Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Peter Kirk wrote:

> >  
> >
> > > ...
> > > Anyway, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. 
> > > Anytime someone says "Christ," they do so to the exclusion of the 
> > > Jewishview of Messiah. The two have very different connotations in 
> > > modernEnglish, despite what they meant to native Greek speakers 2000 
> > > yearsago. Modern connotation is really what we are accustomed to 
> > > dealingwith, and it is from here that we draw meaning.
> > >     
> >
> >
> >
> > HH: It's not a matter of disagreeing. You flatly don't believe me.  
> > I'm giving you facts. If you want to ignore and contradict them, 
> > that's fine. I'm even giving you the modern connotation. You may know 
> > some people who don't think that way, but our understanding is to be 
> > derived entirely from God's word, not human opinion. There are 
> > millions of people who think the way I do. I can't give you a number 
> > of how many millions.  Dispensaltionalism is considered to be the 
> > majority viewpoint in America about prophetic realities, and that 
> > viewpoint sees things just the way I described.
> >
> >   
>
> Harold, I think you are overreacting here. Yes, one prominent trend of 
> Christian thought holds that Jesus Christ will literally rule the 
> world from Jerusalem, and this is in partial agreement with Jewish 
> thought. But the Christian doctrine of Christ undoubtedly includes 
> many central and vital concepts, such as his atoning death and 
> resurrection, which are almost entirely foreign to Jewish thought 
> about the Messiah and Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. On 
> the other hand, Jewish ideas of the Messiah have a nationalistic 
> basis, which is largely foreign to Christianity in which Christ's 
> ministry is to Gentiles as much as to Jews. So there are some very 
> major differences between the two doctrines. And in the light of 2000 
> years of disagreement it is unlikely that they will be resolved on 
> this list, and before the moderators rightly complain that we are 
> going off topic. So perhaps we should restrict our discussions to what 
> words like Mashiach and concepts like anointing mean in the Hebrew 
> Bible as originally intended by its authors, and keep well away from 
> discussing Christian and Rabbinic interpretations.


HH: Yes, I did miss one point in Yonah's post. But my next post 
recognized it. I agree that we should stick with Scripture. The meaning 
of Messiah is understood to be have a prominent nationalistic component 
by multiplied millions of Christians. He is the Redeemer for Israel. The 
idea is not foreign to Christianity. The notions of his atonement for 
sin and resurrection are there in the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures. 
Mashiach does not derive its meaning from a poll but from Scripture.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

>