• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abraham was not a Jew

bluesmoke said:
Yeah. Canaanite and Babylonian. There’s even a surviving manuscript of a Babylonian Talmud dating from the 1300’s.
Click to expand...

I should have said 6th or 7th century bc.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Drivel and nonsense. In Hebrew and Aramaic there were no names similar to Jesus or Christ for that matter, both Greek inventions, later adopted by the Romans. True classical Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew had no vowels. Time for you to read Wittgenstein's logic Growth of Language, and Pound's analysis of early Greek and Roman scripts.
Click to expand...

It seems you clearly missed the point and I suggest you read Tacitus ('Chrestus') and Pliny ('followers of one called Christ') on the subject of Christ, both of which were written in Classical Latin (that of Cicero, Caesar etc.). I never said a word about the names in Hebrew and Aramaic and I suggest you look to YOUR post I replied to (remember your claim of the Romans inventing the letter 'J' which is false). Latin did indeed have vowels (see the coin of Vespasian below) and John relates the story of the Roman joke in 19:19 (INRI), which supports the charge of sedition. It seems you've never studied Latin, as the form of Jesus in Latin is Iesus (nom.), which btw uses vowels.

Methinks you may have meant to reply to someone else.

toppic.jpg

Note the use of 'A', 'E', and 'U' (written as 'V') in the inscription. These are vowels.

IMP C CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG
 
Last edited:
OldFatGuy said:
You're making my points.
Click to expand...

Which is what exactly? I replied to a post of YOURS that claimed the Romans invented the letter J which is not true:

The letter "j" does not exist in Hebrew. It is a Roman invention.
Click to expand...

Please note that this point was the theme of the discussion. I suspect you may be on another train of thought here. The name 'Iesus' in Latin (with vowels) demonstrates the Romans didn't use the letter 'J', and they pronounced it as 'Heyzoos'.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Which is what exactly? I replied to a post of YOURS that claimed the Romans invented the letter J which is not true:



Please note that this point was the theme of the discussion. I suspect you may be on another train of thought here. The name 'Iesus' in Latin (with vowels) demonstrates the Romans didn't use the letter 'J', and they pronounced it as 'Heyzoos'.
Click to expand...

Heyzoos is Mexican. :)
 
NWO_Spook said:
Which is what exactly? I replied to a post of YOURS that claimed the Romans invented the letter J which is not true:



Please note that this point was the theme of the discussion. I suspect you may be on another train of thought here. The name 'Iesus' in Latin (with vowels) demonstrates the Romans didn't use the letter 'J', and they pronounced it as 'Heyzoos'.
Click to expand...

My point is you are discussing post germanic latin.
 
OldFatGuy said:
My point is you are discussing post germanic latin.
Click to expand...

No, I'm discussing Classical Latin (the Latin of the time of Jesus). The Latin of Cicero and Livy inter alios ~ long before Rome even encountered the Germanic tribes.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
No, I'm discussing Classical Latin (the Latin of the time of Jesus). The Latin of Cicero and Livy inter alios ~ long before Rome even encountered the Germanic tribes.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Oh, dear. So many things wrong in just eight words.
 
NWO_Spook said:
No, I'm discussing Classical Latin (the Latin of the time of Jesus). The Latin of Cicero and Livy inter alios ~ long before Rome even encountered the Germanic tribes.
Click to expand...

Get over it. To those who study language, the latin of Cicero is post germanic.

The Romans first encountered the germanic tribes in northern Italy, more than 600 years before Cicero lived.
 
it's just me said:
So says Alice Linsley, anthropologist and former Episcopal Priest.

Many people think that Christianity emerged out of Judaism, but the core belief of the Messianic Faith is that the son of God would take on flesh, be sacrificed, and rise again. This belief was already evident among Abraham’s Horite Hebrew people before 3000 BC. They believed in God Father (Ra or Ani) and God Son (Horus or Enki). Jews reject the very idea that God has a son. Yet the Scriptures say that it is impossible to be saved unless one believes that Jesus is the son of God (Genesis 3:15; Proverbs 30:4, Hosea 11:1; Luke 1:35; John 3:14-17; John 6:40; John 6:69-70; John 20:31; 1 John 5:13). This is why the Apostle Paul speaks of believers being grafted into Abraham, not Judaism. Judaism is not the faith of Abraham the Hebrew.

BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: Search results for Abraham
Click to expand...

Interesting thinking of Judaism by this definition offered by Linsley: "Judaism is the elaboration of rabbinic thought over 3000 years...."

And what do you think about Abraham as a "place to start"? "In a 2007 NOVA interview Rabbi Shaye Cohen (Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard) admitted that Abraham was not a Jew, and he explains that, nevertheless, the narrative of Judaism presents him as the first Jew as a place to start."
 
nota bene said:
Interesting thinking of Judaism by this definition offered by Linsley: "Judaism is the elaboration of rabbinic thought over 3000 years...."

And what do you think about Abraham as a "place to start"? "In a 2007 NOVA interview Rabbi Shaye Cohen (Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard) admitted that Abraham was not a Jew, and he explains that, nevertheless, the narrative of Judaism presents him as the first Jew as a place to start."
Click to expand...

See PM.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Get over it.
Click to expand...

Prove it, for I don't believe you.

To those who study language, the latin of Cicero is post germanic.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Your bald assertions are of little merit. Are you confusing the Germanics with the Gauls?

The Romans first encountered the germanic tribes in northern Italy, more than 600 years before Cicero lived.
Click to expand...

100 or so years after the foundation of the city? Prove it. The first encounter was under Marius (and relatively minor compared to the migrations of the second cent.), and that no influence on the language.

I await supporting evidence for your claim.
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
:lamo

Oh, dear. So many things wrong in just eight words.
Click to expand...

Feel free to prove me wrong, for your vapid assertions are meaningless. The first encounter was under Marius in 101 BC., but that had no influence on the language, and it was a relatively minor engagement by later standards. After the 3rd cent AD, the Germanic invasions did influence the language, but not to a great extent.

Are you confusing the Germanic tribes with the Gauls?

A simple source for your perusal:

Germanic-Roman contacts - Wikipedia

Do note the timeline and note that Cicero was born in 106BC
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Feel free to prove me wrong, for your vapid assertions are meaningless. The first encounter was under Marius in 101 BC., but that had no influence on the language, and it was a relatively minor engagement by later standards. After the 3rd cent AD, the Germanic invasions did influence the language, but not to a great extent. Are you confusing the Germanic tribes with the Gauls? A simple source for your perusal: [Wikipedia] Do note the timeline and note that Cicero was born in 106BC
Click to expand...
Vapid? Wow. I feel dissed.

The quoted statement contact predated Cicero even though your earlier statement said long after Cicero. You are wrong. Do you feel better now?

The real problem is WTF cares about formal Latin in the 1st and 2nd century BC? It is completely unimportant to the subject that was under discussion. You could have said Akkadian from the 3rd millennium BC and been more relevant.
 
Jay59 said:
By the quoted statement contact predated Cicero even though your earlier statement said long after Cicero.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the later invasions where Rome was conquered by the Goths, for that is when Classical Latin changed into Mediaeval, or Church Latin. In hindsight, I should have qualified that, but I assumed OldFatGuy would have understood that much. The Marian encounter was a minor engagement in the Germanic migrations. The real contact began under Augustus Caesar and progressively worsened throughout the following centuries until they took the Western empire.

Latin and the tongues of the Germanics are from two separate branches of the Indo-European class of languages.

The real problem is WTF cares about formal Latin in the 1st and 2nd century BC? It is completely unimportant to the subject that was under discussion. You could have said Akkadian from the 3rd millennium BC and been more relevant.
Click to expand...

In was responding to an erroneous claim that the Romans invented the letter 'J'. That is all.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
I was referring to the later invasions where Rome was conquered by the Goths, for that is when Classical Latin changed into Mediaeval, or Church Latin. In hindsight, I should have qualified that, but I assumed OldFatGuy would have understood that much. The Marian encounter was a minor engagement in the Germanic migrations. The real contact began under Augustus Caesar and progressively worsened throughout the following centuries until they took the Western empire.

Latin and the tongues of the Germanics are from two separate branches of the Indo-European class of languages. In was responding to an erroneous claim that the Romans invented the letter 'J'. That is all.
Click to expand...
It's an awful lot of fuss for a secondary or tertiary point.
 
Jay59 said:
It's an awful lot of fuss for a secondary or tertiary point.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I'm not the one making the claim(s) and I don't really care all that much. I know the Germanics did not influence Latin until they took the Italian Peninsula and even then, it was only a minor influence through simplification of the language, but OldFatGuy is insistent that the Romans didn't employ the use of vowels until some nebulous Germanic influence (some 600 years before Cicero) and yet hasn't proven his point. As I doubt he will, I will probably not bother any longer.

History of Latin - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Fair enough, but I'm not the one making the claim(s) and I don't really care all that much. I know the Germanics did not influence Latin until they took the Italian Peninsula and even then, it was only a minor influence through simplification of the language, but OldFatGuy is insistent that the Romans didn't employ the use of vowels until some nebulous Germanic influence (some 600 years before Cicero) and yet hasn't proven his point. As I doubt he will, I will probably not bother any longer.
Click to expand...

The irony to me is that the German rendering, Jesu, is much closer to the actual name than we illiterate Americans say.
 
it's just me said:
So says Alice Linsley, anthropologist and former Episcopal Priest.

Many people think that Christianity emerged out of Judaism, but the core belief of the Messianic Faith is that the son of God would take on flesh, be sacrificed, and rise again. This belief was already evident among Abraham’s Horite Hebrew people before 3000 BC. They believed in God Father (Ra or Ani) and God Son (Horus or Enki). Jews reject the very idea that God has a son. Yet the Scriptures say that it is impossible to be saved unless one believes that Jesus is the son of God (Genesis 3:15; Proverbs 30:4, Hosea 11:1; Luke 1:35; John 3:14-17; John 6:40; John 6:69-70; John 20:31; 1 John 5:13). This is why the Apostle Paul speaks of believers being grafted into Abraham, not Judaism. Judaism is not the faith of Abraham the Hebrew.

BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: Search results for Abraham
Click to expand...

Abraham was the prophet called to open that dispensation of time God was with his people guiding them through prophets. Moses opened up a new dispensation that carried on close to the time of Christ. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Jacob had 12 sons who became the main tribes of Israel. All directly from Abraham. 10 and a half of the tribes were carried away never to be heard from. Judah and half of Benjamin remained in Jerusalem with a sprinkling of others who were able to stay behind.

To Jews today, Judah-Benjamin became synonymous with all of Israel since the rest of the tribes were lost. Jews are then mostly made up of the tribe of Judah. 1.12th Israel. So, Abraham could not be a Jew since Abraham was born before Judah. However, this also makes clear Jesus was of the tribe of Judah through his mother and therefore, Jewish. But, he was also of the line back to Abraham as well. So, I'm not seeing the importance of this. I find the scriptures in the Old Testament you have enlightening and should cause some thought to Jews for the possibility of Jesus Christ being the Son of God.
 
Cougarbear said:
Abraham was the prophet called to open that dispensation of time God was with his people guiding them through prophets. Moses opened up a new dispensation that carried on close to the time of Christ. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Jacob had 12 sons who became the main tribes of Israel. All directly from Abraham. 10 and a half of the tribes were carried away never to be heard from. Judah and half of Benjamin remained in Jerusalem with a sprinkling of others who were able to stay behind.

To Jews today, Judah-Benjamin became synonymous with all of Israel since the rest of the tribes were lost. Jews are then mostly made up of the tribe of Judah. 1.12th Israel. So, Abraham could not be a Jew since Abraham was born before Judah. However, this also makes clear Jesus was of the tribe of Judah through his mother and therefore, Jewish. But, he was also of the line back to Abraham as well. So, I'm not seeing the importance of this. I find the scriptures in the Old Testament you have enlightening and should cause some thought to Jews for the possibility of Jesus Christ being the Son of God.
Click to expand...

Dispensationalism is bunkum. I had a reason for posting this and that isn't it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom