KFC, the whole question is about Cyrus.  You allege that G-D anointed and declared righteous a pagan based on insufficient evidence that he was a believer.  The question I still have is there another case where G-D declares someone anointed and righteous that was a known pagan?  You seem to want to use your thesis to prove your thesis?  Saul was annointed King but I have yet to see evidence where G-D 'anoints' him.  Pharoah is never mentioned as anointed nor righteous.  The same with Bilaam (aka Balaam).  G-D may have used them but the point here is G-D makes a point to mention Cyrus as being anointed and righteous.

1 Samuel 15:17 '....... The L-RD mashah (anointed) you as king over Israel.'  Both Saul and David it is said in connection with their anointing that 'the Spirit of G-D came mightily upon him' (1 Sam 10:6; 2 Sam 16:13). Samuel and Nathan both were G-D's lips speaking what HE wanted to be said. 

Abraham believed in the L-RD and was righteous (Gen 15:6).  This doesn't make his pagan background righteous nor does it make Cyrus's background.

To have a part represent a whole is not logical. Cyrus was anointed for such a time as this and just like Head Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Zion was anointed to save all of the Jews of Bulguria during WWII and he himself would receive the ultimate deliverance.  Both are messiah-like neither were the ultimate messiah, though.  Rabbi Zion knew who the ultimate deliverance was though.

It wasn't Cyrus's gods that anointed him for they were just made by man BUT it was the living G-D who did FOR HIS PURPOSES.

 

 

Was Abraham righteous when he was a pagan?

Did Cyrus have converted to Abraham's religion before he was considered righteous?

 

Non sequitur. Nobody argued that Cyrus was _the_ Messiah.

Daniel Zion, I assume, was not a pagan. Hence his being righteous doesn't prove that pagans can be righteous.

 

And how do you know it wasn't also Cyrus' god?

That's true and I'm not disagreeing with it because it's quite biblical.  Where I'm drawing the line is there is no sufficient evidence he was a believer.  You can be anointed and called righteous but still not be a believer.  To be righteous means to do the right thing.  In this case, Cyrus, as a Pagan King did the right thing.  He was called righteous.  That does not make him a believer.  In fact, God immediately after makes it clear that Cyrus wasn't a believer. 

Many things in the bible were anointed.  A pillar can be anointed (Gen 31:13) "...where thou anointedst the pillar..."

We see the expression "anoint the shield" in Isa 21:5.  vessels used in worship were "anointed."  (Exodus 29:36, 30:26, 40:9-10).

Most commonly the term "masah" is used in the setting apart for an office or function.  Elisha was "anointed" to be a prophet (1 Kings 19:16).  Kings were anointed for their office (1 Sam 16:12; 1 kINGS 1:39). 

What I see with Cyrus and according to the Vines dictionary is this whole thing with the anointing of Cyrus is figurative not literal because notice the difference between Isa 45:1 and say 1 Sam 16:12.  We see quite clearly that literally Saul, David, Jehu, etc were literally anointed with oil.  Cyrus was not.  God just said "the Lord says to his anointed,"  so there was no physical anointing done here.  But yet, David was also God's anointed as well was Elisha and the rest of the prophets both physically and spiritually. 

The diff between Cyrus and the rest of God's prophets is Cyrus wasn't aware he was being set apart by God for such a divine purpose because he wasn't a believer in the first place.  The prophets knew this.  Cryrus was doing this from the goodness of his heart in doing the right thing.  That doesn't make one a believer.   

because it says so....."although you don't know me." 

How much clearer do you want Leauki??   It's very clear.  He didn't know this God personally.  He knew about him but didn't worship him as a believer.  

 

You keep saying this but I'm unsure where you're getting this from?  The talmud?  Because the Jewish scriptures are full of "evil" in them.  Is this a case of someone not knowing the Jewish scriptures? 

There's so many scriptures...not sure where to begin.  So it's not from Zoroastrianism as you keep insisting but right from the OT scriptures well before Zoroastrianism even existed. 

"You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil."  Ps 5:4

"After Abimelech had governed Israel three years, God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem who acted treacherously against Abimelech."  Judges 9:22-23

What was this?

"The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul."  1 Sam 18:10

"But an evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand."  19:9

The ancient  Jewish historian Josephus explained this:

"But as for Saul, some strange and demonical disorders came upon him and brought upon him such suffocations as were ready to choke him."  (Antiquities 6.8.2)

Keil and Delitzsch likewise attributed Saul's problem to demon possession.  They said this:

"was not merely an inward feeling of depression at the rejection announced to him,...but a higer evil power, which took possession of him, and not only deprived him of his peace of mind, but stirred up the feelings, ideas, imagination, and thoughts of his soul to such an extent that at times it drove him even to madness.  This demon is called "an evil spirit coming from Jehovah because Jehovah sent it as a punishment."

Notice this (very important) in 1 Kings 22:20-23

"And the Lord said, Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?  One suggested this and another that.  Finally a spirit came forward stod before the Lord and said, I will entice him. By what means? the Lord asked.  I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets, he said.  You will suceed in enticing him, said the Lord, Go and do it.  So now the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours.  The Lord has decreed diseaster for you." 

All this happened b the permission of God rather than as a result of his directive will.  But we can see clearly that there are demonic spirits even in the OT scriptures.  Evil and good are laced throughout starting right in the garden with the evil snake. 

 

 

This is true TPP, I stand corrected about Saul not being anointed.  What I find interesting about this passage is verse 11 (1 Sam 15:11), "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands."

This suggests that Hashem anointed Saul when he was righteous, Saul decided to walk away from G-D's commandments.

This supports the notion that G-D doesn't 'anoint' pagans.

How does that mean that Cyrus didn't worship Him? Many people worship G-d but don't know Him.

 

A holy scripture that says "The Dude, Cyrus, is not righteous, man!" would be enough for me.

 

I think it means the opposite. He worshipped Him but didn't know Him.

Language.

The word translated as "evil" ("ra3") doesn't mean "evil". It means "as per instinct".

The adjective "ra3" is to the verb "to satisfy personal needs" as the word "evil" is to the verb "to do evil". It is NOT the concept of evil as Christianity or western thought knows it. There is no evil force in Judaism.

The German cognate of "evil" is "uebel". But "uebel" does not mean "evil". I am wondering if perhaps "uebel" is a better translation of "ra3" than "evil". "Uebel" means, in German, the opposite of "good (as in the feeling)". But even that is not the same s "ra3" because "ra3" is required to feel good. Without "ra3" one wouldn't satisfy one's needs and die of hunger or thirst.

But none of this is "evil".

Perhaps I should write an article about words in the Bible commonly misunderstood.

"Eretz" ("land", not "the planet Earth") is another one. And "Elohim", which is not a plural. And "3alma", which does not mean "virgin". And "moshiach" which just means "annointed" etc..

 

P.S.: If anyone is interested in more news about the word "ra3"... another word spelt the same is "re3a", which means "friend". Technically the Ayin ("3") in "ra3" is a end-of-syllable Ayin (i.e. a Ghayin) which could also be transliterated as "g" or "gh". The Ayin in "re3a" ("friend") is a start-of-syllable Ayin, hence the "a" vowel following the "3".

The start-of-syllable Ayin also appears in Yehoshu3a (Joshua), which explains the "a" vowel following it. The end-of-syllable Ayin also appears in 3amora (Gomorra) and 3aza (Gaza), hence the "g" sound in the Greek versions. 3amora and 3aza are not Hebrew words and other Semitic languages have different rules for when to use which variation of a letter.

 

 

so all that scripture I gave you have nothing to do with evil even though it is transcribed in the English as evil and Josephus even said it meant something demonic?    Did Josephus, a first century Jewish Historian not understand Hebrew?  Are you saying Josephus is wrong and you're right?   

you seem pretty sure of yourself Leauki and putting in definitions of words to many here who have no idea about language is pretty safe...but what about those who have gone before you who know the Greek and Hebrew upside down and backwards and refute what you say?  There have been many that believe these words that you just put up and believe as I do,  Gary Cohen is one and I've met him.  He's probably the most learned intellect I've ever known when it comes to language and yet he blows me away with his complete understanding of the scriptures.  He knows Hebrew like no other alive today. He makes it quite clear for us simple minded people because he's so down to earth.   He doesn't dispute them like you do and he just finished writing all the notes in the new KJV being chosen to do so.  I'm not sure if it's out yet, but perhaps you can get his copy when it does.  He's probably in his 80's and the most humble man I've ever met, yet he has a brilliant mind. 

Could it be that you misunderstand? 

Back along I gave you information about a man who spent his whole life mastering every language known to man.  He wanted to read the scriptures in every language it was translated in.  He also didn't dispute what we commonly believe...like the flood for instance.   But you do, based on a word. 

Where does it say that Cyrus worshipped God?  Boy you're really are on thin ice here Leauki.  We see David worshipping God.  We see Abraham worshipping God.  We see every single prophet in the OT worshipping God.  Where does it say that Cyrus worshipped God? 

