, including the births of Ishmael (see Genesis 16:11) and Samson (see Judges 13:3, 5, 7). In fact, there is an intriguing text from Ugarit that was written about 500 years before Isaiah that announced the birth of a god to a goddess in the following words: “Behold, the maiden [Ugaritic ġalmatu, the equivalent of Hebrew almah] will bear a son.” These passages all indicate that this prophesied birth was extremely significant for the house of David.
Reading this prophecy, Matthew was aware of the Messianic significance of Isaiah 9 and 11. The birth of Jesus was a miraculous sign because the almah was actually a virgin, yet she gave birth to the Messiah. Matthew also realized that Yeshua was Immanuel because he fulfilled the literal meaning of the name (God is with us). This prophecy was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus for two reasons: (1) the nonspecific nature of the text leaves the door open for interpretation within certain parameters, and (2) this prophecy concerns the royal line of David, which ultimately reaches its apex in the Messiah, whose birth is an event of the utmost importance.
In order to see the logic of reading Isaiah 7:14 as referring to the Messiah (and in particular, to Jesus), one must understand the character of the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah 7-11. These prophecies offer snapshots, so to speak, of different stages in the life of the Messiah. In Isaiah 7, the Messiah’s imminent birth is foretold; in Isaiah 9, the Messiah has been born and has been declared to be a divine king; and in Isaiah 11, the Messiah reigns. These passages are all interconnected and are meant to be read together. Matthew does precisely this, reading all of these passages in their wider context (see Matthew 1:23, 2:23, 4:15-16).
Who is Immanuel? The standard Jewish argument is that the birth of Immanuel had to be contemporaneous with the political situation of Isaiah’s day; however, this view is problematic since it does not consider the fact that the promise was made to the whole house of David rather than to a particular king, and that the prophecy associated with Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa. 8:1-4) became more important in Isaiah’s day than the prophecy of Immanuel. Joseph Blenkinsopp, a Catholic Old Testament scholar, analyzes the prophecies of Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, claiming that the parallelism of the two accounts suggests that they are different dimensions of the same “one sign-act.” Blenkinsopp holds that “within the prophetic world view, Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz represent different aspects of the divine intervention in human affairs at that critical juncture. They are, so to speak, the recto and verso of the same coin” (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, 238-239). While the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz is actually described, the birth of Immanuel is not. Maher-shalal-hash-baz becomes the tangible sign of the promise for Isaiah’s contemporaries whereas Immanuel’s birth is situated at some point in the indefinite future, a prophecy that had yet to be fulfilled.
@@Joqub The Septuagint, i.e. the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was completed over two centuries before Yeshua, renders almah as parthenos, which normally means “virgin.” This fact has been used by missionaries as proof that almah means virgin. This is not entirely accurate however, since the Septuagint describes Dinah as a parthenos even after she was raped (Gen. 34:3); yet, there is something significant in the Septuagint translation of almah into parthenos.
Did Rashi claim that almah in Isaiah 7:14 means virgin? He has been misquoted as such by David Stern in Jewish New Testament Commentary, as revealed by Tovia Singer (entry posted June 21, 2011, on Noahide - The Ancient Path). Although Tovia Singer is correct in pointing out Stern’s error, Stern did not intentionally misquote Rashi; instead, Stern took for granted that Victor Buksbazen was accurately citing Rashi when he said in his commentary The Prophet Isaiah that in Isaiah 7:14, “almah” means “virgin.” Stern, being a scholar who possesses integrity, corrected his later editions of the Jewish New Testament Commentary and issued an apology for not checking the original source (JNTC 1992, 7).
In his closing comments on Isaiah 7:14, Rashi states, “And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl [‘almah’] and incapable of giving birth” (Rosenberg, The Book of Isaiah, Judaica Press Tanakh). This text indicates that the birth was to be at the very least unusual, and possibly even miraculous. Rashi does not say that the almah would be a virgin, but he does indicate that she would be a young girl, for whom giving birth would not be considered normal. While it is not certain, there is a possibility that the translators of the Septuagint deliberately intended to convey the sense of a virginal birth in Isaiah 7:14. If a word other than almah had been used in the original Hebrew, one that meant woman or wife rather than young girl, later interpretations of a virginal birth would have been entirely unfounded.
The fullest meaning of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 has only gradually come to light. The Word of God contains within it the possibilities of its later interpretations, and the very fact that particular verses have been interpreted in certain ways reflects something of the nature of those verses. Over the centuries, the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 matured until it was realized that this prophecy is fulfilled in Yeshua, the Messiah, the mighty God, whose conception was virginal. Although it is true that he was never called Immanuel in the New Testament, neither was Solomon ever called Jedidiah in the Tanakh, although it was said that he would be called by this name (2 Samuel 12:24-25). Furthermore, millions of Christians adore Yeshua as Emmanuel, which is evident from a famous Christmas hymn that starts with the words, “O come, O come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel.” In short, the claim that Matthew misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14 is not true; instead, his interpretation, which follows the best interpretive methods of the rabbis, is inspired by the Holy Spirit.