lama sabachthani

[Menachem]

I haven't a clue. Enlighten us.

I was hoping that one of you all would enlighten me as to why it is thought that he is quoting Psalm 22:2.

[smadewell]

This same question was asked over on the Jerusalem Perspective Forum by someone else. Thought it was you. Either way, this just doesn't seem to be my year for people wanting to hear, let alone listen to, anything I have to say.

Sorry. Can't help.

[Menachem]

This same question was asked over on the Jerusalem Perspective Forum by someone else. Thought it was you. Either way, this just doesn't seem to be my year for people wanting to hear, let alone listen to, anything I have to say.

Sorry. Can't help.

Does anyone else want to take a crack at it?

I really love unsupportable assumptions!

[smadewell]

Oh! You're a countermissionary! Well, well, well.... I can relate to that. I'm not a missionary. I've got enough problems of my own.

Personally, I think the historical Yeshua was just advancing a 1st century Baalei Teshuvah movement. No, he wasn't YHVH. No, he never fulfilled the office of the King-Messiah. I think he was a Hillelite and since Hillel said Yisrael had already seen the Messiah in Hezekiah, probably because he was disgusted with the King-High Priest debacle of the Hasmoneans ... Hillel wanted to create generation upon generation of Anointed Ones by actualizing the Sinaic Ideal through the school system the plebeian sages had established. In short, the Hillelites were themselves trying to get the people to internalize the Torah through recitation and memorization. (Er uh ... that is all the "New Covenant" is, right? Having the Law internalized....) While these Sage-Prophets focused on training the Anointed Ones (schoolchildern) ... Yeshua was focusing on getting the Chilonim (Secular) and Am Ha-Eretz ("People of the Land") on board this Hillelite program via a Repentance/Kingdom movment.

But then, my view is not acceptable to 99.99% precent of the Gentiles or the Jews.

So basically, you're question is a rhetorical one and you're not looking for an answer to the question. You just want to use this blurb to dismiss the historical Yeshua and/or the Church's mythological construct, which based loosely on the historical man. Can't say as I blame you, especially in light of what the Church and Messianics have done to and with the historical Yeshua.

Still, I don't subscribe to the "throw the baby out with the dirty bath water" school of thought. Oh well.... To each his own....

[smadewell]

thus making the word read in its transliteration back as שבחתני since the "Chi" in greek is the equivalent to the Chet and not the Qof in hebrew. the word reads as rendered. So it is not he word from the Targum based on its backwards transliteration.

So, I repeat, Which one did he supposedly quote from?

So your whole beef amounts to the a mistransliteration or a scribal error of one letter? Do you have supporting evidence where a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew or Aramaic word uses a Greek "CHI" for a Hebrew/Aramaic "CHET" rather than a "QOF"...? What are you saying they should have used here? A Greek "KAPPA" or a Greek "XI"...?

It's your case.... Prove it. Give us an example that clearly demonstrates they should have used a KAPPA or a XI instead of a CHI.

Also, it would hold a lot more water if there was a universal standard for transliteration today, which there obviously isn't. If there is, then a lot of people aren't following it. Is it tzadik or tzadiq? Hmmm....

While you're at it ... I've got a guy on another forum who rejects Hillel as a historical figure because there's no evidence for his life in any 1st century document. Can you help me out with that? Not being an ass here. I'm serious. This guy is a real pill and I'd love to shut him down.

[Menachem]

So your whole beef amounts to the a mistransliteration or a scribal error of one letter? Do you have supporting evidence where a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew or Aramaic word uses a Greek "CHI" for a Hebrew/Aramaic "CHET" rather than a "QOF"...? What are you saying they should have used here? A Greek "KAPPA" or a Greek "XI"...?

it is simple linguistics. What you are doing here is providing an avenue to avoid the conclusion given without addressing the premise or the conslusion. You are answering a question with a question. The burden of proof is on your side for disproving my claims not vice versa. FYI, the Qoppa, yes the letter is defunct and no longer used would have been the proper letter for the Qof.

It's your case.... Prove it. Give us an example that clearly demonstrates they should have used a KAPPA or a XI instead of a CHI.

Its not a Kappa its the Qoppa. Greek must not be your strong point. Besides the burden is not mine to do anything at this point is it your burden since you are arguing the negative to provide the necessary evidence to bring down my claim. When you answer a question with a question you show an inability to answer the claim adequately.

Also, it would hold a lot more water if there was a universal standard for transliteration today, which there obviously isn't. If there is, then a lot of people aren't following it. Is it tzadik or tzadiq? Hmmm....

Semantics and irrelevent. One is a literal transliteration (tzadiq) the other is a sounding out transliteration (tzadik). You are arguing a vocal transliteration versus a literal one. words have meaning and when written and transiterating a Hebrew word to another language the letters are looked at and examined carefully. Not only that you are arguing the transliteration from hebrew to english. we arent talking about english we are talking about Greek and hebrew/aramaic.

While you're at it ... I've got a guy on another forum who rejects Hillel as a historical figure because there's no evidence for his life in any 1st century document. Can you help me out with that? Not being an ass here. I'm serious. This guy is a real pill and I'd love to shut him down.

the Mishnah does more than just the trick. this is just like saying that Moses didnt exist becasue we didnt have video camera's or public birth records from that time give me a break. historical recordsback then were kept but often copied and recopied some years later byu scribes and in the case of Hillel the Mishnah.