So let's get this straight.  You want me to believe Cyrus was a believer even tho it's clear (according to the scriptures) he didn't "know" God?  You want me to believe this because of two words, "anointed" and "righteous."  Even tho I showed you that you can "anoint" anything meaning to set it apart and not have belief have anything to do with it. 

Then you want to say that Cyrus worshipped God even tho there is nothing here at all that even hints at that on top of the fact that he didn't know God.  what kind of smart King would worship what he does not know? 

We shouldn't even be debating this really because there is nothing here that says that Cyrus either believed or worshipped God nor is there anyone else but you who says so that I can find anywhere.  I've searched every single commentary and dictionary thru all the centuries and still haven't found one who agrees with you Leauki.  Not one. 

Then they're going to find themselves in big trouble one day.  Jesus said many will come up to him in that day and say "Lord Lord, didn't we do many things in your name?"  and he's going to say back to them "I don't know you." 

You don't worship what you don't know.  Do you?   It's empty and worthless.  You worship what's dear to your heart and it doesn't have to be God.  Many worship all sorts of things but they always have a connection to what they worship. 

but that's not what we're discussing.  That's not the debate.  It says he was righteous. We both agree with that.   The question is can you be righteous and not be a believer?  Do you know people who do right things but are not believers?  Can they be called righteous?  I know plenty.   God said he picked a righteous man of the East.  That doesn't mean that he was a believer.  It means he did the right thing and God knew he would do the right thing. 

 

Where does Josephus claim that ra3 means "evil" in the same sense as the English "evil" today?

And what does the English word have to do with anything? English changes very quickly. I don't know what "evil" meant 500 years ago. I suggested it might have meant something like "feeling bad", because the German cognate means that now.

We can look at the Latin translation if you want.




You can check the definitions I give you on the Web. They are not difficult to find. I am not the only one who knows them.

And if you can point me to someone who knows the Hebrew "upside down and backwards" and refutes what I say, I'd be happy to read what he wrote about it.

The existence of people who disagree with me doesn't mean that I am wrong.

You keep presenting as facts what you believe. I keep presenting as facts what I have learned. The difference is that to verify your facts, I would have to talk to G-d. To verify my facts all you have to do is ask a Hebrew teacher.

"eretz" = "land" (not and never "planet earth")

"3alma" = "young woman" (not and never "virgin")

"ra3" = "serving one's personal needs"

"k'ari" KARY = "like a lion"

"k'aru" KARW = (doesn't exist)

"karu" KRW = "they dug" (not "they pierced")

"adam" = "human being" (not a name)

"moshiach" = "annointed"

 

Exactly where did you show anyone that G-d would annoint anything?

Just answer the question I have asked before: Is there such a thing as a "righteous pagan"?

If you believe in righteous pagans, you can believe that Cyrus was a pagan.

But then you'd still have to explain why you can believe in "God" (which is not the same term as "Elohim") and worship the true god while Cyrus could not believe in "Ahura Mazda" and worship the true god. If the name of the deity makes a difference in Persian, why would it not make a difference in English?

 

העלמה  translated "the virgin" means a single woman and appears only in the following passages" Gen. 24:43, Ex. 2:8, Pro 30:19, Isa 7:14, Psa. 68:26; Songs 1:3.  An examination of the context of every occurrence of the word, except the present passage under discussion, reveals beyond a doubt that it was used with reference to a single girl, a maiden.  In the earliest Greek version of the Tenach, Septuagint, which was translated by Hebrew scholars, the Greek word παρθενος is used to translate the word btuleh, the meaning of which is that of a virgin, except in a few cases such as Joel 1:8 where undoubtedly refers to a young widow. παρθενος, likewise, is the word used by them to translate ne'erah which undoubtedly means a madien and is used also by them twice to translate העלמה in Gen 24:43 (Rabbis agree Rebecca's virginity was understood here) and Isa. 7:14. 

The former of these passages without doubt refers to a single woman' the latter is the only one under investigation.  From these fact it is quite clear that the Hebrew translators of this early Greek version who used παρθενος to translate the words about which there is no dispute concerning their meaning a virgin and who made that translation before the rise of the controversy between the Jews and the Christians concerning the birth of Jesus understood by העלמה (Isa 7:14) that the prophet meant a young unmarried woman.  Now, even with that העלמה means a girl who reached the age of puberty and thus marriageable.  It puts no stress on virginity, although de facto, in the light of Israelite ethical and social standards, most girls covered by that range of this term would be virgins. (Miriam was not raped by a Roman soldier, either)

There is no reason for one's doubting the virgin birth of Messiah: especially of one who accepts the Torah as the Word of Hashem shouldn't have any difficulty in accepting HIS virgin birth since it affirms that the birth of Isaac was supernatural (see Gen. 18:9-15).

I will get to Adam and pieceing parts L-RD willing at a later time.

Virgins can be unmarried young women or married women.

For all I care a prophecy claiming that the Messiah will be born to a virgin can be about him being born to a married virgin.

The important part in the prophecy is, I think, that the Messiah will come from the lowest possible class: born of a single mother, but not of a "virgin". Nobody is born of a virgin. Virgins don't have children.

If there are two ways to read a prophecy, and one makes linguistically more sense AND requires fewer changes to the laws of nature, I know which one I will take.

 

We didn't happen to meet on the train to Lev HaMifratz just before Haifa Hof HaKarmel when you gve me a Christian Bible in Hebrew? Somebody did. I still have it.*

The simple reason for doubting the virgin birth of the Messiah is that virgins don't give birth.

If the prophecy used a word that means "woman" but could with some stretching of the meaning mean "man", I would also believe that it is about a _woman_ giving birth, not about a _man_.

 

 

Well here's a few for one thing....the first one shows the connection with the Lord in using his prophets to do the literal anointing as God does the same in the spiritual sense..  You can see quite clearly that even tho Samuel did the physical anointing it was only a picture of God anointing (choosing) the anointed in the first place. 

" And the Lord said to Samuel...And call Jesse to the sacrifice and I will show you what you shall do and you shall anoint to me him whom I name to you. 

Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brethren and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward."  1 Sam 16:3,13

"I have found David my servant; and with my holy oil have I anointed him."  Ps 89:20 (notice that we read above that Samuel  physically anointed David with oil; not God) 

Then Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it upon his head and kissed him and said Is it not because the Lord has anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?"  1 Sam 10:1

"The spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me because the Lord has anointed me to preach good news..."  Isa 61:1

"Before I formed you in the belly I knew you and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you and I ordained you a prophet to the nations."  Jeremiah 1:5 

But you have an anointing from the Holy One and you know all things...But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you and you need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teaches you of all things and is truth and is no lie and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him."  "  1 John 2:20,27

"Now he which stablished us with you in Christ and has anointed us, is God."  2 Cor 1:21

also notice the diff between the relationship with Cyrus and that of Moses comparing Ex 33:12,17.  Finding grace in God's sight is to say that God has pardoned Moses of his sins and has been made clean.  That's diff than saying one is anointed, or set apart for a specific job. 

 

 

Boy pretty bossy considering you didn't answery anything I asked of you in #190...I notice these things btw. 

Besides I have answered this.  When I said... this showing me that you really are not as concerned with listening as you are to prove your "rightness." : 

Again...yes, you can be a righteous man and also be a pagan.  It doesn't say in scripture that Cyrus was made righteous unto salvation only that God picked a righteous King (centuries before he was even born) to do his bidding.  This righteous king was to do the "right" thing.   You can be anointed (set apart) for many things and it doesn't have to be linked with belief. 

exactly.  I have no evidence to the contrary neither do you.  You're trying to make something from non-evidence. 

nonesense.  Learned from who?  Liberal Hebrew teachers?  I've told you, I sit under a very learned Jewish man...I've given you his name many times.  His substitute is Gary Cohen who is a linguist intellect.  They both write for and produce Zion's Hope.  Gary just wrote the entire study notes for the KJV bible and they are both Jews.   I think they know more than a little bit.  Marv goes back and forth to Israel twice a year leading tours and has been doing so for about 40 years or so.   If anyone knows anything about these things its Marv. 

The existence is the whole community of biblical scholars Leauki.  It would take me forever to sit here and quote each one but I can give you a list of names and you can go search out their commentaries which are based on history and the exposition of scripture  Or...you can go to any bible bookstore and start perusing.   I'm going back centuries here Leauki and sorry not one says what you're saying about Cyrus...so who are you listening to? 

Just go pick up any commentary on the scriptures (or any dictionary) in any year going all the way back to Josephus and look it up yourself.  You'll see that not one of them says Cyrus was anything but a Pagan King who did the right thing in releasing the Jews.  I've done the research and can't find one person who claims Cyrus was a believer based on the scriptures.  Not one. 

The problem is Leauki, you're very concerned about being wrong and not as concerned about knowing the truth.