Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hebrew Israelite questions
#1
Some of you may know I joined to get more information because I have a friend that joined a cult called Black Hebrew Israelites. Here are some of the questions that he is asking. I decided to put them all into one post instead of breaking them up. I hope that's ok.

Some say "God", others say "Lord"...funny thing is, neither words are names...millions claim they KNOW the Most High, without knowing His Name...what's the name?
Hint: it's not "Son of Zeus".

*INFO FOR ALL CHRISTIANS* ...Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Hosea ALL name the "messiah"...and its NOT "jesus", as a matter of fact, that name is NEVER mentioned in the so-called Old Testament...if u want these scriptures, let me know and i will pass them to u, as well as UNDENIABLE PROOF of the falseness of the "man" yall worship...

*QUESTION TO ALL CHRISTIANS* ...Do u actually believe that the Most High would commit "adultery" with a man's wife and make that child the "messiah"??????????????????? ...smells like bacon to me...
#2
TheKenster33 Wrote:*INFO FOR ALL CHRISTIANS* ...Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Hosea ALL name the "messiah"...and its NOT "jesus", as a matter of fact, that name is NEVER mentioned in the so-called Old Testament...if u want these scriptures, let me know and i will pass them to u, as well as UNDENIABLE PROOF of the falseness of the "man" yall worship...

Isaiah 7:14 (King James Version)

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

TheKenster33 Wrote:*QUESTION TO ALL CHRISTIANS* ...Do u actually believe that the Most High would commit "adultery" with a man's wife and make that child the "messiah"??????????????????? ...smells like bacon to me...

In short, no.
#3
MessianicJew, you forgot the rest of Isaiah's prophecy: "He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" (7:15-16).

The sign of the prophecy wasn't the sexual state of the mother, but the child himself. Isaiah wasn't speaking of an event 700 years in the future, but of a prophecy fulfilled in the Torah itself (see II Kings 15:30 and II Kings 16:9).
#4
(01-03-2013, 09:35 PM)benyosef Wrote: MessianicJew, you forgot the rest of Isaiah's prophecy: "He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" (7:15-16).

The sign of the prophecy wasn't the sexual state of the mother, but the child himself. Isaiah wasn't speaking of an event 700 years in the future, but of a prophecy fulfilled in the Torah itself (see II Kings 15:30 and II Kings 16:9).

I disagree, if the sexual state of the mother isn't a sign, then there is no sign at all. For married women give birth to a child, and a whole lot gave birth to a child during this time. There isn't anything to distinguish the child, for a lot of them were born Levites and Jews men which would make the children sons of Aaron. But, since Mary was a virgin plus her child Holy. That is a sign.

Also, King Herod ruled before Jesus would have known to choose the good and reject evil. And the land at that time when Herod died truly was forsaken of both the Kings. Because they were under Rome.
#5
If no one can see if she is a virgin, what good is that as a sign? Why give a sign no one can ever see?

Further, although you say that "King Herod ruled before Jesus would have known to choose the good and reject evil. And the land at that time when Herod died truly was forsaken of both the Kings. Because they were under Rome," these words would have been little comfort to Ahaz. Remember that Isaiah was speaking to Ahaz about a seige that was actually happening then and there. Of course the armies would be gone in 700 years; of that there was little doubt. Ahaz' worry was whether or not he would outlive the seige happening in front of him. Isaiah tells him that he will. HE then gives a sign that the prophecy would come about. The woman (whom they both knew; otherwise, why say "the" woman?) would have a child and she will call him Immanuel. Before Immanuel (note: not Jesus) would know good from evil, the land of the "two kings whom you fear will be abandoned" (7:16). Ahaz didn't fear Herod or any king who arrived after his death, but he certainly feared Pekah and Rezin. Sure enough, the book of Kings showed how these two kings met their end, and Ahaz outlived the seige.

Of course, we are neglecting the contention Christians use that "almah" means "virgin." The main claim about Isaiah 7 is that it was a virgin birth, and thus special and a Messianic prophecy (completely ignoring the fact that the word "messiah" is absent from Isaiah 7). However, when we consider the whole of Torah, and other times the word "almah" appears, we see it does *not* mean virgin. For example, in Proverbs 30:18-20 King Solomon says,
"There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman (b'almah). This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth and says 'I have done no wrong.'"
What do they all have in common? After the eagle flies away, there's no trace of the bird in the sky. When the snake passes the rock, there are no trails. When the ship moves away in the sea, the waves hide any trace of a ship having ever been there. And when a man is with an "almah," a young woman, there is no evidence of anything between them going on.

Had Isaiah actually wanted to say "virgin," he would have used "betulah," which ALWAYS means "virgin" (as in Genesis 24:16 and Deuteronomy 22:17).
#6
(01-06-2013, 06:57 PM)benyosef Wrote: If no one can see if she is a virgin, what good is that as a sign? Why give a sign no one can ever see?

But more than one did see. It is written all over the New Testament.

(01-06-2013, 06:57 PM)benyosef Wrote: Before Immanuel (note: not Jesus) would know good from evil, the land of the "two kings whom you fear will be abandoned" (7:16). Ahaz didn't fear Herod or any king who arrived after his death, but he certainly feared Pekah and Rezin. Sure enough, the book of Kings showed how these two kings met their end, and Ahaz outlived the seige.

I don't believe it was to come at that time, Isaiah 8:6 Forasmuch as this people refuse the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; Therefore, behold the Lord is bringing up on them the mighty and massive waters of the river-the king of Assyria and all his wealth, and it will overflow all its distributaries and go over all its banks.
8. And it will penetrate into Judah, overflowing as it passes through, up to the neck it will reach; and the tips of his wings will fill the breadth of your land, Immanuel.

Ahaz was wicked there is no sign for that guy.

(01-06-2013, 06:57 PM)benyosef Wrote: Of course, we are neglecting the contention Christians use that "almah" means "virgin." The main claim about Isaiah 7 is that it was a virgin birth, and thus special and a Messianic prophecy (completely ignoring the fact that the word "messiah" is absent from Isaiah 7). However, when we consider the whole of Torah, and other times the word "almah" appears, we see it does *not* mean virgin. For example, in Proverbs 30:18-20 King Solomon says,
"There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman (b'almah). This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth and says 'I have done no wrong.'"
What do they all have in common? After the eagle flies away, there's no trace of the bird in the sky. When the snake passes the rock, there are no trails. When the ship moves away in the sea, the waves hide any trace of a ship having ever been there. And when a man is with an "almah," a young woman, there is no evidence of anything between them going on.

Had Isaiah actually wanted to say "virgin," he would have used "betulah," which ALWAYS means "virgin" (as in Genesis 24:16 and Deuteronomy 22:17).

Betulah is not found in Numbers 31:18. And God didn't tell them to make children with whores. Betulah is not found, and it is a fact God told them they could take those young girls for wives. It is clear they were virgins.
#7
MessianicJew Wrote:I don't believe it was to come at that time, Isaiah 8:6...Ahaz was wicked there is no sign for that guy.

Well, it clearly came at that time, since Ahaz outlived the siege, and the two beseiging kings were assassinated. I know, Isaiah knew, and G-D knew Ahaz was wicked. Nevertheless, since he was of the House of David, Isaiah was sent to deliver a prophecy and he gave a sign as well. Disbelieve all you like: the Torah remains true.

What is "all over the NT" is that the first gospel decided Mary was a virgin based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7. Look throughout Tanach. Does the KJV translate "almah" as "virgin" anywhere else? Does "almah" conclusively mean "virgin" in any other example in Tanach? Meanwhile, look up "betulah:" does it ever not mean "virgin?"

And you still haven't addressed the contemporaneous issue: What good is a sign to Ahaz that will not occur until 700 years after his time? Why would that help him with the present threat of Pekah and Rezin surrounding him, threatening to wipe out the royal family?

Concerning Numbers 31: You say "it's a fact God told them they could take those young girls for wives," yet it's really not. Which verse tells you this? What is clear is that the girls who lived were virgins because the Torah said to keep alive the girls who have not know lying with a man.
#8
(01-08-2013, 10:17 PM)benyosef Wrote: Well, it clearly came at that time, since Ahaz outlived the siege, and the two beseiging kings were assassinated. I know, Isaiah knew, and G-D knew Ahaz was wicked. Nevertheless, since he was of the House of David, Isaiah was sent to deliver a prophecy and he gave a sign as well. Disbelieve all you like: The Torah remains true.

Assyria is mentioned in Isaiah 8:6 and Immanuel is mentioned in Isaiah 8:8, and what you are saying is not mentioned nor did they go to the neck nor overflow. Assyria did.

(01-08-2013, 10:17 PM)benyosef Wrote: What is "all over the NT" is that the first gospel decided Mary was a virgin based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7. Look throughout Tanach. Does the KJV translate "almah" as "virgin" anywhere else? Does "almah" conclusively mean "virgin" in any other example in Tanach? Meanwhile, look up "betulah:" Does it ever not mean "virgin?"

Young woman always means virgin! Benyosef you are suppose to be a Jew. Concerning women: You are either a young woman which is a virgin! Women married young or betrothed to be married, or married, or an adulterous or a whore! That is it. What you're doing is placing 21st century definitions and thought processes over a word but not taking into account ancient Hebrew culture and living.

(01-08-2013, 10:17 PM)benyosef Wrote: And you still haven't addressed the contemporaneous issue: What good is a sign to Ahaz that will not occur until 700 years after his time? Why would that help him with the present threat of Pekah and Rezin surrounding him, threatening to wipe out the royal family?