[ZeevBenyamin]

Hi Menachem,

You are using tricks in this case to beat around the bush of the argument made,
You, indeed, have the burden to provide proof irrespective if smadewell knows how to answer adequately or not.

And though you may have an upper hand in your familiarity in Greek, that still does not dismiss that you must provide support for YOUR claim that a letter is the actual transliterary mark for a letter of a foreign language.

In this case the Qoppa and Chi for Qof and Het, which in fact Chi is more equivalent to Khaf rather than Het.

Another thing we have to realize is that the Xtians were very sloppy in copying and translating their so-called holy writ; which is why no Greek copy is the same. This supports the view that they did a hack job in translating from the original.

Now going back to your original argument, it could be that the rabbi of nazareth was quoting anything. And if he was quoting psalms, was it only recorded by the hand of Matthew? Many scholars agree that Matthew was learned in the literary-style of D'rash and as such he would definitely embellish many sayings to 'teach' or drive to a certain point, not necessarily any so-called "fulfillments" because every Jew knows that the midrashim don't focus on "prophecy fulfillments" of anything.

What the case does seem to show here, as smadewell was clear to point out, is that you have a problem with xtianity's claims and doctrines about this guy and that you wish to throw away the baby with the bath water.

I have no problem with you making these xtians and messys look like fools here, however, you as a Jew should know better than anyone else the rules of literature in what I personally label the "return method". And quite frankly you are failing miserably, though quite clearly you have much research and material on your side, as the xtians and messys that believe in their unstable views.

[smadewell]

Originally Posted by smadewell
While you're at it ... I've got a guy on another forum who rejects Hillel as a historical figure because there's no evidence for his life in any 1st century document. Can you help me out with that? Not being an ass here. I'm serious. This guy is a real pill and I'd love to shut him down.

the Mishnah does more than just the trick. this is just like saying that Moses didnt exist becasue we didnt have video camera's or public birth records from that time give me a break. historical recordsback then were kept but often copied and recopied some years later byu scribes and in the case of Hillel the Mishnah.

no, that doesn't do the trick, because this guy rejects material of a late date. he's a mythicist. according to his worldview hillel never existed because there are no records of his time that mention him. oh well.... these people are impossible to talk to. they've got an axe to grind against religion in general. thanks anyway.....

[erhein35]

I'm still confused about this but I think J-sus is just fulfilling the prophecy.

[Latuwr]

Psalm 21 In the LXX

Hi Menachem,

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

In the LXX, Psalms 21 is actually Psalms 22 of the Masoretic Text. Please examine this source:

http://www.septuagint.org/LXX/Psalms/21

And this English translation of both:

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/psalms/psalm_022.htm

In your original post on this thread, you asked us to go to Psalms 22 in the LXX which is actually Psalms 23 in the Hebrew Bible.

These two additional links show the Greek text and the English translation side by side:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brenton/lxx/Page_709.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brenton/lxx/Page_710.html

Notice on page 709, on the bottom of the page, that Psalm 21 in the LXX is actually Psalm 22, and notice on page 710, also at the bottom of the page, that Psalm 22 in the LXX is actually Psalm 23.

Messiah was not quoting Psalm 23 on the Cross, and if you can read the Greek, Messiah was not exactly quoting the Greek of the LXX either.

The Greek of the LXX says: The God, the God of me, attend to me, why have you forsaken me?

http://greeknewtestament.net/gospel/matthew-27.html

Notice that the Greek of the NT and the Greek of the LXX are identical with respect to the last phrase of verse 46 of Matthew 27.

I hope that this has been helpful.

Thanking you in advance should you choose to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr

[pedrie123]

It has been suggested that Jesus was repeating Psalm 22 on the cross,as a picture of his own situation,as a song of his trust and confidence.Well but there other sugestions.In that moment the sin of the whole fell on his heart and the being of Jesus,he took it to himself,and the penalty that he bore for us meant inevitable separation from God...

[Latuwr]

Life Now!

Hi Pedrie123,

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

If I understand your words correctly, then physical death must be considered separation from ELOHIM. Is it possible to avoid this separation?

I just made this post on another forum:

Hi Brianlpalmer1,

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

Allow me to answer your question with a few comments ending in a question for you.

The last words of a dying man are important. A dying Messiah Yahushua asked:

Matthew 27:46
46 And about the ninth hour Yahushua cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My ELOHIM, my ELOHIM, why hast thou forsaken me?

Paul made this observation concerning the death of Messiah:

2 Corinthians 5:14
14 For the love of Messiah constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

And if all are dead through the death of Messiah, why and how does this great massacre occur? (Suicide bombers in their deaths are actually types of Messiah Yahushua)

Romans 6:6
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Clearly, Messiah was able to unite evil, that is, my sinful and rebellious self, with HIS own person so that the evil me could die with HIM.

Now, allow me to ask you: Is this union of good and evil pleasing to ELOHIM (please consider here Ezekiel 18:23 & 32)?

Perhaps, these words should also be considered in formulating any answer:

Genesis 2:17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Did Messiah Yahushua eat of this tree?

Thanking in advance all those who may be moved to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr

If physical death is separation from ELOHIM, what then is physical life but union with ELOHIM, that is, LIFE NOW?

Thanking you in advance should you choose to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr