Is the "servant of God" God himself or somebody el

[Eliyahu]

Bs'd

When the Bible speaks about "the servant of God", does it then speak about God himself, or about somebody else?


Eliyahu

[Biker]

check mate. you lose.

IF you wish to believe so, you can. HOwever, if you think you made your case with someone from the DTS, and 19th century writers, you are vastly mistaken.

who is from DTS?

tell me why 19th century makes it bad?


your arguments irresponsible. those are not reasons. those are prjudices and they are lies; no one I quoted is from DTS

Hall is from DTS, and the scholarship standards increased drastically in the 20th century.

I am not gong to accept that some 19th century Christian , examining a 12th century forgery is going to find insite into what the Jewish authors thought from the 5th century bce.

And im not going to accept a 5th century BC rabbi's commentary without adequately digesting it and holding it up against scripture either.What makes you an expert on scholarship standards? And fill me in on what are scholarship standards. Is that when 5th century BC rabbi"s kicked off the land devise clever routes around scripture because they lost the temple and can no longer adequately expiate sin by animal sacrifice, so they have to devise other routes. Is that the scholarship you are speaking of?

When it comes to trying to figure out what a 5th century bce person is thinking, you look at what the 5th century bce person wrote. That is common sense.

You don't take what a 19th century person, interpreting a book of mystisicm writen in the 12 century to try to understand what the person
in the 5th century believed. That is just common sense.

Your attempt to change the subject is noted.. however irrelavent it is to this discussion. It is based on a bit of ignorance though, and if you want to start another thread specificlal on that, feel free.

Thats absurd by your own reasoning your 5th century BC rabbi is commenting on 15th century BC writings so that disqualifys your rabbi's!
Also Im getting tired of your superior attitude that a Christian is to ignorant to examine the scriptures.Based on Jewish history Jews don't understand it because they have never followed it!What I said has relevance to the subject at hand ,but as usual you never answer my questions you just tell me im ignorant of whatever ,so scholar fill my ignorant self in for once.

Biker

Well, since there were no 15th bce rabbi's, I would say that is true.

You could look at the 5th century rabbi's viewpoint about the understanding the 5th century had of the older writings. However,
that is if the 5th century rabbi was working with the direct passages.

In Metacrock's example, the person making the evalution was not using
the primary source, but was rather using a book of mysticsm written 1800 years later to make his evaluation. It wasn't just a book making a comentary on the previous work, but it was a book that was written for religious mystism purposes.

I didn't say there were 15th century rabbi's, I said 15th century "writings". Whatever. Ohhh, for some meaningful dialogue!
Anyway in answer to the original question: God himself as a man!!!

Biker

[Metacrock]

check mate. you lose.

IF you wish to believe so, you can. HOwever, if you think you made your case with someone from the DTS, and 19th century writers, you are vastly mistaken.

who is from DTS?

tell me why 19th century makes it bad?


your arguments irresponsible. those are not reasons. those are prjudices and they are lies; no one I quoted is from DTS

Hall is from DTS, and the scholarship standards increased drastically in the 20th century.

I am not gong to accept that some 19th century Christian , examining a 12th century forgery is going to find insite into what the Jewish authors thought from the 5th century bce.

I didn't quote anyone from DTS and I don't remember anyone named Hall.

There is nothing inherent in 19ty century that makes is scholarship bad. As I've pointed it's only been corroborated by the ;Dead Sea scrolls. I quoted Martinez to prove that.

Now as for 12th century book that is totally irrational, since you accept the 11th century Masoretic corruption of the bibilcal text.

the Talmudic texts he's using are from Yalkut and go back to second century, and in this case older is better because we want to know the assumtpions of Jesus' day.

[Metacrock]

check mate. you lose.

IF you wish to believe so, you can. HOwever, if you think you made your case with someone from the DTS, and 19th century writers, you are vastly mistaken.

who is from DTS?

tell me why 19th century makes it bad?


your arguments irresponsible. those are not reasons. those are prjudices and they are lies; no one I quoted is from DTS

Hall is from DTS, and the scholarship standards increased drastically in the 20th century.

I am not gong to accept that some 19th century Christian , examining a 12th century forgery is going to find insite into what the Jewish authors thought from the 5th century bce.

And im not going to accept a 5th century BC rabbi's commentary without adequately digesting it and holding it up against scripture either.What makes you an expert on scholarship standards? And fill me in on what are scholarship standards. Is that when 5th century BC rabbi"s kicked off the land devise clever routes around scripture because they lost the temple and can no longer adequately expiate sin by animal sacrifice, so they have to devise other routes. Is that the scholarship you are speaking of?

When it comes to trying to figure out what a 5th century bce person is thinking, you look at what the 5th century bce person wrote. That is common sense.

You don't take what a 19th century person, interpreting a book of mystisicm writen in the 12 century to try to understand what the person
in the 5th century believed. That is just common sense.

Your attempt to change the subject is noted.. however irrelavent it is to this discussion. It is based on a bit of ignorance though, and if you want to start another thread specificlal on that, feel free.

Thats absurd by your own reasoning your 5th century BC rabbi is commenting on 15th century BC writings so that disqualifys your rabbi's!
Also Im getting tired of your superior attitude that a Christian is to ignorant to examine the scriptures.Based on Jewish history Jews don't understand it because they have never followed it!What I said has relevance to the subject at hand ,but as usual you never answer my questions you just tell me im ignorant of whatever ,so scholar fill my ignorant self in for once.

Biker

Well, since there were no 15th bce rabbi's, I would say that is true.

You could look at the 5th century rabbi's viewpoint about the understanding the 5th century had of the older writings. However,
that is if the 5th century rabbi was working with the direct passages.

In Metacrock's example, the person making the evalution was not using
the primary source, but was rather using a book of mysticsm written 1800 years later to make his evaluation. It wasn't just a book making a comentary on the previous work, but it was a book that was written for religious mystism purposes.

I didn't say there were 15th century rabbi's, I said 15th century "writings". Whatever. Ohhh, for some meaningful dialogue!
Anyway in answer to the original question: God himself as a man!!!

Biker

I quoted over a dozen sources. only one of them pertained to the zohar. I quoted Targimum and Philo and sources showing Philo's agreement with the Rabbis of his day, that is all much ealier than 1800 years. It's intertestamental.

[Biker]

Paul is an apolste, calle by Chrsit, he is accepted by the chruch, you are not.

You take Paul's word for it , I don't. It seems to be questioned by the early church and accepted by the gentile church which were Pauls followers.
Only Paul says he was called by Christ and after his death in one of Paul's visions. Paul goes so far as to say that God shows himself in Paul to the gentiles as Christ showed himself to the Jews. He but himself on parr with Jesus and God. I guess you need to place another mask on the God head.

Cather you don't accept Pauls writings as cannon of scripture?Peter the Apostle did,I quote 2 Peter 3:15-16." just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand , which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Now I suppose Peter the Apostle is a nut case as well? Peter the Apostle called Pauls letters Scripture!

Biker

[Biker]

I am going with some one else not God. But if you are like some you have God as his own son.

If you are like some you have God. And His Son,in a human body as a servant of God!
2 Corinthians 5:19,"namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,"


Biker, is some.

[Cathar1950]

Paul is an apolste, calle by Chrsit, he is accepted by the chruch, you are not.

You take Paul's word for it , I don't. It seems to be questioned by the early church and accepted by the gentile church which were Pauls followers.
Only Paul says he was called by Christ and after his death in one of Paul's visions. Paul goes so far as to say that God shows himself in Paul to the gentiles as Christ showed himself to the Jews. He but himself on parr with Jesus and God. I guess you need to place another mask on the God head.

Cather you don't accept Pauls writings as cannon of scripture?Peter the Apostle did,I quote 2 Peter 3:15-16." just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand , which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Now I suppose Peter the Apostle is a nut case as well? Peter the Apostle called Pauls letters Scripture!

Biker

Most scholars understand that the letters of Peter are not his but late forgeries written in his name to indorse Pauline thinking. So Peter did not call Paul's letter scripture. Acts is a fiction and seems to use Peter to make Paul's case, which had in the end been rejected. Acts is a smoothing over of the riff between Paul and the assembly in Jerusalem.
Don't make your bets on the letters of Peter. If Jesus had really ate unclean things and did not think what went in you was clean Peter would never had to have a dream to let him know it was ok. If eating with gentiles unclean food was ok, as the fiction of Acts reports, Peter and the others would not have removed themselves from Paul’s company and had they made up Paul surly would have been bragging about it instead of complaining.
I got more to post later but it is red flannel day and I have to go visit all the sinners in red.

[Biker]

Bs'd

When the Bible speaks about "the servant of God", does it then speak about God himself, or about somebody else?


Eliyahu

In the question posed by Eliyahu, when the Bible speaks about "The Servant of God", does it speak about God Himself, or about somebody else? The primary discussion by Eliyahu always centers around not the "Servant of God" but apologetics for the Jewish thought on YHWH singular! Eliyahu, please clarify for me, Do you want to know about "The Servant of God", as within text of Isaiah? Or should we start another thread discussing christian trinity apololgetics, as opposed to Jewish singular YHWH apologetics. Please clarify or are they mutually non exclusive in your mind or where are you trying to go with this? I want to dialogue with you based on Bible text, but your posts digress from the question that you raised.

Biker

[Goat]

check mate. you lose.

IF you wish to believe so, you can. HOwever, if you think you made your case with someone from the DTS, and 19th century writers, you are vastly mistaken.

who is from DTS?

tell me why 19th century makes it bad?


your arguments irresponsible. those are not reasons. those are prjudices and they are lies; no one I quoted is from DTS

Hall is from DTS, and the scholarship standards increased drastically in the 20th century.

I am not gong to accept that some 19th century Christian , examining a 12th century forgery is going to find insite into what the Jewish authors thought from the 5th century bce.

I didn't quote anyone from DTS and I don't remember anyone named Hall.

There is nothing inherent in 19ty century that makes is scholarship bad. As I've pointed it's only been corroborated by the ;Dead Sea scrolls. I quoted Martinez to prove that.

Now as for 12th century book that is totally irrational, since you accept the 11th century Masoretic corruption of the bibilcal text.

the Talmudic texts he's using are from Yalkut and go back to second century, and in this case older is better because we want to know the assumtpions of Jesus' day.

That's funny, I looked him up from your cut/paste jobbie.

I guess that is what happens when you do a massive cut/paste without truly reading what you are posting.

[Biker]

Paul is an apolste, calle by Chrsit, he is accepted by the chruch, you are not.

You take Paul's word for it , I don't. It seems to be questioned by the early church and accepted by the gentile church which were Pauls followers.
Only Paul says he was called by Christ and after his death in one of Paul's visions. Paul goes so far as to say that God shows himself in Paul to the gentiles as Christ showed himself to the Jews. He but himself on parr with Jesus and God. I guess you need to place another mask on the God head.

Cather you don't accept Pauls writings as cannon of scripture?Peter the Apostle did,I quote 2 Peter 3:15-16." just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand , which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Now I suppose Peter the Apostle is a nut case as well? Peter the Apostle called Pauls letters Scripture!

Biker

Most scholars understand that the letters of Peter are not his but late forgeries written in his name to indorse Pauline thinking. So Peter did not call Paul's letter scripture. Acts is a fiction and seems to use Peter to make Paul's case, which had in the end been rejected. Acts is a smoothing over of the riff between Paul and the assembly in Jerusalem.
Don't make your bets on the letters of Peter. If Jesus had really ate unclean things and did not think what went in you was clean Peter would never had to have a dream to let him know it was ok. If eating with gentiles unclean food was ok, as the fiction of Acts reports, Peter and the others would not have removed themselves from Paul’s company and had they made up Paul surly would have been bragging about it instead of complaining.
I got more to post later but it is red flannel day and I have to go visit all the sinners in red.

How did I know U might say something like that.What do U believe?The term scholar is used loosely around here I hear it alot,Ha Ha Ha.Do you accept the Gospels?Your nice little story regarding Peters dream Jesus talks about.There is a very important teaching by Jesus on the subject of eating in Matt.15,Mr.7.Have you read it?
Quote " If Jesus had really ate unclean things and did not think what went in you was clean Peter would never had to have a dream to let him know it was ok, as the fiction Acts reports,"(unquote)What Jesus ate is not the issue,Jesus when eating was, The Son of God fulfilling the Law of Moses reconciling the world to God observing Law eating habits.Peter at that time eating post Cross is no longer under the Law its been fulfilled by
Messiah Jesus. The confusion by Peter lies in yes what he observed Jesus eating in His role observing all the Law precross as God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.But heres Jesus position on eating,Mark 7:17"And he said to them,' Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?' ( He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying,' That which proceeds out of the man is what defiles man.' "Also in Matt.15:11.
You should learn to rightly divide the Word of Truth! Cather you quote most scholars understand that the letters of Paul are not his but late fogeries (unquote).Nonsense! Prove that. quote Acts is a fiction (unquote). Prove that.The letters of Peter are late forgeries. Prove that.The reason for Peter + other leaving Pauls company as being a negative a pure speculation on your part and insignificant, but prove it all the same.Visiting sinners in red, check yourself!!! More to post later don't bother I've heard enough.

[Metacrock]

Most scholars understand that the letters of Peter are not his but late forgeries written in his name to indorse Pauline thinking. So Peter did not call Paul's letter scripture. Acts is a fiction and seems to use Peter to make Paul's case, which had in the end been rejected. Acts is a smoothing over of the riff between Paul and the assembly in Jerusalem.

Not true at all! not at all. The major scholars and the vast majority of scholars accept Paul's epistels as genuine.

You are confussing the Pastoral epistles. those are the only works in the Pauline corpus that are in dobut, and not sccholars doubt them.

pastroals: 1,2 Timothy, Titus, .


Genuine: Roamans, 1-2 Corinthians, Pholipians, Galations, Colossians,Philiemon, Ephaisans, 1.2 Thesologians

I may be forgetting some.