Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 149
  1. #11

    Wowzers! Now I'm almost laughing.

    Now you're just being stubborn and showing, well, I hate to knock you, but your ignorance of both Hebrew, Greek and Jewish Second Temple custom. You wrote: "As a final note, I strongly reject Friedman's invalid reference to Paul as "Rabbi Sha'ul" - an error he repeated throughout the book. I consider that to be unnecessarily divisive to the Body of Christ and grossly disrespectful of the revealed Word of Almighty God in which the Apostle Paul is always called "Paul"

    Richard, my friend, 'paul' is a Greek name. It is a nickname (Ι started to type in Greek but this site doesn't support Greek text)! Did you change your name when you became a believer? No. Neither did he. He wrote people under his nickname, 'servant' (paulos). Friedman can call Shaul whatever he wants to...Shaul was his given name, and it IS respectful. Many Jews today are called by that same 1st name. Is it disrespectful to name someone Shaul (or Saul in English)? You'd have to argue such in order for your comment to be valid! Shaul is RESPECTFULLY called a rabbi by Dr. Friedman, and every other Messianic Jew who calls him such (and the great majority do so). 'Rabbi' is a title of respect in the modern Jewish world. All it means is 'an ordained teacher' and a scholarly community leader. That's all, but if you've never studied Hebrew, you wouldn't know that, right? And if you make a stink about 'Rabbi' Shaul, why don't you make a stink about Christians calling themselves 'Reverend' or 'Elder' or 'teacher'? Or how about St. James (a totally culturally Christianized name that has nothing to do with his real historical name (which was Yakov ben Yosef). St. James? He wouldn't know who you're talking about. Do you call Abraham ever by his name Abram? If you do, you sin. You would be (your words) "grossly respectful" to the Biblical commandment. Why? Specifically we are told in the scriptures that God changed Abram's name to Abraham, and from then on, Abraham was to be his name. Why don't you make a stink about Christian authors who refer to Abraham by his name Abram? I've read enough authors who do this indiscriminately. But no big deal, right, unless it's a Messianic Jew calling Paul by his real name. Now, to me, this sounds a little like a bit of anti-Jewish slant...no, that couldn't be.
    So go ahead and strongly reject what you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

  2. #12

    Names

    'Shaul' means 'someone who has been asked for [their conception or birth] by God', which is a beautiful meaning. All Hebrew names in the scriptures carry a meaning, many expressive of wonderful meanings. 'Paulos'--either a 'little person' or a 'servant'. Such a name in the ancient world, both Greek and Jewish, was common for Jews, especially Diaspora Jews. Look at Shmuel Safrai and Menachem Stern's 'The Jewish People in the First Century', an encyclopedic work by two Israeli scholars, and you will learn there (among many many other places where you obviously have never looked) to learn about how names were used in the 1st century. And then you'd know that Greek names were given to Jewish families in the Diaspora, but did NOT cancel out their Hebrew names, also given at birth. One used the name that fit the country where one lived. Just like in the USA, or France, or Canada or Britain...a Jewish person is most often given 2 names: a Hebrew one (Shaul, e.g.) and a foreign one (Paulos, e.g.). They NEVER canceled each other. Shaul used his name Shaul while in Israel, like everyone else did. And when writing his letters to GREEK SPEAKING peoples where he spoke to them in Greek (as in Corinth, where he was for a year and a half), guess what? He used his Greek name. There was no canceling out one for the other! That was not the culture, not in Israel and not in Greece, nor the practice. And if you want to reject that, then you are putting your heavyweight scholarly experience up against Stern, Safrai (two Hebrew University scholars, PhDs and department heads for many years), against Dr. Lawrence Schiffman (go look up his bio), Dr. Eldon Clem (world class Aramaic scholar, Hebrew Union College), Drs. David Bivin, Robert Lindsey, Joseph Frankovic and Randall Buth (all 4 are Christian scholars) and lastly, Dr. Lenny Holtzman (that's me, PhD in Jewish studies and Messianic Jew).
    That kind of makes you need to argue v. proven history with some facts, and not your fiats. Until then, we'll remain calling Paul by Rabbi Shaul, and we still love Yeshua our Messiah and God with all of our hearts, minds and lives. Unless you, of course, decide otherwise.