It wasn't a sign to Ahaz! But a promise to future generations to learn of past mistake. Because Assyria is mentioned in Isaiah 8:6 and Pekah nor Rezin accomplished what is written in Isaiah 8:8.

(01-08-2013, 10:17 PM)benyosef Wrote: Concerning Numbers 31: You say "it's a fact God told them they could take those young girls for wives," yet it's really not. Which verse tells you this?

It is in the very first verse: And the Lord spake unto Moses and again it is written: as the Lord commanded Moses.

(01-08-2013, 10:17 PM)benyosef Wrote: What is clear is that the girls who lived were virgins because the Torah said to keep alive the girls who have not know lying with a man.

Numbers 31 verse 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

No use of the word Betulah either. In Israelite life, a female is either unmarried, married, betrothed to be married, an adulterous woman or a whore. That is it, so the phrase 'young woman' always implied virginity.
#9
MessianicJew Wrote:Assyria is mentioned in Isaiah 8:6…

You are absolutely correct! Although the siege by Rezin and Pekah failed, there would be another a few years later by the King of Assyria, who would storm to Israel, "overflow his channels and run over all its banks." The Nothern Kingdom will be taken away, and they still have not returned. Then he will set his sights on Jerusalem, laying a massive siege around the city. It will look very bleak for the House of David. Then we come to chapter 9. Isaiah tells us that a child was born who will stand up to the King of Assyria (we know the child was already born because Isaiah uses the past tense when speaking about him). And he was named "Mighty G-D" (Hezekiah literally means G-D is strong), and will reign in greatness and in peace, and "the zeal of the L-RD of Hosts will accomplish this."
Then what happened? When we see the other two times the phrase "zeal of the L-RD of Hosts" is used (Isa 37 and II Kings 19), it refers to the utter failure of Assyria's siege. We thus have another prophecy fulfilled in Biblical times.
Isaiah 8 shows us that the names of these kids were meant to be messages to the People of Israel. Maher-Shalal: The wealth of the Northern Tribes will be taken by Assyria. Immanuel: G-D is still with the Davidic Kingdom and they will outlast Assyria. That's why Immanuel is found in Isaiah 8.

MessianicJew Wrote:Young woman always means virgin!...Concerning women: You are either a young woman which is a virgin! Women married young or betrothed to be married, or married, or an adulterous or a whore!...What you're doing is placing 21st century definitions and thought processes over a word but not taking into account ancient Hebrew culture and living.

It is possible to be a young woman and not a virgin without being promiscuous, e.g. horseback riding accident. I am not using modern definitions, but rather the words used in Torah. When "almah" is used, I don’t know of a single time it points conclusively to a virgin. When "betulah" is used, it always speaks of a virgin.

MessianicJew Wrote:It is in the very first verse: And the Lord spake unto Moses and again it is written: as the Lord commanded Moses.

The very second verse tells us that G-D's command was to take up arms against Midyan. Again, my question is where is the text to support your "fact [that] God told them they could take those young girls for wives?"

MessianicJew Wrote:No use of the word Betulah either…the phrase 'young woman' always implied virginity.

I missed something in the text: Numbers 31 never calls these girls "virgins!" All it says is these girls who were kept alive did not know a man. They may have been virgins, they may not have been. Who knows if they were injured and thus not virgins. The important element was whether or not they were with a man. That’s why "betulah" is not found in Numbers 31.
#10
(01-11-2013, 12:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: Immanuel: G-D is still with the Davidic Kingdom and they will outlast Assyria. That's why Immanuel is found in Isaiah 8.

The same example is given by Matthew about Jesus, God is with Israel in sending Messiah.

(01-11-2013, 12:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: It is possible to be a young woman and not a virgin without being promiscuous, e.g. horseback riding accident. I am not using modern definitions, but rather the words used in Torah. When "almah" is used, I don’t know of a single time it points conclusively to a virgin. When "betulah" is used, it always speaks of a virgin.

Horseback riding accident!? Benyosef, Any time the female is not mentioned as being married, an adulterer or a whore it means she is a virgin. It can't mean anything else according to Gods law.

(01-11-2013, 12:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: MessianicJew wrote: "It is in the very first verse: And the Lord spake unto Moses and again it is written: as the Lord commanded Moses."
The very second verse tells us that G-D's command was to take up arms against Midyan. Again, my question is where is the text to support your "fact [that] God told them they could take those young girls for wives?"

Here in verse 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

(01-11-2013, 12:40 PM)benyosef Wrote: They may have been virgins, they may not have been. Who knows if they were injured and thus not virgins. The important element was whether or not they were with a man. That’s why "betulah" is not found in Numbers 31.

Injury does not mean anything. What matters is if they knew a man by lying with him they are not a virgin, if they did not know a man by lying with him then they are a virgin.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)