[b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew

VC vadim_lv at center-tv.net
Mon Jun 7 15:14:10 EDT 2004


Dear Harold,

I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted with the
Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why this title
is of importance to you. You surely know that it was widely used; Isaiah
allowed even Chaldeans their own moshia (which, according to him, was not
forthcoming to save them).

How does Acts8 shed light on Isaiah, when even the quotation is brutally
distorted? Do you see any sense in the stupid question of the eunuch? Surely
the prophet did not speak of himself being executed.


Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny


>  > HH: The fact that the Christian approach requires more assumptions
>  > does not necessarily make it weaker.

>Well, you studied logic, did you? More assumptions - weaker the argument.
Or
>is the logic inapplicable here? Tertullian's argument about the absurdity
>still relied on logic.

HH: Reality trumps logic. If something is real
and you ignore it, you may miss something you
need.

>  >The most simple idea is not
>  > always correct. It may overlook some important fact.

>Taking the NT as a fact is itself an assumption.

HH: I said what is most simple "may" overlook
some important fact. This is common sense. I
don't need to study logic to know it.

>  >The claim of
>>  Christianity is that God was giving new revelation through Jesus
>>  Christ. The claim is that he was a prophet and in fact the Messiah
>  > prophesied in the OT.

>Only a prophet? Wow, you are very liberal. Every Muslim would agree with
you
>:)

HH: I guess you missed the part about Jesus being the Messiah, too.

>  >So the addition you speak of, "axiom B," could
>>  actually be more truth and so could help one to understand the other
>  > truth ("axiom A") better.

>Yes, if we assume that axiom B is a truth. But, again, this is an
>assumption, and makes the argument logically inferior.

HH: But we should exact the assumption to see if
it is true. if it is, then we should not ignore
it.

>Substituting logic
>with belief remains the only option.

HH: If Jesus rose from the dead, then His claims
carry a lot of weight. There are a good many
reasons to believe that He rose again from the
dead.

>Uh, and one more thing, please: exactly what line of the NT let us
>understand the Tanakh better? Just any example, please.

Here's one relevant to your efforts on B-Hebrew:

Acts 8:30 ¶ Then Philip ran up to the chariot and
heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet.  "Do
you understand what you are reading?" Philip
asked.
Acts 8:31 ¶  "How can I," he said,  "unless
someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip
to come up and sit with him.
Acts 8:32 ¶ The eunuch was reading this passage
of Scripture:  "He was led like a sheep to the
slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is
silent, so he did not open his mouth.
Acts 8:33 In his humiliation he was deprived of
justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For
his life was taken from the earth."
Acts 8:34 ¶ The eunuch asked Philip,  "Tell me,
please, who is the prophet talking about, himself
or someone else?"
Acts 8:35 Then Philip began with that very
passage of Scripture and told him the good news
about Jesus.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list