  3. #13

    typo

    " My 'You would be (your words) "grossly respectful" to the Biblical commandment", should read "grossly disrespectful" '

  4. #14

    Hmmm...

    Remember why we discuss and debate! All we have to lose are the errors we hold, and then we gain the truth! There is nothing but shame to be gained by willfully holding to false opinions!
    -----------------------------------------------Well, Richard, those are your own words. Maybe YOU should follow them, too.

  5. #15

    And another point...

    Here are some things for you to read. But I'll use your own words again (talk about not being nice?)--'I doubt you'll learn anything from it'. Boy I hate writing those words. They're too mean. Too bad, because I think you can learn, if you want to...just look at your own quote at the bottom of your blog pages.

    Richard, you try to dialogue with Messianic Jews without really listening to us. That's sad. Secondly, I don't find you 'fair', as you state that you are (that's usually a statement that someone else should make about you). And, finally, you truly do need to listen to the very words of Dr. Friedman. Instead, you project into them, and you DON'T take verbatim what he wrote, which I quoted to you: his intended audience are Messianic Jews, and he addresses them, CLEARLY by the quotes I gave. I stand by EVERYTHING that I wrote about him and his book--he is writing to his 'own kind'. He has a right to do so, and he has been a huge blessing to all of us who have learned from him for many years. In addition, would you complain if a Native American believing author wrote to other Native American believers about issues pertinent to them? Of course you wouldn't. Would you complain if an African American did the same? No. But a Jew? Richard, that looks bad, buddy. Convince me otherwise.

  6. #16

    Last refuge...

    Lastly for today...when someone complains about my use of Yiddish, they usually are admitting that they are losing a debate. To paraphrase an American patriot (with lots of love and a little literary room): 'Complaining about the grammar or spelling of your nemesis is the last refuge of a debate loser.' Of course, if you think you know Yiddish better than I do, well, we could write each other in Yiddish. I could do it. Just let me know. It'd be fun. I have to admit that my Hebrew is much much better, though. My Arabic isn't bad, either. And my Polish is understandable. But that's a harder language to read.

  7. #17

    Can't resist...

    There a few writers in Yiddish who actually do write 'mensch' as 'mentsch', as their particular Yiddish dialect pronounces a hard 't' between the 'n' and 's'. For example, look here: http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...g-a-Mentch.htm

    I trust you'd admit that Rabbi Henson is not ignorant of Yiddish usage.

    So, I am saying that you are right in your official spelling (which is admitting more than you have been willing to admit about anything, including your clearly wrong assertions about Dr. Friedman's target audience and his God-given right to address them as he wishes). Lenny

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Now you're just being stubborn and showing, well, I hate to knock you, but your ignorance of both Hebrew, Greek and Jewish Second Temple custom. You wrote: "As a final note, I strongly reject Friedman's invalid reference to Paul as "Rabbi Sha'ul" - an error he repeated throughout the book. I consider that to be unnecessarily divisive to the Body of Christ and grossly disrespectful of the revealed Word of Almighty God in which the Apostle Paul is always called "Paul"
    Oh yes, I can how much you "hate" to knock me! If you hated it any more, you'd probably want to marry it!

    You are so typical of a small-mind cultist. You set yourself up as judge and rudely say "go learn some Yiddish" and when I respond in kind, you blow a gasket! Ha! You folks are so predictable.

    So now you throw out more false and unsupported insults by calling me ignorant of "both Hebrew, Greek and Jewish Second Temple custom." Hummm ... "both" Hebrew (1), Greek (2), and Jewish Second Temple custom (3)? I guess I'm "ignorant" of the meaning of "both" too! You're a hoot dude!

