The Law: Was it so Hard

[liamconnor]

Protestant branches of Christianity present ancient Judaism as an impossible religion in which members are always in despair because they can never obey the law. Out of this assessment arises the value of Christianity: The Jewish Law is impossible to fulfill; but good news, one does not have to fulfill it!

Question: Is the Jewish Law really that hard? I have read the O.T. several times. I have read much of Rabbinic Law. None of it seems terribly hard.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 41 by bluethread]

" So, creating a forum for those who hold to both the teachings of the Tanakh and those of Yeshua only serves to isolate that kind of theology from the others."

But the 'others' don't know what you are talking about.

By doing it your way, it brings confusion to people like me who have never been exposed to these terms.

Do you say the same to Catholics and Protestants that use terms like sacrament, eucharist, apocrypha, canon, synoptic, etc?

Jesus said, 'this is a New Covenant in my blood which is shed for many'. He did not continue with Old, He was the beginning of the New. The writers of the Epistles did not use any Hebraic names when addressing their followers who would have been Jewish. No objection no confusion.

Why did you use the word Epistle instead of letter? That could confuse people who are not familiar with the term. I am not sure whether you are aware of this or not, but the writers of the letters did not write them in English. They used either Greek names or Greek transliterations of Hebrew names: Timoteus, Iokab, Ionnes, Ioudas, etc. By the way, none of the writers wrote the name James anywhere in the Scriptures. Iokab, was translated as James when referring to the son of Zebedaios and the son of Alphaios to flatter King James.

I do not wish to discourage you from reading and/or interacting in this forum. However, as I mentioned before, this is not a topical forum. This is a forum for the discussion of Theology, Doctrine and Dogma. In order to have a discussion of those things, it is best for one be familiar with such things, or at least have the willingness to do some research. On this forum, the Scriptures are considered authoritative and the translations are considered less authoritative than the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Therefore, the use of non-English terms that more accurately represent the concepts being discussed, without the connotations that are attached with an English term, are very much appropriate.

As with any other area of study; science, mathematics, chemistry, etc., one should ask for clarification, if a term or concept is not familiar. A case in point is the passage that you quoted. That statement was part of the Pesach Seder(ritual Passover meal), that Yeshua was officiating as the evening of the day He was crucified came. Specifically, it refers to the third cup, the cup of the Promise, often called the cup of redemption. When He called it the "New Covenant", He was referring to Jeremiah 31:31, which is referrenced in Hebrews 8:8. In order to have a proper discussion of this passage in Hebrews, one needs to be familiar with the passage in Jeremiah and also the Hebrew culture of the people to whom it is addressed. So, if you wish to discuss what is meant in Hebrews 8:13, I would be happy to do so, but not out of the historical, grammatical and cultural context into which it was written.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 35 by Monta]

There is a group of Christians that believe it is more appropriate to mix English with transliterated Hebrew words and names when it comes to the bible. The argument is that mixing languages is more accurate because this renders the word closer to the source language (Hebrew) although I personally think its just more confusing; especially when the word or name has a widely recognizable English equivalent.

So, why don't you just speak English? Why do you use words that are French, German, Italian, Spanish and any number of other languages? Why say, "creme de menthe", when mint liquor will work. Why say hamburger, when one can say ground beef sandwich? Why say macaroni, when we have the word noodle? Oops, noodle is German. Are we to refer to tacos and burritos as corn flatbread sandwiches? The language spoken in these United States is almost exclusively derived from many languages, yes, including Hebrew and Greek. Unlike in France, there is no law regulating what a proper term is here. When one discusses another ology, one does not quibble about having to learn new terms. However, when it comes to Theology, one must use common conversational terms.

That said, I think its reasonable to assume most people engaging in debate on the subject of "The Law" would be familiar with the terms above; and thanks to google we all can be.

Why is that? Is it because those are the terms you are familiar with? If you can expect people to use google to get a general idea of the meaning of terms you think are important, why can't others expect the same with regard to terms that they think are important? In casual conversation, it is courteous to use terms that are common to the specific culture of the listener. It is also courteous for the listener to say, "What do you mean?" In addition, it is just as discourteous for the listener to fault the speaker for using technical terms in a technical setting, as it is for the speaker to degrade the listener for not being aware of those terms. The bottom line is that both the speaker AND the listener have a responsiblity to familiarize themselves with the appropriate terms for the setting and enquire with regard to terms with which they are unfamiliar.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 50 by bluethread]


"Why did you use the word Epistle instead of letter? That could confuse people who are not familiar with the term. I am not sure whether you are aware of this or not, but the writers of the letters did not write them in English. They used either Greek names or Greek transliterations of Hebrew names: Timoteus, Iokab, Ionnes, Ioudas, etc. By the way, none of the writers wrote the name James anywhere in the Scriptures. Iokab, was translated as James when referring to the son of Zebedaios and the son of Alphaios to flatter King James."

Every Christian is familiar with 'Epistles'.
English speaking world have their Bibles in English with English names.


" This is a forum for the discussion of Theology, Doctrine and Dogma. In order to have a discussion of those things, it is best for one be familiar with such things, or at least have the willingness to do some research."

I am familiar with it and have done some research.


" On this forum, the Scriptures are considered authoritative and the translations are considered less authoritative than the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. "

Our Scripture in English is authoritative and translated by best translators.


"A case in point is the passage that you quoted. That statement was part of the Pesach Seder(ritual Passover meal), that Yeshua was officiating as the evening of the day He was crucified came. Specifically, it refers to the third cup, the cup of the Promise, often called the cup of redemption. When He called it the "New Covenant", He was referring to Jeremiah 31:31, which is referrenced in Hebrews 8:8. In order to have a proper discussion of this passage in Hebrews, one needs to be familiar with the passage in Jeremiah and also the Hebrew culture of the people to whom it is addressed. "

New Testament writers did not see it important to bring in Jeremiah.
What does Hebrew (Jewish) culture have to do with Jesus Christ whom Jews have denounced: 'may his blood be upon us and our children'. If this hatred and much worse comes from Judaics/Rabbi/Jews/Hebrews if yu like, there is nothing they can teach us.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 51 by bluethread]

You make some valid points; its true many English words that are currently part of our lexicon have their origins in other languages. But whether those words are "Hamburger" "chic" or "Sabbath," they are so well intergrated into the target language that they are generally understood by the majority of English speakers without the need to resort to a dictionary. This cannot be said of every word in existence though, since every word in existence hasn't been integrated into modern English.

Many words, and not a insignificant number of names, have English equivalents (most of which are transliterations - in the case of many bible names/words from the Greek or Latin to the English) and these are familiar to English speakers not least because they are employed in the majority of English language bible translations.

If there is any merit in employing the less familiar transliterations from the Hebrew to the English, bar possibly the Divine Name (which if I'm not mistaken you have no problem removing from your personal lexicon entirely, feel free to correct me on that one if I am mistaken) I cannot think what it is? If you are inclined you might like to enlighten me.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 50 by bluethread]


"Why did you use the word Epistle instead of letter? That could confuse people who are not familiar with the term. I am not sure whether you are aware of this or not, but the writers of the letters did not write them in English. They used either Greek names or Greek transliterations of Hebrew names: Timoteus, Iokab, Ionnes, Ioudas, etc. By the way, none of the writers wrote the name James anywhere in the Scriptures. Iokab, was translated as James when referring to the son of Zebedaios and the son of Alphaios to flatter King James."

Every Christian is familiar with 'Epistles'.
English speaking world have their Bibles in English with English names.

Every one? How do you know this? Los eyos no hablando ingles no importante para tu? Son epistolan in Espanol. By the way, it is "The English speaking world has its Bible ..." or "Those in the English speaking world have their bibles . . .", if we are going to be finding fault with proper word usage.

" This is a forum for the discussion of Theology, Doctrine and Dogma. In order to have a discussion of those things, it is best for one be familiar with such things, or at least have the willingness to do some research."

I am familiar with it and have done some research.

Very good. It is my hope that you will continue and others will follow that example.

" On this forum, the Scriptures are considered authoritative and the translations are considered less authoritative than the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. "

Our Scripture in English is authoritative and translated by best translators.

Those translators do not always agree and often have to choose between readability and accuracy. They are also often influenced by doctrinal and cultural biases.

"A case in point is the passage that you quoted. That statement was part of the Pesach Seder(ritual Passover meal), that Yeshua was officiating as the evening of the day He was crucified came. Specifically, it refers to the third cup, the cup of the Promise, often called the cup of redemption. When He called it the "New Covenant", He was referring to Jeremiah 31:31, which is referenced in Hebrews 8:8. In order to have a proper discussion of this passage in Hebrews, one needs to be familiar with the passage in Jeremiah and also the Hebrew culture of the people to whom it is addressed. "

New Testament writers did not see it important to bring in Jeremiah.
What does Hebrew (Jewish) culture have to do with Jesus Christ whom Jews have denounced: 'may his blood be upon us and our children'. If this hatred and much worse comes from Judaics/Rabbi/Jews/Hebrews if you like, there is nothing they can teach us.

That is interesting, because the author of the letter to the diaspora(Hebrews) directly quotes Yermiyahu(Jeremiah) in Hebrews 8:8, where it says, “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah." Yet, you say the people of Israel and Yehudah(Judah) have nothing to teach us? If it is not important what Jews have to say, you may as well through away the entire bible, since nearly all of it was written by Jews. I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but Yeshua HaMeshiach(Jesus the Christ) is Jewish, as were all of His talmudim(disciples).

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 51 by bluethread]

You make some valid points; its true many English words that are currently part of our lexicon have their origins in other languages. But whether those words are "Hamburger" "chic" or "Sabbath," they are so well intergrated into the target language that they are generally understood by the majority of English speakers without the need to resort to a dictionary. This cannot be said of every word in existence though, since every word in existence hasn't been integrated into modern English.

Many words, and not a insignificant number of names, have English equivalents (most of which are transliterations - in the case of many bible names/words from the Greek or Latin to the English) and these are familiar to English speakers not least because they are employed in the majority of English language bible translations.

If there is any merit in employing the less familiar transliterations from the Hebrew to the English, bar possibly the Divine Name (which if I'm not mistaken you have no problem removing from your personal lexicon entirely, feel free to correct me on that one if I am mistaken) I cannot think what it is? If you are inclined you might like to enlighten me.

Yes, and when they are speaking in relation to a technical matter they do not use common words, but the words used in that discipline. Why do you seek an exception for Yud-Hay-Vav-Hay, which I do use when the discussion requires it? I have noticed that you do not use Yud-Hay-Vav-Hay very often yourself.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 55 by bluethread]

Thank you for your comment, I can't actually find the answer to my question however.

Is there any merit in employing the less familiar transliterations from the Hebrew to the English (as opposed to the more familiar Greek/ Latin to the English)? If so what is it?

I was expecting an answer along the lines of, "Yes it's better to use the Hebrew transliteration because..." maybe illustrating your point with a concrete example of difficulties avoided or the merits gained by writing "Yerusalem" rather than "Jerusalem"

[Monta]

[Replying to post 54 by bluethread]


"Those translators do not always agree and often have to choose between readability and accuracy. They are also often influenced by doctrinal and cultural biases. "

I certainly agree and it is sad that things have gone this way.
I stay with kjv as being earlier translation before every Tom Dick and Harry thought they were wise enough for the job.


"That is interesting, because the author of the letter to the diaspora(Hebrews) directly quotes Yermiyahu(Jeremiah) in Hebrews 8:8, where it says, “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah." Yet, you say the people of Israel and Yehudah(Judah) have nothing to teach us? If it is not important what Jews have to say, you may as well through away the entire bible, since nearly all of it was written by Jews. I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but Yeshua HaMeshiach(Jesus the Christ) is Jewish, as were all of His talmudim(disciples)."

Jesus never acknowledged that he was Jewish, never acknowledged his mother as mother. As to who wrote the Bible there isn't solid evidence for that.

I went bit overboard, I am sure we can learn many things from Jews but here I meant mainly spiritual/Biblical things. For instance they would never ever accept the rest of Hebrews chapter 8.

For the record, Jeremiah is not mentioned by name.
Your translation says people, kjv says house.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 55 by bluethread]

Thank you for your comment, I can't actually find the answer to my question however.

Is there any merit in employing the less familiar transliterations from the Hebrew to the English (as opposed to the more familiar Greek/ Latin to the English)? If so what is it?

I was expecting an answer along the lines of, "Yes it's better to use the Hebrew transliteration because..." maybe illustrating your point with a concrete example of difficulties avoided or the merits gained by writing "Yerusalem" rather than "Jerusalem"

Well, in that case it is just a course of habit. There is no J in Hebrew, or Greek for that matter. In the Germanic languages J is pronounced as the English pronounce Y. So, why not cut out the middle man. This might also "raise awareness". However, I probably should write Yerushalaim. Anyhoo, I generally don't complain about the terms other people use. I usually only point out the actual term when it is under consideration. Also, I generally put the common term in parenthesis, if I think the person I am talking to might not understand. So, I am not really violating the golden rule.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, in that case it is just a course of habit. There is no J in Hebrew, or Greek for that matter.

So what?! There are no roman letters in Hebrew or Greek either. The point is there is a J in English (the language you are writing in) so why not use it?

In the Germanic languages J is pronounced as the English pronounce Y. So, why not cut out the middle man.

And why not leave him in? What is GAINED by writing 'Y'? My point isn't that its bad (or good) its just what difference does make to write Yeshua instead of Jesus?


JW


ps: "raise awareness" about what exactly? Middle English pronunciation?