    Oh, and by the way, I've read most of the Tanakh in Hebrew.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Richard, my friend, 'paul' is a Greek name. It is a nickname (Ι started to type in Greek but this site doesn't support Greek text)! Did you change your name when you became a believer? No. Neither did he. He wrote people under his nickname, 'servant' (paulos). Friedman can call Shaul whatever he wants to...Shaul was his given name, and it IS respectful. Many Jews today are called by that same 1st name. Is it disrespectful to name someone Shaul (or Saul in English)? You'd have to argue such in order for your comment to be valid! Shaul is RESPECTFULLY called a rabbi by Dr. Friedman, and every other Messianic Jew who calls him such (and the great majority do so). 'Rabbi' is a title of respect in the modern Jewish world. All it means is 'an ordained teacher' and a scholarly community leader. That's all, but if you've never studied Hebrew, you wouldn't know that, right? And if you make a stink about 'Rabbi' Shaul, why don't you make a stink about Christians calling themselves 'Reverend' or 'Elder' or 'teacher'? Or how about St. James (a totally culturally Christianized name that has nothing to do with his real historical name (which was Yakov ben Yosef). St. James? He wouldn't know who you're talking about. Do you call Abraham ever by his name Abram? If you do, you sin. You would be (your words) "grossly respectful" to the Biblical commandment. Why? Specifically we are told in the scriptures that God changed Abram's name to Abraham, and from then on, Abraham was to be his name. Why don't you make a stink about Christian authors who refer to Abraham by his name Abram? I've read enough authors who do this indiscriminately. But no big deal, right, unless it's a Messianic Jew calling Paul by his real name. Now, to me, this sounds a little like a bit of anti-Jewish slant...no, that couldn't be.
    So go ahead and strongly reject what you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
    Your answer fails on so many points, it's best to number them:

    1) You missed the point of my argument and failed to address the facts that I presented. You wasted a lot of words defending the use of "Rabbi" when I didn't say a single word about that term in and of itself. I have no problem with teachers being called Rabbi because Jesus was called Rabbi and Rabboni. My point was concerning the rejection and replacement of Paul's Biblical name to "Shaul."

    2) You asserted that "Paul" is a nickname. The Bible does not state that and you do not know that. You made it up to support your schismatic cult. The risen Lord Jesus Christ called him "Paul" and Paul always in every case referred to himself by that name. Indeed, he even wrote his so-called "nickname" in his own hand in 2 Thess 3:17 "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write."

    3) You ask if believers change names when they get saved, and answered in the negative. This is ignorant of both the Biblical and traditional Jewish and Christian practices. Christ himself promises to give "new names" to believers (Rev 3:12). There is a strong Biblical precedent for the changing of names after encounters with God: Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Israel, Shaul/Paul, and the latter change was ratified by the Lord Jesus Christ himself (Acts 23:11) and Peter (2 Pet 3:15) and throughout Luke's account in Acts. You and Friedman and all "Messianic Jews" spit on the actual written text of the Bible when you change the "Paul" of inspired Greek text to "Shaul." Friedman did this when he "quoted" Acts 28:17 on page 49 of his book. He deliberately and willfully denied the Bible as the Word of God when he changed the name "Paul" to "Shaul."

    3) You assert that Shaul is his "real" name, but there is no more reason to believe that than to believe that Abram is Abraham's "real" name. Yes, it was his given name, but that name was changed and he was never called Abram after the change and you assert that it would be a "sin" to call him "Abram" after that. The same goes for Paul. In other cases two names may be used, as with Jacob/Israel but there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Paul continued being known as "Shaul" after his name change. You argument falls.

    4) You assert that I've "never studied Hebrew" - that is a blatant and ignorant falsehood. I have read most of the Tanakh in Hebrew. Your statements are not merely false, they are ignorant, rude, and absurd. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    5) As for the name "James" - I agree that is a lousy way to "translate" Yacov, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand because it is not an attempt to falsify the Bible as when using "Shaul" when the BIBLE uses "Paul."

    6) You imply that I have an "anti-Jewish slant" because I oppose attempts to pervert the actual words written in the Bible by a Judaizing schismatic cult? Oh my ... you better call the Anti-Defamation League! I'm sure they'd be delighted to help!

    7) Finally, none of your arguments touched any of the facts I presented. You comments are filled with fallacious ad hominem and errors in facts.

    Thanks for putting all those fish in a barrel. They were fun to shoot.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    'Shaul' means 'someone who has been asked for [their conception or birth] by God', which is a beautiful meaning. All Hebrew names in the scriptures carry a meaning, many expressive of wonderful meanings. 'Paulos'--either a 'little person' or a 'servant'. Such a name in the ancient world, both Greek and Jewish, was common for Jews, especially Diaspora Jews. Look at Shmuel Safrai and Menachem Stern's 'The Jewish People in the First Century', an encyclopedic work by two Israeli scholars, and you will learn there (among many many other places where you obviously have never looked) to learn about how names were used in the 1st century. And then you'd know that Greek names were given to Jewish families in the Diaspora, but did NOT cancel out their Hebrew names, also given at birth. One used the name that fit the country where one lived. Just like in the USA, or France, or Canada or Britain...a Jewish person is most often given 2 names: a Hebrew one (Shaul, e.g.) and a foreign one (Paulos, e.g.). They NEVER canceled each other. Shaul used his name Shaul while in Israel, like everyone else did. And when writing his letters to GREEK SPEAKING peoples where he spoke to them in Greek (as in Corinth, where he was for a year and a half), guess what? He used his Greek name. There was no canceling out one for the other! That was not the culture, not in Israel and not in Greece, nor the practice. And if you want to reject that, then you are putting your heavyweight scholarly experience up against Stern, Safrai (two Hebrew University scholars, PhDs and department heads for many years), against Dr. Lawrence Schiffman (go look up his bio), Dr. Eldon Clem (world class Aramaic scholar, Hebrew Union College), Drs. David Bivin, Robert Lindsey, Joseph Frankovic and Randall Buth (all 4 are Christian scholars) and lastly, Dr. Lenny Holtzman (that's me, PhD in Jewish studies and Messianic Jew).
    That kind of makes you need to argue v. proven history with some facts, and not your fiats. Until then, we'll remain calling Paul by Rabbi Shaul, and we still love Yeshua our Messiah and God with all of our hearts, minds and lives. Unless you, of course, decide otherwise.
    That's nice speculation, but you don't know it is true. You assert that Paul used his name "Shaul" while in Israel. Where's the proof? You don't have it, and that's why you have dodged what the Bible actually states. Specifically, Peter, when writing to 'the twelve tribes" (Hebrew audience?) did not use Paul's supposed "real name Shaul." And Jesus, who spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue before he was converted and called him "Saul" then called him "Paul" after his conversion. So the Divine Lord is playing with nicknames is he? Brilliant. We all know that names don't really mean much to God, right?

    The sum total of the Biblical evidence supports the name "Paul" as the only name he had after it was changed after his conversion. But you don't like what the Bible teaches, so you ignore the Biblical evidence and cite the uncertain opinions of human scholars concerning the general use of names. I am amazed that you can't even see what you are doing. I have supported my case with facts, logic, and the Biblical text, but you can't do that because you reject the Biblical text!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Remember why we discuss and debate! All we have to lose are the errors we hold, and then we gain the truth! There is nothing but shame to be gained by willfully holding to false opinions!
    -----------------------------------------------Well, Richard, those are your own words. Maybe YOU should follow them, too.
    Like I said, you can lead a man to Romans 2:1, but you can't make him understand and believe it!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •